Jurassic World Rebirth (2025) [No 3D Blu-ray] [Digital only - AVP]

[Jonnyxll]

Yesterday I watched the movie and...the 3D is GREAT <3
This movie was shot with 3D in mind. In many scenes there are some trees, big stones or vegetation in the front the picture. That push the great depth in many scenes.
From the beginning to the end very good layering. Multiple shots with fascinating landscape and very strong depth.

The 3D quality is similar to the first Jurassic World and MUCH better than Dominon and Fallen Kingdom.

I also like the movie itself. Great 3D movie to watch on the Big screen. (Only in 3D)...

...and at home (eyes at Turbine...)

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Jonnyxll

Yesterday I watched the movie and...the 3D is GREAT <3
This movie was shot with 3D in mind. In many scenes there are some trees, big stones or vegetation in the front the picture. That push the great depth in many scenes.
From the beginning to the end very good layering. Multiple shots with fascinating landscape and very strong depth.

The 3D quality is similar to the first Jurassic World and MUCH better than Dominon and Fallen Kingdom.

I also like the movie itself. Great 3D movie to watch on the Big screen. (Only in 3D)...

...and at home (eyes at Turbine...)

It's easy money to license it out to Turbine but Universal won't do that until they have shifted enough 2D editions of their own - I can see SteelBooks being listed already without 3D so it's clear that Universal are not going to be releasing it themselves.

[Telegram Sam]

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

It's no doubt a stupid film but what I am noticing is that everyone who has seen it in 3D is liking it and everyone who has seen it in 2D is not.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by the13thman

It's no doubt a stupid film but what I am noticing is that everyone who has seen it in 3D is liking it and everyone who has seen it in 2D is not.

That does seem quite telling. I should have added that the cinema* where I saw it has terrible presentation: The projector was very dim, and the screen looks like a piece of old parchment paper. This kind of thing really takes me out of it and even a high quality 2D screening might have allowed me to enjoy it more, but 3D would have been a major improvement.

*No harm in naming & shaming it, these are facts not libel. The Odeon in Bath.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

I went in with low expectations, and while I was entertained and enjoyed this movie and 3D after a skeptical start, the Jurassic Producers really could use a new writer and story developer probably, or just a new direction to tell better stories for this franchise, as there are some big flaws in the story character logic at times. Once they got into the yellow raft though, I was fully on board with the movie's continual action and monster attacks it seemed from that point forward, and the improved 3D was helping too.

The scenes over the cliff were really cool. The camera kept peering over down below a few times, which was great. The 3D, even though it could've been pushed further into stronger 3D, still looked really good there, and was a big 3D highlight of JW4.

[Interdimensional]

I saw this on Wednesday.

I was happy enough with the 3D presentation here, I can't honestly compare it to previous entries which I haven't seen in years, but my impression was somewhat better than I recall for the previous two entries, and better than I recall for previous Gareth Edwards 3D movies Rogue One and Godzilla. There were some acrophobia-inducing views down steep cliffs, and there was an effective shot from underneath a jeep, when a character took a Dennis Nedry-like turn. The vegetation-laden jungle scenes were appropriately layered.

As with Fallen Kingdom, I thought that the decision to shoot the film in scope format was a mistake. Spielberg works in different aspect ratios from one film to the next and chooses this depending on the needs of the film. For his Jurassic Park films, he went with 1.85:1. Dinosaurs demand a taller aspect ratio, otherwise you're chopping them off at the neck, and panning up from the human characters because you can't fit everything in the frame. It's not the 1960s anymore; screens aren't necessarily going to expand for scope, in many cases they contract. In 2025, it really should've been filmed for Imax. That said, most scenes were skillfully composed.

The film wasn't quite as bad as expected. I definitely liked it better than Fallen Kingdom, and it wasn't as bloated as Dominion. Most of what I didn't care for was already in the trailer. I wasn't thrilled that they decided to make it a big mutant monster movie, but I knew that going in. I liked the scenes on the island, and the T.rex river scene was the saving grace of the film. In its stronger moments, it felt more like a throwback to JP2 or 3, but with the mutants of the Jurassic World series. Any human drama they cooked up for this installment was weak and uninvolving. I was more invested in the side characters than the main protagonists.

One local cinema I was hoping to attend was completely sold out for their one afternoon 3D screening. Unusual for mid-week. I took this as a positive sign, but they are dropping 3D screenings next week. Strangely they still have 3D shows everyday that week for How to Train Your Dragon, another Universal movie that's been out a while now. I don't know what's going on there.

