3D Top 30 Must Own 3D Blu-Ray Releases (7 Viewers)

[Malcolm R]

Yep, Shazam! is DC/Warner. Disney hasn't done any domestic 3D in years.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yep, Shazam! is DC/Warner. Disney hasn't done any domestic 3D in years.

My mistake. Thought it was a Marve;l title.

 

[David Norman]

Shazam is WB, is it not?

Yes, but amazon isn't any better with Warner than Disney -- esp the Warner Archives/Allied Vaughn disc and even more so with the WA 3D disc. As far as I can tell at least Amazon isn't selling their bastard child 3D this time -- lose the 2D and and double the price.


Shazam is DC
Marvel is mostly Disney thought he Spider-man movies are still with Sony

The only good thing I can say is that the August date is likely incorrect too and it will delivery next week.
Or see if you can grab one from BBY shelf stock if you have a local store with it in stock and cancel Amazon with extreme prejudice

 

[Tino]

My local BB in northern NJ had plenty of 3D copies.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

I pre-ordered Lego Movie 2 from Amazon and they ended up cancelling it after it didn't come in within 30 days. I then placed an order for it at Best Buy and it shipped the next day.

 

[Malcolm R]

I pre-ordered Lego Movie 2 from Amazon and they ended up cancelling it after it didn't come in within 30 days. I then placed an order for it at Best Buy and it shipped the next day.

They did that to me last year with Tomb Raider 3D. I've given up ordering 3D from Amazon US. I either go to Best Buy or Amazon UK/DE.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Just finished watching SHAZAM in 3D.

The film itself was decent. I don't like superhero movies outside of Batman and Superman. SHAZAM was fairly entertaining, dumbed down by a kiddie aspect I wasn't overly fond of.

The 3D was just okay. Didn't really add to the film. I'm such a sucker for 3D these days that I forego what would have probably been a far better 4k viewing. I should have learned a long time ago that filmmakers don't make good use of 3D and most all of what we watch today is just a simple upconvert.

 

[Panman40]

Just finished watching SHAZAM in 3D.

The film itself was decent. I don't like superhero movies outside of Batman and Superman. SHAZAM was fairly entertaining, dumbed down by a kiddie aspect I wasn't overly fond of.

The 3D was just okay. Didn't really add to the film. I'm such a sucker for 3D these days that I forego what would have probably been a far better 4k viewing. I should have learned a long time ago that filmmakers don't make good use of 3D and most all of what we watch today is just a simple upconvert.

Interesting comments on the 3D, I’ve been considering cancelling a couple of 3D pre orders and going 4k or just the BD.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

There have been a handful of titles where I skipped the 3D because I was either not impressed in the theatre or heard nothing positive about the 3D. Solo is one; Venom was another. I just picked up Skyscraper recently and watched it a couple nights ago. There's no in-yo-face elements, but tons of atmospheric elements and depth [when you're dealing with a fire, much like when you're doing underwater stuff, there's a lot of opportunity for objects floating in space]. Will probably watch Shazam! tonight.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

"Solo" is the worst 3D I've seen on a major studio tentpole in some time. I watched it in theaters on an IMAX laser system, which is generally awesome for both 3D and brightness, and the film was dark and dim with little noticeable 3D depth. But sometimes I have a better experience at home, so I tried watching it on my projector, and had the exact same experience. I recently watched the movie again and opted for the 2D disc. I think that may be the first time, since getting 3D equipment in 2012, that I've watched a 2D version of a 3D film.

I enjoyed Skyscraper in 3D - I thought the use of 3D during the sequence where he climbs the crane and then uses that to reach the skyscraper was enormously effective. (In other words, my fear of heights kicked in!)

