Jason Bourne (2016) [No 3D Blu-ray]

[UFAlien]

Deadline is reporting there's a severe backlash brewing towards the exclusive 3D conversion of Jason Bourne being shown in China:

After only two days, audiences in the Middle Kingdom are speaking out about how they feel exploited (and some of them physically ill) over the fact the film was released primarily in the 3D format. Fans of the franchise are blasting the film’s distributors for trying to capitalize with higher ticket prices on a film that doesn’t lend itself to 3D because of director Paul Greengrass’ hand-held camera work... Two film critics even wrote about how the film made them dizzy.

According to local reports, of the 149 movie theaters in China’s capital of Beijing (which has a population of about 11 million), only eight are ready to present the 2D format. In Shanghai, only nine of 174 theaters have the 2D version, but those are said to be located in areas far outside the city.

“The 3D version is a rip-off. It’s been happening many times in China and must be stopped,” one of the protesters told the Global Times. Chinese moviegoers also have taken to social media to air their grievances.

Obviously I'm normally all for 3D, but I can imagine that the frenetic, fast-moving cinematography of the film combined with the typically poor technical quality of these Chinese conversions is probably quite eye-straining indeed, and having no 2D option available in most locations is a big no-no. The studio says they're trying to book more 2D showings now.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

typically poor technical quality of these Chinese conversions

Surprised by the comment. What title, besides Bourne do you think has a poor conversion?

[UFAlien]

I've actually only heard negative things about China-exclusive conversions like 2012, RoboCop and Mockingjay Part 1, though I'll admit I've never bitten the bullet to check myself. To be clear I'm not talking about either Chinese-made 3D movies or wider release foreign conversions like Noah or Huntsman; just Western films with these rushed Chinese-done conversions.

[Taygan315]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Deadline is reporting there's a severe backlash brewing towards the exclusive 3D conversion of Jason Bourne being shown in China:



Obviously I'm normally all for 3D, but I can imagine that the frenetic, fast-moving cinematography of the film combined with the typically poor technical quality of these Chinese conversions is probably quite eye-straining indeed, and having no 2D option available in most locations is a big no-no. The studio says they're trying to book more 2D showings now.

That quote in the last paragraph (about how it's been happening many times in China and it must be stopped) caught my eye. Can we be seeing a change of attitude about 3D there the way the US market did?? Yeah...we have our fans/enthusiasts who love 3D and the format....like myself....but a majority of US consumers have given up on the format and has it declared dead. Studios like Disney are trying to put a nail in it as well.

[BleedOrange11]

Good. Studios need to stop forcing 3D conversions on 2D movies (and in my opinion, that goes beyond these Chinese-exclusives) or risk souring 3D's reputation in China as well. Maybe they'll listen. I always wondered why China seemed to tolerate the low-budget junk conversions when the rest of the world didn't. I guess they won't anymore.

[Paul H]

When I think of Chinese conversions I think of movies like Noah 3D, where they used Prime Focus for the conversion. Stereo D & Prime focus converted The Huntsman, wasn't that paid with funds from China for their market?

[BleedOrange11]

There's those couple, which were considered good enough for Europe as well. There's the ones UFAlien mentioned. Also Transcendence and Lucy. They had a Canadian company convert The Grandmaster and Kung Fu Hustle. There's The Last Emperor. They also do a lot of mediocre conversions for current HK, Chinese, and sometimes Korean movies that don't make it out of China like Bounty Hunters, Cold War II, and Skiptrace recently.

[BleedOrange11]

Japan started early in the 3D boom doing multiple crummy conversions of their own, and also outsourcing them from South Korea, and 3D is pretty much dead there. They had Battle Royale, a couple of Inazuma Elevens, Doraemon: Nobita and the Steel Troops, Yu-Gi-Oh, Ghost in the Shell: SAC, and most recently Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection F. Now Shirgomi and Toei Animation are the only ones producing real 3D content, and those often don't make it to Blu-ray 3D.

