3D Top 30 Must Own 3D Blu-Ray Releases (5 Viewers)

[Ronald Epstein]

I'm game.

It's rather expensive, clocking in around $37 before shipping, but
if you say it's that damn good, I would be willing to take a gamble.

I have a region modified Oppo 3D Blu-ray player.

 

[Wayne_j]

While waiting for How To Train Your Dragon 2 on IMAX 3D to start, they showed the trailer for IMAX Island of Lemurs: Madagascar. It had more pop outs in just the trailer than in the entire length of 10 typical Hollywood 3D live action films.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 also had well done 3D.

 

[Panman40]

Have to give an FYI about an absolutely MUST OWN 3D title. This title has consistent impressive 3D throughout. The good news is that the Blu-ray 3D is a live-action native 3D feature and was filmed competently in 3D by a director with 3D realism in mind. No mild or medium 3D here, just pure 100% strong, satisfying 3D. This is what REAL 3D should look like and what all other 3D movies should be compared to.

The bad news for USA enthusiasts is that, although the movie was filmed in the U.S. by American actors, the 3D version is currently only available for purchase in France, and it is a region-B locked Blu-ray 3D disc.

Edit: the 3D version has the original English DTS HD MA 5.1 sound track as a choice and NO forced subtitles as an option.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet, available through Amazon.fr

FYI: My opportunity for viewing unavailable for Region-A Blu-ray's comes from an external plug-in module that fits on the back of my Oppo 103D. Plug it in and unplug it when not in use: The JVB Digital Oppo BDP-103D/105D External kit.

I think I'm going to get this even though I'm not sure I will like the film, your description of the 3D sounds to tempting to pass up. Unfortunately my current tv hasn't the best 3D and wide seperation 3D or should I say Parralax results in some Xtalk.

Seems like I'm waiting a long time for my next decent 3D movie.... My favorite movies are animation but I sure hope Avatar 2 has some decent pop out aswell as depth.

 

[Panman40]

Think I will wait a while, T.S.Spivet comes out at 32 Euro inc postage.

 

[Matt Hough]

I finally got around to Gravity in 3D a couple of weekends ago. It was a superb viewing experience. Is it the best 3D I've ever seen? Not even close, but the use of it with the perilous experiences Sandra Bullock's character undergoes in this 90 minute thriller had me bouncing around my chair being jerked and jostled with her as she continually grasped for life.

A friend of mine who doesn't have a 3D TV watched the film and wasn't that impressed, so I think the 3D in this case is a major component for an involving, immersive experience. I can't imagine watching it any other way.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I finally got around to Gravity in 3D a couple of weekends ago. It was a superb viewing experience. Is it the best 3D I've ever seen? Not even close, but the use of it with the perilous experiences Sandra Bullock's character undergoes in this 90 minute thriller had me bouncing around my chair being jerked and jostled with her as she continually grasped for life.

A friend of mine who doesn't have a 3D TV watched the film and wasn't that impressed, so I think the 3D in this case is a major component for an involving, immersive experience. I can't imagine watching it any other way.

I agree with you, not the best 3D ever but very involving and it enhanced the viewing experience, great sound mix too.

Think I will wait a while, T.S.Spivet comes out at 32 Euro inc postage.

Oh go on and buy it, i was wanting to hear your opinions on it, it's only just being released at cinemas in the UK.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I agree with you, not the best 3D ever but very involving and it enhanced the viewing experience, great sound mix too.

Matt and Malcolm.

I put Gravity in the #1 spot (not sure if it is still there) with a bit of hesitance.

However, the both of you confirmed the reasons why I did. It was more of
a combination of 3D and surround (even though it was dumbed down to 5.1)
rather than just the one alone.