I hate that they decided to charge for 3D and make it something that cost extra, because the side effect to that is that people (understandably) end up rating whether or not the 3D was worth the extra money. That doesn't really happen with, say, surround sound. With surround sound, it might not make sense for a given movie to use a lot of surround effects, but there might be one scene that really benefits from it. The filmmakers are free to use aggressive surround for that one scene and then not worry about it the rest of the film, and the audience doesn't really question that. But filmmakers never got the chance to do that with 3D. I think there are a lot of films that could have been enhanced by just using a little 3D here and there when it called for it, but since that's something an audience is asked to pay more to see (sometimes a lot more), it's just not possible for filmmakers to go there. It's a shame because I think it had the potential to create an entirely new visual language, but it never got that far because everything got filtered through the lens of "Is this worth an extra $5-10 out of my pocket over the 2D version?" and that's an impossible metric for almost anything to clear.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

"Solo" is the worst 3D I've seen on a major studio tentpole in some time. I watched it in theaters on an IMAX laser system, which is generally awesome for both 3D and brightness, and the film was dark and dim with little noticeable 3D depth. But sometimes I have a better experience at home, so I tried watching it on my projector, and had the exact same experience. I recently watched the movie again and opted for the 2D disc. I think that may be the first time, since getting 3D equipment in 2012, that I've watched a 2D version of a 3D film.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I picked up the 3D "Solo" on a recent visit to England. At $12.50, the price was right.

Still haven't watched it yet - think I'll give it a spin this weekend so I can see for myself how bad it is!

I hate that they decided to charge for 3D and make it something that cost extra, because the side effect to that is that people (understandably) end up rating whether or not the 3D was worth the extra money. That doesn't really happen with, say, surround sound. With surround sound, it might not make sense for a given movie to use a lot of surround effects, but there might be one scene that really benefits from it. The filmmakers are free to use aggressive surround for that one scene and then not worry about it the rest of the film, and the audience doesn't really question that. But filmmakers never got the chance to do that with 3D. I think there are a lot of films that could have been enhanced by just using a little 3D here and there when it called for it, but since that's something an audience is asked to pay more to see (sometimes a lot more), it's just not possible for filmmakers to go there. It's a shame because I think it had the potential to create an entirely new visual language, but it never got that far because everything got filtered through the lens of "Is this worth an extra $5-10 out of my pocket over the 2D version?" and that's an impossible metric for almost anything to clear.

That's the beauty of A-List - it all costs the same to me!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's the beauty of A-List - it all costs the same to me!

Agreed - but the industry took too long to get there, and the format was marginalized as a result.

 

[Malcolm R]

I agree, the 3D in Solo was barely there. However, I did enjoy the 3D in Venom.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Agreed - but the industry took too long to get there, and the format was marginalized as a result.

FWIW, I kinda feel like 3D screenings have increased in frequency over the year+ since A-List came into existence - at AMCs, at least.

I'm 100% AMC these days, so I have no idea what trends occur at Regal, the other main chain in my area.

But it seems like it's easier for me to find 3D showings now than it was in the pre-A-List days...

 

[Jesse Skeen]

It seems like 3D showings have decreased in my area, though we don't have AMCs here. I've already mentioned why I've given up on theaters anyways, though quality 3D without price-gouging might have brought me back. I think I've also mentioned that none of the 80s 3D movies had upcharges, and none of them were shown in 2D except at drive-ins and on video. If you didn't like 3D, you either saw it that way anyways or saw another movie.

 

[Panman40]

Spiderman far from home, anywhere offering a slip with this as a pre order ?.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It seems like 3D showings have decreased in my area, though we don't have AMCs here. I've already mentioned why I've given up on theaters anyways, though quality 3D without price-gouging might have brought me back. I think I've also mentioned that none of the 80s 3D movies had upcharges, and none of them were shown in 2D except at drive-ins and on video. If you didn't like 3D, you either saw it that way anyways or saw another movie.

To be fair, 80s 3D movies were awfully rare - 3D never caught on as a mainstream format back then - so it's not real an apples/apples comparison.

3D was really just a gimmick for bad movies in the 80s!

 

[Camps]

3D was really just a gimmick for bad movies in the 80s!

And it turned (most of) them into good movies.

Which is why, whenever a distributor foolishly issues one of them in 2D-only blu ray, it's.... NO 3D NO SALE!

 

[Malcolm R]

And weren't the 80's 3D movies in red/blue anaglyph, which looked awful?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And it turned (most of) them into good movies.

There we disagree. "Jaws 3D"? Bad movie in any dimension. "Friday the 13th 3"? Bad movie in any dimension.

3D can elevate a movie - like "Pacific Rim", which I thought worked better in 3D by a good margin - but it can't turn a truly terrible film into a good one!