[BleedOrange11]

To me, it's not only about the fullness of the 3D depth but how the movie is shot and edited. If the director and cinematographer and editor aren't thinking about creating the 3D version while they're making the movie, then it doesn't really need one. Even if you have good-looking depth, like Star Wars: TFA, audiences are still going to pay extra and receive little benefit to the story-telling. Some of us on this forum might rather watch the "depth version". However, the overall public vibe is sill going to be "Meh, do you really have to see it in 3D?", and Disney is going say "Do we really need a BD3D?" Whereas compare the newest Star Wars to some homebrew sci-fi schlock that Charles Band shot in the early 1980s, and almost everyone with two functional eyes can tell which one is incomplete without 3D. Until studios either drop the surcharges (like Universal's latest vintage BD3Ds) or start making decisions based on art instead of money, 3D's reputation has no room for improvement.

[Creed]

Seriously, who's dumbass idea was to do this? The fact that Taken 3, a terrible movie with atrocious editing for the action scenes had a 3D release as well. It's worse than Jason Bourne (I didn't mind the editing for the films).

[TM2-Megatron]

Personally, the proliferation of 3D conversions has really dampened my enthusiasm for the format, too. The only 3D releases I really look forward to are vintage 50s and 80s titles on 3DBD, and modern animated films.

My biggest gripe with 3D conversions of live action material is the lack of attention paid to nearly all scenes except big action spectacles. Personally, one of my favorite things about stereoscopic video is the cinematography of ordinary shots, scenery, etc. To see in what creative way the stereographer is using 3D cameras. That aspect of the film simply doesn't exist in conversions, as most non-action scenes are painfully flat. I don't know if it's due to budget limitations or simple laziness, but I'm no fan of most conversions.

[Zivouhr]

3D is a dominant cinema format in China. The vast majority of China’s estimated 37,000-39,000 movie screens were built over the past decade, and some 80 percent are equipped with 3D projection technology. Local moviegoers have lapped up 3D films, turning out in force for effects-heavy 3D fare since Avatar became a phenomenon in China in 2007. Hollywood and local distributors and exhibitors have been happy to encourage the market’s penchant for premium-priced 3D tickets.

Related: ‘Rogue One’ Trailer Generates Mixed Response in China

But many Chinese fans and critics say that converting Jason Bourne to 3D was the wrong choice, given director Paul Greengrass’ signature handheld camera techniques and frenetic editing style. The film was shot in 2D and released worldwide in its original format.
http://www.yahoo.com/movies/3d-jason...082821554.html

Yahoo.com even has a front page article on it.

Was not a big fan of Jason Bourne the movie in theaters, and 3D probably wouldn't have helped since the action scenes were hard to follow most times due to questionable camera work and editing.

On the other hand, there are examples of last minute 3D that actually work, and add extra depth in the medium to strong 3D range, including Need for Speed 3D. The 3D in that one was added with 4 months to go and it turned out adding a lot to the film thanks to being a solid conversion for the most part. The film was well filmed and edited too.

Originally Posted by creed123

Seriously, who's dumbass idea was to do this? The fact that Taken 3, a terrible movie with atrocious editing for the action scenes had a 3D release as well. It's worse than Jason Bourne (I didn't mind the editing for the films).

Creed, right on target with Taken 3 being a bad choice for 3D considering each fast edited shot during the action is about 0.025 of a second. Literally. The action scenes in it are barely understood in 2D no thanks to Megaton, the director.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Deadline is reporting there's a severe backlash brewing towards the exclusive 3D conversion of Jason Bourne being shown in China:



Obviously I'm normally all for 3D, but I can imagine that the frenetic, fast-moving cinematography of the film combined with the typically poor technical quality of these Chinese conversions is probably quite eye-straining indeed, and having no 2D option available in most locations is a big no-no. The studio says they're trying to book more 2D showings now.

I finally got around to watching Jason Bourne last night and I remember thinking to myself too that this movie was not a good fit for 3d (and this is coming from a huge fan of the 3d format like myself). Some of the scenes would've looked decent with depth (like scenes witbout action) but the cutting and editing style of the action sequences just wouldn't have worked in 3d (I still think Greengrass is one of the few filmmakers that does shaky cam right and his editing and cuts in that style are usually on point and actually enhance the action for me. Jason Bourne continues that winning streak but some of the cutting is a little more extreme this time.)

[micnic]

I just hope they don't get the wrong message from this. It's not that 3D is not wanted but poor 3D conversions are the problem. I am a little worried. Seeing the questionable work done for Huntsman, it would take the enjoyment out of my hobby if this is what we get for future releases. I want to support the 3D format but if they get away with this, that's not helpful. Maybe we should start being more selective in what we purchase. But maybe the studios would just say the people are not interested in 3D in general.