I have to update that list with LEGO MOVIE, though I am not certain where
I want to place it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think "Gravity" had a lot of missed opportunities in 3D. There were entire sequences where pop out could have been used as a sustained, non-gimmicky way of emphasizing the vastness of space and the lack of gravity and direction -- for instance, in the sequence when Clooney rescues Bullock and they "float" back to the shuttle (or the following sequence, when the float from the shuttle to the ISS), instead of them being behind the screen, why not have them floating out over the audience? Like most modern 3D, almost everything in Gravity was depth, and I think the unique setting of the film really offered the potential to try a non-gimmicky, brand new way of composing the frame and placing objects in front of the screen rather than just behind it, and like most modern 3D, they didn't even seem interested in doing that.

My personal opinion on it is this - 3D is the best way to see Gravity, but Gravity doesn't actually have really great 3D, it just uses it's "mostly pretty good" quality 3D as more of the viewing experience than other films do, so it remains an essential component of the film.

Lego Movie, I was really disappointed with the 3D quality when I saw it theatrically -- another all depth, almost no pop-out movie. I enjoyed the movie, thought the 3D was decent enough, but that the bar should be much higher for a native CGI film. Things don't need to be thrown at the screen, but there's no reason why scenes and events can't play out in front of the screen. I wouldn't consider it to be a great example of 3D, but maybe when I see it again, it'll be better than I remember.

 

[bruceames]

I hear you need to watch Gravity in total darkness to fully appreciate the 3D. I watched it a few weeks ago but not in total darkness, guess I'll have to wait until the sun sets a little earlier to watch it again since my 3DTV is not in a room where I can shut out the outside light.completely.

Also ordered T.S. Spivot. A little pricey ($44.00 with shipping) but I went ahead anyway based on the glowing user reviews. It does have an illustrated 160 page booklet so it's not like it's bare bones, and the way 3D import exclusives are growing I don't have much confidence it will ever get released in the U.S.

 

[Reed Grele]

I'm game.

It's rather expensive, clocking in around $37 before shipping, but
if you say it's that damn good, I would be willing to take a gamble.

I have a region modified Oppo 3D Blu-ray player.

Ron, I heartily concur with the reviews on this. It is indeed a MUST own!

While there is not a lot of "in your face" 3D, it is used when the story demands it. The constant depth and outward projection is among the very best I have seen. Overall, it is a very pleasing use of the medium, and an enjoyable film as well.

 

[Panman40]

Maybe T.S Spivet will get a UK release if its only just appearing in cinemas now in the UK...I'm going to wait and see I think.Disappointing to hear the Lego movie is just about depth yet again, I don't think 3D will gain popularity if this 'depth only trend' continues. Seems to me like a lot of AV websites are virtually willing the death of 3D sometimes with the negative comments that come with almost every review of hardware.I watched Tad the lost explorer a few weeks ago, quite enjoyed it, I started to watch Escape from planet earth also but found the 3D very flat and lost interest.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

List updated.

I placed The Lego Movie as an honorable mention. It's a decent 3D presentation.
However, I just felt it fell short of being as good as it could. Quite frankly, I think there
are better 3D titles out there, but I still recommend a purchase once the price drops.

I am going to purchase T.S. SPIVET at some point. Just seems rather expensive and
am also looking to see if there is a U.K. release in the next few months.

 

[phillyrobt]

There are reports that the Weinstein Organization has picked up T.S. Their track record is pretty good for 3D blu releases (Escape From Planet Earth, Piranha 3DDD). Doubt if they would include the nice sounding book if they do though....

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Disappointing to hear the Lego movie is just about depth yet again, I don't think 3D will gain popularity if this 'depth only trend' continues.

