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

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by SergeiShadow
Yes, only reason why is top grossing movie currently is because the added fee for IMAX and 3D to watching.

Avatar made earned 2.7 billion dollars. If you think a movie made that much just because it charged $3 or $4 more a ticket, you're wrong.

 

[SergeiShadow]

Avatar made earned 2.7 billion dollars. If you think a movie made that much just because it charged $3 or $4 more a ticket, you're wrong.

Still dead setting on defending film? Where is sites ignore button?

 

[Matt Hough]

Still dead setting on defending film? Where is sites ignore button?

Place your mouse arrow over the person's name in the heading and a drop down menu will contain the ignore button.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Still dead setting on defending film? Where is sites ignore button?

Gee, on this forum we're interested in the opinions of others. Of course when you're right and we're wrong, you might as well ignore us.

 

[AlexS2]

Still dead setting on defending film? Where is sites ignore button?

He isn't defending anything, he is only pointing out how silly, uninformed and delusional the opinion that Avatar made nearly 3 Billion dollars simply due to 3D surcharges (despite the fact that the film played in 3D in only 50% of overseas theaters, which is where the film grossed 2 Bil alone) is

 

[Ronald Epstein]

It has already been reported that Avatar's
success was not based on 3D surcharges
attached. The film became the highest-grosser
ever based on its own merits.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by SergeiShadow
Still dead setting on defending film?

No and I don't see how you can get that from what I've said. For what it's worth, I liked Avatar well enough but there's plenty of valid criticism to make about the movie. All I'm saying is that the movie made alot of money because many people really enjoyed it & saw it multiple times and not simply because they charged a few dollars more a ticket.

 

[Steve Christou]

I enjoyed Avatar too. Why all the hate? Success breeds contempt.

 

[Cees Alons]

Yes, but unfortunately contempt doesn't breed success.
(As one former member will know.)


Cees

 

[DeeF]

I didn't like Avatar at all. I'm not ashamed to say it.

P.S. I did think some of the 3D effects were interesting. That's about all, though.

 

[tbaio]

I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

 

[tbaio]

Ronald,

did you get the chance to see the second 3-D version of My Bloody Valentine? What did you think of it?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thomas,

No, I haven't. I have pretty much been reviewing
only what the studios have been sending me to date.

 

[JoshB]

Time recently just published its top list of Tech fails of 2010, and it has 3D TV at #8, and also at #16..Poor Quality of 3D-Converted Films.


I am inclined to agree.


I see 3D becoming a feature to go along with TVs eventually because its the next logical step, but for now...people just don't 'need' it to enhance their viewing experience. The public is just now getting used to having digital cable be a standard and have widescreen TVs a part of their household...now they hear that the extra price they pay at the movie theater to see a movie in 3D that probably wont benefit much from the use of 3D is now becoming a part of TV sets...and again, with a larger price tag attached to it...they have to have a 3D compatible player, TV set, and glasses.

I understand that the number of titles available is limited and is expected to grow, but with what is available and where studios try to make the most money is what will hurt 3D, IMO. the top 9 list for example, has a number of titles that are priced over $40 for a feature that is less than an hour and has little to no features...it may have some replay value, but to the overall movie-going public, probably next to none. The same goes for most mainstream title that have 3D available with them now. Family friendly films like Despicable Me and Alice in Wonderland may have found a large audience in theater and will sell many DVDs and BDs...but how many will actually watch the 3D version of either title and have all of the items necessary to take advantage of the format in their homes..now?

Movie prices are high enough as they are, and add a few more dollars to the price tag because it's feature in 3D just to turn a higher profit...now make it available for home viewing but make all of the components highly priced and not educate the public on how it works and what they need...and may I also add its at a time when people are less likely to shell out the extra cash because of a fragile economy. There isn't much 3D content out there and what is available will not make a big difference to the casual movie goer...all they know is $100 for each pair of glasses is more of a hindrance than anything they are to gain from watching the feature in 2D as opposed to 3D...do they wonder why the format hasn't been popular for so many years?

Finally, titles people 'want' to see to in 3D, that they feel may actually be worth the investment, Avatar for example, are only available with the hardware as an addition. So to buy the film that has been out for close to a year already, which many already own, you have to spend a few thousand more dollars? Many films just don't benefit from the 3D boost, and if the film doesn't make a profit or return in theaters (some of the titles out now come to mind) then how is the format expected to survive long enough to convince the public its a worthwhile investment. Tron: Legacy for example (I haven't seen it) would make great use of the technology, but it doesn't seem like the film will have the wide appeal (or box office return) the studio was expecting to win over the public like Avatar did...how do they expect to sell 3D if the vast majority of the films only have so much replay value or mainstream appeal?

I think studios were too eager and in my mind, greedy, to jump on the 3D bandwagon to make the most out of it while its still in the public consciousness...they are just not going to win people over with the technology they way they were able to with DVD vs. BD, for example. I do think that 3D will become more common place, especially in regards to digital programming, but I fear that films and the movie-going experience will suffer because studios will compel director's and filmmakers to embrace the new technology in order to justify the need for a film to be 3D so that returns will be greater and they can convince the average movie goer that they want to see the 2D film instead of the 3D one.

