G.I. Joe : Retaliation 3D Blu-ray (2013) [Region Free] [Theatrical Cut only] [GI]

[Zivouhr]

G.I. JOE: Retaliation 3D will release in theaters March 29, 2013. (sequel to GI Joe Rise of Cobra). I'd guess the blu ray 3D will be out by July 2013.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GI_Joe_2
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/

I caught the new GI Joe 2 3D trailer before Texas Chainsaw 3D began, and was happy to see plenty of strong 3D for a conversion. Really nice layering of the 3D and pop outs also. I didn't expect that, but will wait for the final film's 3D before assuming the trailer represents the final 3D in the film (since the trailer's 3D can be edited separately from the movie's 3D).

But what I saw looked awesome in 3D.

This is just around the corner, and if the 3D is as great for the whole movie, this will be one to watch for an Action 3D movie.

The first movie has fun action IMO, despite some flaws.

Ray Park (Darth Maul) will return as Snake Eyes
The Rock (Road Block)
Bruce Willis
Lee Byung-hun as Storm Shadow.
I hope Cobra Commander wears a full face helmet this time, or a hood instead of the headgear he had.
Tatum as Duke again.

Written by the writers of Zombieland.

With live action movies, it's best not to compare them; to the superior GI Joe cartoon series from the 80s.

[levcore]

Can't wait to see this. I loved the last GI Joe movie (that would be great if converted properly) and am really looking forward to seeing this. I'm one of the few that was actually glad it was pushed back for a conversion!

[Taygan315]

I wonder if we will see a 3D re-release of the original when this flick gets released on Blu 3D?

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Taygan315

I wonder if we will see a 3D re-release of the original when this flick gets released on Blu 3D?

No chance at all. (unfortunately)

[Zivouhr]

That would be cool. I'd be interested in part 1 also for 3D if it happens down the road.

Checked out the first one again in anticipation for this new movie, which looks promising for the action and especially the 3D.

Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow had a

[Show spoiler]good fight. SShadow, falling into the cold ice, probably was revived by Cobra somehow, since he was frozen and slowed his bleeding down. Kind of reminds me how Darth Maul played by Snake Eye's Ray Park, also fell into the pit and was presumed dead, until Star Wars Clone Wars revived him in the computer animated series, which would look great in 3D.
I'm guessing the Baroness won't return in part II? I wonder how they're going to eliminate the Joe team as the story suggests, with the President who is really Zartan. If they don't make cameos, then it's a good bet Cobra eliminated them from life on Earth.

[Paul H]

STRONG impressive 3D in the theatrical trailer. Hope that's sustained in the movie.

[smooththaboss]

excited for the 3d on this

[Taygan315]

Hopefully the movie's delay will be worth it...story wise and 3D.

[Clinton3779]

Looks very promising!

[Zivouhr]

A new actor is playing Cobra Commander. Commander from the cartoon series (1984-5) has a high pitched whine/scowl/hiss, but it sounds cool for his character. For live action, it could work as long as he was as insane and arrogant as the cartoon character, who blames Destro for everything after Cobra Commander screws it up himself, never admitting fault. Arnold Vosloo (Spelling) would have made a good Destro I thought, but instead plays as Zartan.

They haven't showed him yet in the previews, hopefully they get a cooler face mask for him than the last movie, knowing they're only using the concept of the cartoon, not trying to recreate it.

The link below lists the actor playing the Commander. He was a main bad guy in the 2009 Star Trek if I remember, and Iron Man.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0846687/?ref_=tt_cl_t15

The movie is pretty long, 110 minutes, compared to the average 90 minutes. More 3D to see.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

A new actor is playing Cobra Commander. Commander from the cartoon series (1984-5) has a high pitched whine/scowl/hiss, but it sounds cool for his character. For live action, it could work as long as he was as insane and arrogant as the cartoon character, who blames Destro for everything after Cobra Commander screws it up himself, never admitting fault. Arnold Vosloo (Spelling) would have made a good Destro I thought, but instead plays as Zartan.

They haven't showed him yet in the previews, hopefully they get a cooler face mask for him than the last movie, knowing they're only using the concept of the cartoon, not trying to recreate it.

The link below lists the actor playing the Commander. He was a main bad guy in the 2009 Star Trek if I remember, and Iron Man.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0846687/?ref_=tt_cl_t15

The movie is pretty long, 110 minutes, compared to the average 90 minutes. More 3D to see.

The main bad guy in the Star Trek movie, Nero, was played by Eric Bana a.k.a Bruce Banner in Ang Lee's Hulk.

[HD Goofnut]

Another blasted 2D to 3D conversion. I'm getting sick of these. It was filmed on Super 35 so it should stay that way.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Another blasted 2D to 3D conversion. I'm getting sick of these. It was filmed on Super 35 so it should stay that way.

Watch the 2D version then

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Impossible

Watch the 2D version then

I may rent it. The first G.I. Joe film was so bad that I am hesitant to even do that.

[BleedOrange11]

Something about 3D trailer really annoys me. For one, there's kind of an unwarranted assault of pop-outs. But two, faces look too flat and a couple of times, hands extended forward look disconnected from their body. Give me native 3D and retinal rivalry any day over a conversion, even if its "well done." The 3D certainly looks watchable and more fun than 2D, but to me, this would have been better if the studio let Jon Chu shoot it for 3D with 3D cameras from the start.