It's a bit of a pet peeve to me that 3D quality is judged by mainstream reviewers in terms of being non-offensive. Reviewers and critics say things all the time like, "the 3D was subtle" or "the 3D was unobtrusive". As if the less they notice it, the better it is. I don't think any of us are asking for all 3D films to be like the paddleball sequence in "House of Wax", but the idea of 3D is becoming little more than a slight amount of depth in the image and nothing else. Who knew all movies would start to look like lenticular covers? A certain percentage of the population can't see in 3D, period, and a certain percentage of the moviegoing public will never embrace 3D, period... so I wish they'd stop trying to appease people who aren't able to see 3D or who don't like 3D in the first place, and instead concentrate on making a better experience for those that want it. The goal in 3D shouldn't be "This version is relatively inoffensive if you had your heart set on seeing the movie in 2D but theater only has 3D showings".

I saw "X-Men: Days Of Future Past" again the other day, which Bryan Singer shot using actual 3D cameras and rigs. But whereas his previous 3D film ("Jack the Giant Slayer") had some adventurous use of the format, Days Of Future Past is often a more lackluster experience than converted 3D. Singer has essentially made the first 2D film that was shot in 3D -- almost everything is completely flat. There's no pop-out and almost no depth to speak of. I hate to say it, but if this had been shot in 2D and post-converted, it might have looked better -- because at least then, someone would have been trying to make it look like a 3D movie. When it comes out on Blu-ray, I think Ron will enjoy the movie and give the movie itself good marks, but an abysmal score on the 3D quality.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Hey Josh!

We keep saying it over and over again....

Hollywood has killed 3D.

You even got the head 3D director in Hollywood, James Cameron,
doesn't use pop-out. In fact, he's backing Dolby's glasses-free display
technology that makes such pop-out effects impossible.

Here's an interesting article I just came across

 

[FoxyMulder]

I saw "X-Men: Days Of Future Past" again the other day, which Bryan Singer shot using actual 3D cameras and rigs. But whereas his previous 3D film ("Jack the Giant Slayer") had some adventurous use of the format, Days Of Future Past is often a more lackluster experience than converted 3D. Singer has essentially made the first 2D film that was shot in 3D -- almost everything is completely flat. There's no pop-out and almost no depth to speak of. I hate to say it, but if this had been shot in 2D and post-converted, it might have looked better -- because at least then, someone would have been trying to make it look like a 3D movie. When it comes out on Blu-ray, I think Ron will enjoy the movie and give the movie itself good marks, but an abysmal score on the 3D quality.

Here's the problem.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/bryan-singer/29368/bryan-singer-interview-x-men-days-of-future-past-star-trek-and-more
What's the most challenging aspect of shooting in 3D?

Well it's interesting. To talk 3D for a moment, Jack The Giant Slayer was a film I actually shot in native stereo as well, and I used stereo monitors. And I found that it was very educational because I learned what worked better or worse in 3D. But on this movie I wanted to be more aggressive with the camera, so I made a conscious choice not to direct using 3D monitors, and to use normal monitors.

James Cameron has said he wants to be more aggressive with his use of 3D in the Avatar sequels, hopefully he means more aggressive depth AND popout, we'll see in a few years time, in the meantime Hollywood will continue to push 2 and a half D at us.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Malcolm, I read that article previously, and another one where Singer said the same thing, maybe expanded on the differences in shooting styles. I saw that before the movie came out, and my heart just sank... I had been so looking forward to a summer blockbuster actually being shot in 3D. I loved Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight movies, but they were in IMAX 2D. I really like all of the Marvel movies, but they're all 3D conversions. Amazing Spider-Man was shot in native 3D, but it's very lackluster, and I knew ASM2 was being converted. Man Of Steel, conversion. Pacific Rim, The Wolverine, Godzilla, conversions. There really just haven't been a lot of major blockbusters being filmed in native 3D, and I was so excited for Days Of Future Past to change that. The end result was a major disappointment -- at least I had read that ahead of time, or I might have thought there was something wrong with the theater's projector.

If you want to make a 3D movie, you need to embrace the technology, and accept that there will be a learning curve. But I still don't see why Bryan Singer couldn't have accomplished good 3D without staring at a monitor all day. Andre de Toth directed perhaps the best quality 3D release ever ("House of Wax" in 1953), and they didn't have any monitors at all back then, and he only had sight on one eye, so he couldn't see the effect -- and yet, awesome 3D. So you have to wonder how it could be done so well under such difficult conditions, and now they've got every tool of convenience in front of them, and we're getting far lesser results than when it was really hard to do.