I said more than I expected to, but after sitting on the sidelines for a while, I came to the conclusion that wait it out, a year or three and 3D will be built into TVs as a feature...no need to may the extra cash.

 

[Charles Smith]

[SIZE= 12px]Hey folks! Santa has an announcement to make, so listen up! There will be no House of Wax or Dial M for Murder or Kiss Me Kate waiting under the tree for you to enjoy on those expensive 3-D systems you invested in this year. No sir. Here's what you're getting, and you'd better by God like it...[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 16px]Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D[/SIZE]

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: December 23, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/arts/television/24yule.html

 

[tbaio]

I have to agree that thus far, the push for 3-D has been pretty abyssmal. I think it starts at the theater phase. Although there have been quite a few 3-D films to hit the big screen, none of them have been greatly appealing. It is in large part due to post converting 2-D titles into 3-D. After viewing such films as Clash of the Titans, Piranha 3-D, & My Soul to Take, there were always a ton of fellow movie-goers asking, "Where was the 3-D?" And then there are films like The Final Destination which utilizes 3-D very well, but only during the first 15 minutes! In the case of Saw 3-D, the 3-D is only seen in maybe 3 brief scenes. The points being:

1. Post-conversion of 2-D to 3-D sucks.
2. If the audience is not crazy about the 3-D technology as seen on the big screen, they're not going to purchase the film for home viewing or the additional machinery to view it.
3. Post-conversion of 2-D to 3-D sucks.

If the powers that be at these film studios were to go all out & make a good kick-ass 3-D film (for example, the next Die Hard featuring fire, bullets, cars, body parts, etc. flying at the audience on a regular basis), then I'm sure things would be different. When watching My Bloody Valentine & the last Resident Evil movie in the theaters, both had awesome scenes showing an axe being thrown in the direction of the audience. If there were a way to rewind those scenes, the majority of the crowd would have done so. When done right, 3-D is an awesome experience. When done the way its been as of late, 3-D to an audience only means a more expensive ticket price. Its a shame that these big film companies haven't figured that out yet.

There is some hope though. I'm seeing posters for Drive Angry that are advertising that the film is "Shot in 3-D." If this is a sign that a studio is starting to understand that people prefer real 3-D as opposed to the post converted crap, then I'm all for it & I hope to see this trend continue.

 

[dana martin]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT
[SIZE= 12px]Hey folks! Santa has an announcement to make, so listen up! There will be no House of Wax or Dial M for Murder or Kiss Me Kate waiting under the tree for you to enjoy on those expensive 3-D systems you invested in this year. No sir. Here's what you're getting, and you'd better by God like it...[/SIZE]

[SIZE= 16px]Ye Olde Yule Log Now Blazes in 3-D[/SIZE]

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY

Published: December 23, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/arts/television/24yule.html

and that is what is wrong with the current trend in 3D entertainment, a continuous spate of stuff that really isn't watchable, or the rush to go in and do a post conversion that doesn't do any thing for the film, i know or have heard the rumblings of Lucas wanting to do this to star wars, hey George i want the original trilogy as originally shown first, OK, not the special editions, the original trilogy, hell all three cuts work.

now for what all the studios havent figured out, it's called catalog titles, the films that people have known for years, that were originally shot with 3D in mind, Creature From The Black Lagoon, House Of Wax, Dial M, Friday The 13th Part 3D, yes i know that one is out, but, its not in this new 3D format, The thing is IF all of the studios who are wanting to push this new and more expensive format along with the manufacturing industry, are really looking for this to work, along with the advancement of having this and not needing glasses in the future, well then it is going to need the titles that people are going to watch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-D_film#The_.22golden_era.22_.281952.E2.80.931955.29 , is a decent primer of what we could be seeing, lets see Hondo in 3D, all of the studios need to take this to heart, Hitchcock, Dial M, in 3D i say yes day one purchase, but if it was original shot flat, and is just a conversion to refresh the title, they can keep it,

 

[dana martin]

Originally Posted by tbaio
I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

Avatar = Ferngully

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by dana martin /img/forum/go_quote.gif






Originally Posted by tbaio /img/forum/go_quote.gif



I have to say that Avatar was pretty much the second remake of Dances With Wolves (The Last Samurai being the first). But it was still a great movie. It goes to show you how a good story stays good no matter what the setting. Other examples being Seven Samurai being remade as: The Magnificent Seven, Battle Beyond the Stars & A Bug's Life. As for why the movie did so well, let's face it: anything James Cameron does is going to get attention. It makes sense being that he is the same man who did Aliens, the first two Terminator movies, True Lies & Titanic. The man has been entertaining us for years so its only natural to see his movies. Its like trusting a good mechanic or brand name of a good product.

Avatar = Ferngully






Yes, Ferngully was probably an inspiration for Avatar as well. If one were to dig further, other titles would pop up as well. And then again, I think that is the case for many of not all movies. Good catch.

 

[TravisR]

Never say never but I think any similarities between Fern Gully and Avatar are coincidental. I know he's got a kid or two but I just find it hard to believe that he's even seen an obscure cartoon from 20 years ago let alone is 'borrowing' from it.