[cinerama]

Originally Posted by Jonnyxll

Yesterday I watched the movie and...the 3D is GREAT <3
This movie was shot with 3D in mind. In many scenes there are some trees, big stones or vegetation in the front the picture. That push the great depth in many scenes.
From the beginning to the end very good layering. Multiple shots with fascinating landscape and very strong depth.

No pop-outs?

[Zivouhr]

I don't remember any pop outs. I guess the beaks of the pteradon might have stuck out slightly but they should've cranked up the 3D for those brief moments.

[panman40]

We like all the Jurassic films including the not so good ones, I’ll be hoping for a 3D Blu Ray further down the road.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I don't remember any pop outs. I guess the beaks of the pteradon might have stuck out slightly but they should've cranked up the 3D for those brief moments.

I've found that for an, mild popout (eg: guns poking out a skosh in GI Joe Retaliation) is a lot more apparent when I move my head a bit from side to side, so if I get to see this (Cinemark's 3D showtimes here are baffling) I'll try that during scenes like that one.

Reading the post on here about this being shot in scope, did your Cinemark mask the letterboxing?

[br3ttD]

Caught this in Real D 3D and the 3D alone is worth the price of admission. Rock formations sit nicely at the screen with jungle landscapes beyond. As mentioned, shots peering over cliffs look great with leaves above and a valley far below. (I was reminded of my trip to Moab, Utah last year. Sadly the depth in my 3D videos doesn’t look as good.)
Another standout scene is when they find the second dinosaur(s) they’re looking for with long tails wrapping around the big critters.

Noticed a few pop-outs. ScarJo shoots a dart at screen left and some mini pterodactyls fly off the screen, both instances causing a flinch reaction.

The movie itself is ok, it gets the job done. No more. No less. Fans of dinosaur carnage won’t be disappointed. Dino VFX were well integrated with live-action, imo.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

As with Fallen Kingdom, I thought that the decision to shoot the film in scope format was a mistake. Spielberg works in different aspect ratios from one film to the next and chooses this depending on the needs of the film. For his Jurassic Park films, he went with 1.85:1. Dinosaurs demand a taller aspect ratio, otherwise you're chopping them off at the neck, and panning up from the human characters because you can't fit everything in the frame. It's not the 1960s anymore; screens aren't necessarily going to expand for scope, in many cases they contract. In 2025, it really should've been filmed for Imax. That said, most scenes were skillfully composed.

I know the guy is one of the greatest film-makers of all time, and it's fair to say he knows his stuff. But (oh dear), but I never believed Spielberg's line about his reason for filming Jurassic Park in 1.85:1.

Most of his films during the boom years of VHS rentals/sales were shot in the more 4:3 friendly 1.85:1 format; the majority of the ones before & after that era were 'scope, and many of those anamorphic. I don't think that's a coincidence...

I've always thought the composition of his first view of the Brachiosaurus was terrible; her head was way too close to the top of the frame. (And a Brachiosaurus is about as widescreen an animal as you can imagine...)

For the first time in movie history (I think) he gave us the widescreen-friendly style of T.Rex: Prior to JP the T.Rex had been a silly upright creature that didn't look at all natural, but Spielberg gave us a much more realistic looking animal with its tail stretched out horizontally for balance.

Lastly, I'm quite positive that any decent film-maker can compose a film excellently in any aspect ratio. Sure, for the particular way he wanted to frame it, perhaps 1.85 was the better fit - but any other person might have chosen a different way of framing it for which 2.35 worked better. In other words, it's not the subject that demands a certain ratio, it's how you want to show that subject.

So, like his quote about having shot Jurassic Park with a "3D eye" when he was promoting the 3D release, or however it was he phrased it, I never took at face value his given reasons for shooting it 1.85:1. I know, much has been written & said about that, much of it by people who know what they're talking about, but I never really bought it. Like I said though, the guy's a towering genius of cinema and, I think, a better film-maker than Gareth Edwards. The way I look at it is that 'scope films aren't about chopping things off at the top & bottom; they're about widening the canvas left & right.

Anyway, I agree, Rebirth was nicely composed - and its aspect ratio was one of the few things about it that I didn't object to!