At least Cameron has recently admitted that he intended for Avatar to be more aggressive in its 3D usage, and pulled back on that during post-production because he was concerned that no one had ever seen a three hour 3D movie before and that people's heads might explode or something. He had some reason to be a little cautious. The thing is, that was 2009... filmmakers in 2014 shouldn't be concerned with those things.


Ron, thanks for sharing the Gravity article. I have kind of a love-hate relationship with that movie. I like some of its 3D, but I think it's a giant missed opportunity. As the article points out, there's that doll that floats in front of the audience, and also a couple screws and pieces of debris, but not much more than that. The movie is set in outer space, where there's no such thing as up or down or forwards and backwards, and I think they could have used 3D a lot more aggressively to portray this. As just one example of what I think was a missed opportunity, the sequences where Clooney and Bullock do extended spacewalks -- first traveling to the space shuttle, and then from the shuttle to the ISS -- could have set the actors in front of the screen. How amazing would that have been, for them to have been floating above us in the audience, as we saw planet earth far, far away, very deeply behind the screen. I'm not talking about a quick pop out but a sustained sequence of action happening in front of the screen, in a natural and not gimmicky way that doesn't strain the eyes or shock them, but emphasizes just how out there these two characters are. For a conventional film set on earth, there aren't many opportunities to do that kind of thing in a naturalistic way, but Gravity would have been perfect for that. Or take the sequence a little earlier when Bullock detaches herself from the debris of the shuttle, and is spinning away from the earth. I think the first part of that sequence, where we see her flying away and away until she's just a small dot deep inside the screen, is wonderfully conceived and well executed. But then, the film cuts to another shot where we're near her, and they do the POV helmet thing too. In that second part of the sequence, we're back to just conventional, modern 2.5D depth. If they wanted to show how lost, how alone, how helpless Bullock was supposed to be, they could have put her in front of the screen... that would have shown her isolation far more than anything else, and showing that much separation between her in the front and the vastness of space stretching to infinity behind her, would have really made the audience feel that same trauma. But at pretty much every point where Gravity had the opportunity to expand the grammar of 3D film language, it instead fell back on 2.5D imagery. Just my take on it, at least. I'm glad that so many people saw it and enjoyed the 3D aspect.. but I feel that Gravity's 3D (as done by the filmmakers, not my ideas for what it could have been) should be considered the absolute minimum that's required for a 3D presentation, not the maximum of what can be done.

 

[RolandL]

Found this posted on another site. I don't know how accurate it is.

2014 Native-3D releasesBig Hero 6The Book of LifeBoxtrollsD-Day, Normandy 1944Dawn of the Planet of the ApesEvery Thing Will Be FineExodusThe Hobbit: The Battle of the Five ArmiesHow to Train Your Dragon 2HunterIsland of Lemurs: MadagascarJupiter AscendingThe Legend of HerculesLegends of Oz: Dorothy's ReturnThe Lego MovieMr. Peabody & ShermanThe Nut JobThe Pirate FairyPlanes: Fire and RescuePompeiiRio 2Sin City: A Dame to Kill ForSpace Pirate Captain HarlockStep Up All InTransformers: Age of ExtinctionX-Men: Days of Future PastThe Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet2014 post-3D conversion releases300: Rise of an EmpireThe Amazing Spider-Man 2Captain America: The Winter SoldierEdge of TomorrowGodzillaGuardians of the GalaxyI, FrankensteinMaleficentNeed for SpeedNoahSeventh Son

 

[Tino]

Not very accurate. Godzilla for one was converted.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Not very accurate. Godzilla for one was converted.

It is listed in the post-3D Conversion section.