From an artistic standpoint, the real problem with conversion is that directors can't see the 3D as they're shooting the movie to get feedback on what the picture actually looks like. There's a reason why the "3D masterpieces" like Hugo, Avatar, Life of Pi, etc. choose 3D cameras. Besides more natural-looking dimensionality, they want to make sure that everything in their 3D vision looks perfect, as opposed to handing it off to a team of computer artists to figure it out for them. Basically, feature conversion is good for dimensionalizing old 2D classics, and making it easy on directors who are used to shooting 2D and studios that change their mind at the last minute, none of which are capable of producing a 1st tier 3D experience.

Maybe Alfonso Cuaron will prove the exception with Gravity though, planning a 3D story and actually choosing conversion for a reason besides being cheaper or easier or faster or wanting to hand it off to someone who knows 3D better than him.

[LaBoeuf]

i just saw this yesterday 3d imax, it was ok, i've seen better.

[srinivas1015]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Another blasted 2D to 3D conversion. I'm getting sick of these. It was filmed on Super 35 so it should stay that way.

Almost every conversion that comes out these days looks as good as or BETTER than native titles. One might say that it's blasphemy to convert older movies like Jurassic Park but I don't see what the problem is if a movie is framed and shot with 3D conversion in mind .

In fact, converting a movie instead of using 3D rigs has a few advantages too. For one, the offset of light reflected into the two cameras isn't a concern. You see this phenomenon in quite a few native titles where the reflected light off of objects looks a little 'off'/weird/appears to be on two different depth planes as a result of each camera in the rig capturing reflected light from a slightly different angle and then both images imposed on one another. I noticed this a lot in Dredd and Resident Evil Afterlife. I can't remember the other titles.
Converting also offers a lot of freedom. Once a native title is shot, the inter-axial distance between the two cameras in the rig is final and no amount of post production work can adjust the degree of spatial dimension.
It's much easier for the DP to light the sets too. Not to mention giving the director and cameraman to do the camerawork without being restricted by the bulky rigs.

With all these benefits and a final product that looks as good as a native title, I can see why many filmmakers opt to take the conversion route. It's not an afterthought as most directors and storyboard artists frame and do the camerawork with 3D in mind.

Parallel Rigs, Fusion Rigs or Conversions - All are effective ways to get a good three dimensional image. (Parallel rigs are in fact slightly inferior as the degree of how close you can get the interaxial distance between the cameras, especially for close ups, is quite limited due to the nature of the setup.)

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

Almost every conversion that comes out these days looks as good as or BETTER than native titles. One might say that it's blasphemy to convert older movies like Jurassic Park but I don't see what the problem is if a movie is framed and shot with 3D conversion in mind .

In fact, converting a movie instead of using 3D rigs has a few advantages too. For one, the offset of light reflected into the two cameras isn't a concern. You see this phenomenon in quite a few native titles where the reflected light off of objects looks a little 'off'/weird/appears to be on two different depth planes as a result of each camera in the rig capturing reflected light from a slightly different angle and then both images imposed on one another. I noticed this a lot in Dredd and Resident Evil Afterlife. I can't remember the other titles.
Converting also offers a lot of freedom. Once a native title is shot, the inter-axial distance between the two cameras in the rig is final and no amount of post production work can adjust the degree of spatial dimension.
It's much easier for the DP to light the sets too. Not to mention giving the director and cameraman to do the camerawork without being restricted by the bulky rigs.

With all these benefits and a final product that looks as good as a native title, I can see why many filmmakers opt to take the conversion route. It's not an afterthought as most directors and storyboard artists frame and do the camerawork with 3D in mind.

Parallel Rigs, Fusion Rigs or Conversions - All are effective ways to get a good three dimensional image. (Parallel rigs are in fact slightly inferior as the degree of how close you can get the interaxial distance between the cameras, especially for close ups, is quite limited due to the nature of the setup.)

Agreed!

[KilloWertz]

Technically a natively shot film can still be worked on as far as conversion goes. While conversions are indeed much better than they used to be and I do plan on seeing this tomorrow in 3D, native titles are still preferred in my opinion because it still offers the most natural experience. Plus, this wasn't shot with the intention of converting it. Paramount only decided to convert it very shortly before this was supposed to release last year.

Still, at the end of the day, I'll take a well done conversion over nothing at all. I don't get the complaint about this being one either unless you only want to see it in 2D and had to wait 9 months to watch this.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by srinivas1015

In fact, converting a movie instead of using 3D rigs has a few advantages too. For one, the offset of light reflected into the two cameras isn't a concern. You see this phenomenon in quite a few native titles where the reflected light off of objects looks a little 'off'/weird/appears to be on two different depth planes as a result of each camera in the rig capturing reflected light from a slightly different angle and then both images imposed on one another. I noticed this a lot in Dredd and Resident Evil Afterlife. I can't remember the other titles.

Parallel Rigs, Fusion Rigs or Conversions - All are effective ways to get a good three dimensional image. (Parallel rigs are in fact slightly inferior as the degree of how close you can get the interaxial distance between the cameras, especially for close ups, is quite limited due to the nature of the setup.)

Good points Srinivas. Another filmed 3D movie with conflicting light reflections off the lens in each camera was Silent Hill Revelation 3D. It only happens once in awhile, but you'll know when it does.

Parallel cameras work best for computer animation, since the cameras can merge into each other to get as close as needed for miniature sets. And infinitely as far apart as needed, for massive universe outer space shots.

Considering none of GI Joe or Jurassic Park was filmed in 3D, and looking at the strong 3D results, things have changed from what we were seeing about a year ago or more as you suggest. Only real disadvantage to post 3D conversions would be a longer turn around time to convert it from a single 2D film source.

I still think filmed 3D and converted 3D are both worthwhile for filmmakers if their goal is strong 3D. Hybrid 3D being a combination of converted live action with rendered CGI 3D.