[Zivouhr]

I remember in JW4 Rebirth 3D, there are some subtle conversion errors when scanning through the plants and foliage in a panned camera shot moving to the right. It's like the conversion team at that moment, wasn't sure how to layer those leaves further back in between the other leaves, and you get a weird warping effect at one or two brief moments slightly.

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I've found that for an, mild popout (eg: guns poking out a skosh in GI Joe Retaliation) is a lot more apparent when I move my head a bit from side to side, so if I get to see this (Cinemark's 3D showtimes here are baffling) I'll try that during scenes like that one.

Reading the post on here about this being shot in scope, did your Cinemark mask the letterboxing?

Interesting. If I move my head while a 3D pop out is paused, it seems to create a weird effect, as if the 3D was tethered to the screen a little, compared to just remaining still for a 3D pop out effect.

I don't know what masking the letterboxing would look like. Is that like hiding the letterbox bars? This one presented onscreen and I think I remember for a moment noticing the framed images didn't go all the way to the top or bottom of the actual screen, leaving darkspace letterboxing top and bottom. I wasn't paying close attention to the aspect ratio unfortunately, so I can't be sure.

[El Rey]

just got home from seeing this in RealD 3D, the 3D was mild, decent throughout, nothing to write home about, but nothing to scoff at either. the one pop out I did note was when Zora shot the first dart at the mosasaur, that one did fly at the screen.
the finale had nice use of layers with the smoke and lighting too.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

I know the guy is one of the greatest film-makers of all time, and it's fair to say he knows his stuff. But (oh dear), but I never believed Spielberg's line about his reason for filming Jurassic Park in 1.85:1.

Most of his films during the boom years of VHS rentals/sales were shot in the more 4:3 friendly 1.85:1 format; the majority of the ones before & after that era were 'scope, and many of those anamorphic. I don't think that's a coincidence...

I've always thought the composition of his first view of the Brachiosaurus was terrible; her head was way too close to the top of the frame. (And a Brachiosaurus is about as widescreen an animal as you can imagine...)

For the first time in movie history (I think) he gave us the widescreen-friendly style of T.Rex: Prior to JP the T.Rex had been a silly upright creature that didn't look at all natural, but Spielberg gave us a much more realistic looking animal with its tail stretched out horizontally for balance.

Lastly, I'm quite positive that any decent film-maker can compose a film excellently in any aspect ratio. Sure, for the particular way he wanted to frame it, perhaps 1.85 was the better fit - but any other person might have chosen a different way of framing it for which 2.35 worked better. In other words, it's not the subject that demands a certain ratio, it's how you want to show that subject.

So, like his quote about having shot Jurassic Park with a "3D eye" when he was promoting the 3D release, or however it was he phrased it, I never took at face value his given reasons for shooting it 1.85:1. I know, much has been written & said about that, much of it by people who know what they're talking about, but I never really bought it. Like I said though, the guy's a towering genius of cinema and, I think, a better film-maker than Gareth Edwards. The way I look at it is that 'scope films aren't about chopping things off at the top & bottom; they're about widening the canvas left & right.

Anyway, I agree, Rebirth was nicely composed - and its aspect ratio was one of the few things about it that I didn't object to!

While commercial considerations may have added weight to the decision one way or the other at times, I would take Spielberg at his word. I would've thought it was a bit early for the VHS rental market to be a factor when he shot ET in 1.85:1, but it would've been when he shot Hook in scope. More recently he shot The Fablemans in 1.85:1, which made a lot of sense to me given for the nature of the film.

I would agree with you if you were talking about Diplodocus, but Brachiosaurus is very much the opposite of a widescreen animal. It's proportions are closer to a giraffe. It proves the point. It's a struggle to fit it in the frame.


A wider frame wouldn't have added anything to this particular scene. The best you could do is add framing elements to break up the image. A good cinematographer will find a way, and it can be planned for in storyboard, but you're starting at a disadvantage.

As it happens, I've taken thousands of photographs of dinosaur skeletons in museums across Europe and North America, which was a personal interest for many years. If you want to use that width to capture the full length of something like a Diplodocus, you have to get so far back that you're flattening the perspective. To me these were always less engaging images. In a filmmaking sense, useful for an establishing shot perhaps, but not so much for action.