[Interdimensional]

Lazy conversions have poisoned the well for much of the modern audience, and I'm unaware of any reason why China would be different from the rest of the world. I wouldn't expect the budget conversion houses to shut up shop overnight, what could happen instead is they lower their prices and find more corners to cut!

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

Personally, the proliferation of 3D conversions has really dampened my enthusiasm for the format, too. The only 3D releases I really look forward to are vintage 50s and 80s titles on 3DBD, and modern animated films.

My biggest gripe with 3D conversions of live action material is the lack of attention paid to nearly all scenes except big action spectacles. Personally, one of my favorite things about stereoscopic video is the cinematography of ordinary shots, scenery, etc. To see in what creative way the stereographer is using 3D cameras. That aspect of the film simply doesn't exist in conversions, as most non-action scenes are painfully flat. I don't know if it's due to budget limitations or simple laziness, but I'm no fan of most conversions.

And the ironic thing is that in the big action sequences there's usually so much going on that audiences can only devote so much attention to the 3-D.

3-D can be brilliant in quiet moments and intimate scenes. There's so much unexplored potential, all so casually dismissed by both audiences and filmmakers with a lazy cynicism borne from the dominance of shoddy cash-grab conversions and overly restrained stereography.

Frankly the market needs to die down a bit to allow some breathing space for the more genuine efforts.

[Zivouhr]

Good points.
Eliminate the very mild to mostly mild 3D conversions that resemble 2D more than 3D, and replace them with medium to strong 3D layered conversions. And at the same time, if the editor/director is aware the film will be converted into 3D, consider how 3D will look depending on the editing.

If it's rapid fire editing, keep the 3D range the same throughout that sequence even with close ups, midview and far away shots so the eyes don't have to adjust to the 3D in quick succession. So don't have a 1/2 second strong 3D shot, then a 1/2 second mild 3D shot, then another 1/2 second strong 3D shot again. Keep them all strong; which actually gives credit to the point that 3D works best when each shot is given more onscreen time. This way a distant scenery shot doesn't have to be given strong 3D if it doesn't require it (naturally far distance shots have more subtle 3D unless there are mid and foreground objects in view).

[xbs2034]

I'm a big fan of Greengrass, but he is a director whose style does not lend itself at all to 3D, plus while I think he mostly does shaky cam well in Green Zone and now Jason Bourne there were a couple times he went overboard and it was difficult to watch in 2D.

I hope this situation doesn't send the wrong message that China (which has indeed been a significant supporter of 3D) is souring on the format, as I don't get the sense of that from reading about this, but rather if you are going to put a surcharge on a lazy conversion of a film that doesn't belong in 3D, nobody is going to be happy.

[TM2-Megatron]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Good points.
Eliminate the very mild to mostly mild 3D conversions that resemble 2D more than 3D, and replace them with medium to strong 3D layered conversions.

Ideally, no. Replace them with 3-D cameras, not more conversions. If I had my way, there would be no conversions except for the occasional shot that would have been exceptional difficult and/or dangerous and/or impossible to shoot with a 3-D camera rig.

The more audiences accept conversions, the faster actual 3-D cinematography and equipment will die out.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by TM2-Megatron

Ideally, no. Replace them with 3-D cameras, not more conversions. If I had my way, there would be no conversions except for the occasional shot that would have been exceptional difficult and/or dangerous and/or impossible to shoot with a 3-D camera rig.

The more audiences accept conversions, the faster actual 3-D cinematography and equipment will die out.

Ideally every movie would be filmed in 2D and 3D, but the learning curve for most filmmakers is steep with 3D and money learning the 3D rig on the set cuts into the budget a lot. Even so, Ridley Scott and Paul WS Anderson among a few others favor 3D filmmaking for a reason, despite the many who rather film quickly and comfortably in 2D with what they know, then let a post conversion team take care of the rest. If they offer enough for the 3D budget, the results can be strong as seen in TMNT Out of the Shadows 3D, Warcraft 3D in 2016. And potentially a few more later this year including Doctor Strange. Great conversions still make for great 3D, but ideally, filmed 3D has the advantage as far as visual 3D results.

[DJR662]

This is one movie that definitely did NOT need a 3D conversion, what were they thinking???