Iron Man 3

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by rjf78

is it too early to say, i hope Disney don't mess up the U.K blu again

you could almost guarantee they will

[ChrisDilke]

Originally Posted by rjf78

is it too early to say, i hope Disney don't mess up the U.K blu again

As far as extras are concerned, I think we can say goodbye to the possibility of having a complete trilogy of 2 Disc editions in this country. And as for the movie, I also hope they don't repeat their Avengers screw-up and release an edited version.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by ChrisDilke

As far as extras are concerned, I think we can say goodbye to the possibility of having a complete trilogy of 2 Disc editions in this country. And as for the movie, I also hope they don't repeat their Avengers screw-up and release an edited version.

I totally forgot the 1st 2 had 2 disc editions

[Brightstar]

I hope its in fullscreen just like the Avengers l

[tenderheartbear]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I hope its in fullscreen just like the Avengers l

Sorry?

[Billz]

Originally Posted by tenderheartbear

Sorry?

He wants it in a full screen perspective, instead of widescreen.

[Brother_Dobby]

Thought the film was great! Really liked where they took the story, and the performances from the main characters were probably the best of the trilogy. Better than Iron Man 2 and on par with the first film. Didn't see it in 3D, though I'm not hearing good things about it from this thread. Is this everybodys opinion on the 3D?

Also, the film will likely not be 16:9 as the ratio in the cinema was 221:100. To release it in 16:9 would mean cropping the edges and zooming in. We don't want that.

[Scorpion Soldier]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I hope its in fullscreen just like the Avengers l

Iron Man 3 is presented in 2.35:1, like the standalone films before The Avengers, so it won't be filling the entire screen.

[jamesdl]

Originally Posted by Brother_Dobby

Didn't see it in 3D, though I'm not hearing good things about it from this thread. Is this everybodys opinion on the 3D?

3D was unnecessary, IMO. Don't even remember seeing any scenes that look like they were made for the 3D, like The Amazing Spider-man or similar films who took that approach.

[FastAndFluid]

Marvel just don't "get" 3D. They do cheap and nasty conversions on every title they put out just because they can charge more for doing so. It's possible to do great post-conversions - but they cost money and take time and Marvel doesn't want to spend it. Shane Black has already gone on record as saying he shot his film in 2D and the 3D was taken out of his hands.

I've got some great 3D post-conversions in my collection (Titanic, Top Gun, Jurassic Park) as well as great films shot in 3D (Life of Pi, Avatar, Hugo) but Marvel to date have shown they are incapable of producing a 3D film that's anywhere near as good as the 2D version. Avoid!

[Sky_Captain]

Some of their 2D releases aren't any great shakes either. Thor and Captain America, I'm looking at you. They were possibly manipulated in post, to aid the 3D conversions, but the end results on BD, are completely mediocre, IMO.

[tenderheartbear]

Originally Posted by Billz

He wants it in a full screen perspective, instead of widescreen.

I obviously got confused.

I still think of fullscreen as 4:3, not 16:9.

[yeslek]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I hope its in fullscreen just like the Avengers l

nope.
same ratio as the first two

bugs me too

Originally Posted by Brother_Dobby

Thought the film was great! Really liked where they took the story, and the performances from the main characters were probably the best of the trilogy. Better than Iron Man 2 and on par with the first film. Didn't see it in 3D, though I'm not hearing good things about it from this thread. Is this everybodys opinion on the 3D?

Also, the film will likely not be 16:9 as the ratio in the cinema was 221:100. To release it in 16:9 would mean cropping the edges and zooming in. We don't want that.

or they could just open the screen up (a'la Titanic)?
assuming its shot the same as the first (16:9 camera with a frame to show the widescreen image in the middle. Heck they show the post-production/CGI'er's using stick on black bars to reduce the image to the format we finally got )

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by FastAndFluid

Marvel just don't "get" 3D. They do cheap and nasty conversions on every title they put out just because they can charge more for doing so. It's possible to do great post-conversions - but they cost money and take time and Marvel doesn't want to spend it. Shane Black has already gone on record as saying he shot his film in 2D and the 3D was taken out of his hands.

I've got some great 3D post-conversions in my collection (Titanic, Top Gun, Jurassic Park) as well as great films shot in 3D (Life of Pi, Avatar, Hugo) but Marvel to date have shown they are incapable of producing a 3D film that's anywhere near as good as the 2D version. Avoid!

I disagree - Thor and Captain America were lifeless but The Avengers was incredible in 3D. I saw it twice in IMAX and it was fantastic; at home the New York sequence is what I use to show off my 3D TV - it's a great use of post-conversion techniques.

Iron Man 3 was decent in 3D but it certainly wasn't essential. Assuming the inevitable steelbook is in 2D only, the only scene I'll miss not seeing in 3D is

[Show spoiler]the Air Force One resuce scene - thanks to the practical effects used they really looked like they were falling in 3D.

it was the only 3D bit that impressed. The rest of it? OK but inessential.

[tenderheartbear]

Sorry, I just can't agree.

Any home exibition of a movie should always be in the same ratio as the theatrical showing, especially on the Blu-ray format. I do think however, there should be a choice when it comes to sequences made for the IMAX format. If it was made only for IMAX, then that ratio should be used. If, like The Dark Knight or Tron Legacy it has IMAX scenes then you should have the option of which version you prefer or best represents the version you saw.

[RedCellUK]

Despite seeing it twice in 3D, at the cinema, I can think of not one single part which actually stood out. Loved the film but the 3D was nothing noticeable.

[The Apocalypse]

The film was great, but it seems it was a good idea not to watch the 3D version. Here's where I stand with 3D films: Either film it natively in 3D, or cough up the dough to do a decent 3D conversion, the former ideally. Otherwise, why bother?

Also saw the first Iron Man a couple of days ago, it's weird, I watched it 2, 3 & 1

[,deeii]

Saw this yesterday. Can not wait to add this to my collection.

[josuv22]

Originally Posted by jamesdl

3D was unnecessary, IMO. Don't even remember seeing any scenes that look like they were made for the 3D, like The Amazing Spider-man or similar films who took that approach.

prob because none were. it was shot as a 2d movie. New star trek is the same deal so when it out save your money and buy the 2d ticket.

[FastAndFluid]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I disagree - Thor and Captain America were lifeless but The Avengers was incredible in 3D. I saw it twice in IMAX and it was fantastic; at home the New York sequence is what I use to show off my 3D TV - it's a great use of post-conversion techniques.

Iron Man 3 was decent in 3D but it certainly wasn't essential. Assuming the inevitable steelbook is in 2D only, the only scene I'll miss not seeing in 3D is

[Show spoiler]the Air Force One resuce scene - thanks to the practical effects used they really looked like they were falling in 3D.

it was the only 3D bit that impressed. The rest of it? OK but inessential.

I agree that "The Avengers" was the best of the Marvel 3D versions, but it still added nothing of real value to the film other than making it darker. The 2D version is better.