A T.rex is certainly more horizontal than in the past, but that only applies visually if you're showing it in profile. If it's coming at you, a taller image is more useful. While I know in theory the screen is supposed to expand for scope format, in practice that often isn't the case, and wasn't for the 3D screening I attended. I will say the scope framing worked very well for the scenes on the ocean, which comprised a significant portion of the film.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I remember in JW4 Rebirth 3D, there are some subtle conversion errors when scanning through the plants and foliage in a panned camera shot moving to the right. It's like the conversion team at that moment, wasn't sure how to layer those leaves further back in between the other leaves, and you get a weird warping effect at one or two brief moments slightly.

I would imagine overlapping foliage in moving camera shots poses difficulties for conversion. It'd be nice if they could handle it better, but it wouldn't be the first time I've seen that.

Another conversion issue I noticed was early on in the film when they're standing near a river in the city. The water felt like it was a lot closer than made sense. Minor stuff really.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I remember in JW4 Rebirth 3D, there are some subtle conversion errors when scanning through the plants and foliage in a panned camera shot moving to the right. It's like the conversion team at that moment, wasn't sure how to layer those leaves further back in between the other leaves, and you get a weird warping effect at one or two brief moments slightly.




Interesting. If I move my head while a 3D pop out is paused, it seems to create a weird effect, as if the 3D was tethered to the screen a little, compared to just remaining still for a 3D pop out effect.

I don't know what masking the letterboxing would look like. Is that like hiding the letterbox bars? This one presented onscreen and I think I remember for a moment noticing the framed images didn't go all the way to the top or bottom of the actual screen, leaving darkspace letterboxing top and bottom. I wasn't paying close attention to the aspect ratio unfortunately, so I can't be sure.

At the Cinemark here, if the projected image doesn't fill in the entire screen then, much of the time, you'll see exposed white screen in the unfilled areas during your movie. Maybe not if it's a film that has a fixed frame for its whole run, and has an entire auditorium dedicated to it.

I expect it's a logistics issue, though it can be weird to see on the large XD screen in particular.

[osmos512]

This is fine. Much more Jurassic than Dominion was, checks all the boxes you want from these movies. Beautiful dinos. Scary dinos. Kids almost get eaten. Adults really get eaten. And a just little navel-gazing about humanity's place in nature.

The 3D is pretty good. Compared to the stereo on How to Train Your Dragon, Universal's other recent release, Rebirth has lower highs and higher lows. There's more conversion errors and minimal pop, but it's a very smooth ride. Gareth Edwards has a steady visual style and when his composition really works in 3D, the shot always lasts long enough for you to soak it in.

Highlights are the Mosasaurus chase, the Titanosaurus mating dance, and the cliffside Quetzalcoatlus egg retrieval. That last one gives great vertigo, everyone in my theater was groaning.

It always delights me when a crowd enjoys 3D and this was a textbook case. I heard plenty of "oohs" and "ahhs" and "oh sh*ts". And this wasn't even a PLF, just RealD 3D. Shoutout to AMC's standard laser projection because the picture looked great, plenty bright and colorful. They've all but closed the gap between standard 3D and PLF 3D.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by osmos512

This is fine. Much more Jurassic than Dominion was, checks all the boxes you want from these movies. Beautiful dinos. Scary dinos. Kids almost get eaten. Adults really get eaten. And a just little navel-gazing about humanity's place in nature.

The 3D is pretty good. Compared to the stereo on How to Train Your Dragon, Universal's other recent release, Rebirth has lower highs and higher lows. There's more conversion errors and minimal pop, but it's a very smooth ride. Gareth Edwards has a steady visual style and when his composition really works in 3D, the shot always lasts long enough for you to soak it in.

Highlights are the Mosasaurus chase, the Titanosaurus mating dance, and the cliffside Quetzalcoatlus egg retrieval. That last one gives great vertigo, everyone in my theater was groaning.

It always delights me when a crowd enjoys 3D and this was a textbook case. I heard plenty of "oohs" and "ahhs" and "oh sh*ts". And this wasn't even a PLF, just RealD 3D. Shoutout to AMC's standard laser projection because the picture looked great, plenty bright and colorful. They've all but closed the gap between standard 3D and PLF 3D.

Standard laser projection? Nice.

Last AMC I went to had a very nice large lobby, sorta art deco style, but the non PLF auditoriums were still small venues sporting jump seats and certainly weren't laser projection, I wonder if it is just a slow rollout to all locations.

As was pointed out here indirectly, Jaws was legendary in part because a kid got eaten. Movie monsters are more imposing when the viewer knows no one is safe.

It always delights me when a crowd enjoys 3D and this was a textbook case...

Glad to read this, I wish it would happen at every 3D film.