Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D Blu-ray (2014) [Region Locked / Free]

[mredman]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thinking about it, I did like a shot of some apes swinging on the Golden Gate Bridge that lasted about one second and induced a little vertigo. It could very well have had a similar effect in 2D though. The flat, blurry dialogue scenes actually made me wince three or four times. What an ugly mess! Overall, it wasn't worth the brightness trade-off for me. Worst 3D I've sat through since Priest.

Have you seen the new Transformers it has excellent 3D

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by mredman

Have you seen the new Transformers it has excellent 3D

No, I haven't. I have seen a Russian 3D trailer for T:AoE in the wrong aspect ratio though. It, specifically its CGI, looked much better than any 3D in DotPotA.

[Chaotic]

Movie 5/5
3D 0/5 (was this even in 3D?)

[dogofwar]

I just got back, and I'm glad I watched it in 3D, but I'd agree it wasn't strong 3D at all. But I'd rather watching anything in 3D rather then 2D. I don't think the 3D subtracted anything from the movie. It certainly was not a movie that showcased 3D, but there were some scenes that were pretty good but overall, not a showcase 3D movie.

The movie is terrific. I really liked it, I had high hopes going in and it lived up to them. Day one buy for me.

Previews:
Hercules - same as before - awesome 3D.
Sin City 2 - first time I saw the 3D trailers, 3D looks strong in this one.
Guardians of the Galaxy - same trailer as before, looks good.
Exodus: Gods and Kings - first time seeing this, looks good, 3D looked pretty good as well.

[UFAlien]

CinemaBlend's "To 3D or Not to 3D" feature, which I've always found hit-or-miss, gave the 3D in this an almost perfect score (33 out of 35).

For comparison, Age of Extinction got a 25, as did The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Titanic got 23.

[UFAlien]

Still better than What Culture, though. Ugh. That place is where journalism and criticism go to die.

[BleedOrange11]

Yeah, it kind of bugs me how CinemaBlend purports to be some experienced, knowledgeable critic of 3D, telling people whether or not to spend their money. It's like sheep leading sheep.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by dogofwar

Previews:
Hercules - same as before - awesome 3D.
Sin City 2 - first time I saw the 3D trailers, 3D looks strong in this one.
Guardians of the Galaxy - same trailer as before, looks good.
Exodus: Gods and Kings - first time seeing this, looks good, 3D looked pretty good as well.

I'm very anxious to see these two in 3D. Sin City, especially, has great potential. We only got the 3D trailer for Hercules, which looks like a fine conversion but doesn't appeal to me at all. Looking forward to Gone Girl in 2D though.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Thinking about it, I did like a shot of some apes swinging on the Golden Gate Bridge that lasted about one second and induced a little vertigo. It could very well have had a similar effect in 2D though. The flat, blurry dialogue scenes actually made me wince three or four times. What an ugly mess! Overall, it wasn't worth the brightness trade-off for me. Worst 3D I've sat through since Priest.

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Movie 5/5
3D 0/5 (was this even in 3D?)

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Just got back from this and 100% agree with BleedOrange11. I wish I had seen it in 2D as the 3D subtracts from the movie. It's basically a 2D movie shot with a 3D rig.

Yikes. The 3D was that mild/weak? Knowing your preferences for stronger 3D, I will take your word for it. Thanks for the heads up. I didn't get a chance to see this one yet.

Originally Posted by dogofwar

I just got back, and I'm glad I watched it in 3D, but I'd agree it wasn't strong 3D at all. But I'd rather watching anything in 3D rather then 2D. I don't think the 3D subtracted anything from the movie. It certainly was not a movie that showcased 3D, but there were some scenes that were pretty good but overall, not a showcase 3D movie.

The movie is terrific. I really liked it, I had high hopes going in and it lived up to them. Day one buy for me.

Previews:
Hercules - same as before - awesome 3D.
Sin City 2 - first time I saw the 3D trailers, 3D looks strong in this one.
Guardians of the Galaxy - same trailer as before, looks good.
Exodus: Gods and Kings - first time seeing this, looks good, 3D looked pretty good as well.

Thanks for the review on the 3D and film Dog of War. The 3D in the Apes 2 preview looked decent for 3D, but nothing spectacular either as you suggested.

Thanks for the info on the trailers too. Can't wait to see Hercules 3D in 2 weeks. Guardians looks great also. Exodus from Ridley Scott of Prometheus, which had very nice 3D, but hopefully he pushed it more this time.

Originally Posted by tigermoth

Don't know what 'What Culture' is. To be honest I don't bother with entertainment journalism. I care about technical assessments and they better know what they are talking about... that's my problem with CinemaBlend's 3D reviews. 3D is technical and not opinion, the reviewers at CB don't even know what they are looking at. They basically just make it up.

Well said. It's possible they hire journalists to go review a film that have no prior standard for what strong 3D is, whether filmed in 3D or converted. And you're right in that 3D is a measurement instead of an opinion, though not always an easy one to document while in the theater.

Were the dialog shots as mild and flat as many of the dialog shots from Amazing Spider Man 1? Thanks. Sorry to hear about the 3D here. Proving filmed 3D requires a stereographer eager to aim for strong 3D, to make it worth the effect. Otherwise, it's a notch above 2D.

Will have to see this on blu ray 3D if it hits $20 and less if I don't go tomorrow.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

I think it was a little better than TASM in this regard but still in the same league regardless.

Thanks Tigermoth. Disappointing to hear they went the Tron Legacy route for the 3D, to think of another disappointing 3D comparison, when comparing it to strong 3D titles.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

That site is run by retards who aren't fans of 3D and don't know what they are talking about half the time.

I completely agree with this 100% I almost never agree with them and they have some of the worst and in accurate 3d judgement out there.


I'm still dying to see DOTPOTA in 3d though, regardless of opinions. I just have to seeit for myself and I know I saw some strong 3d shots in the trailer.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by mseeley

I completely agree with this 100% I almost never agree with them and they have some of the worst and in accurate 3d judgement out there.


I'm still dying to see DOTPOTA in 3d though, regardless of opinions. I just have to seeit for myself and I know I saw some strong 3d shots in the trailer.

With that being said there does seem to be the opinion that strong 3d = better on this site. That is simply not supported by what people in general have viewed as great 3d. Gravity for instance does not feature particularly strong 3d but it's reputation for its use of 3d is among the best.

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

Yeah, it kind of bugs me how CinemaBlend purports to be some experienced, knowledgeable critic of 3D, telling people whether or not to spend their money. It's like sheep leading sheep.

So who is better, not defending them, but they are simply giving there opinion in what is a still new (sure 3d has been around since the 50's but for those filming in 3d it is new to them) and developing area of photography that is highly subjective.

[mar3o]

After seeing the 3D version of this film yesterday, I wanted to come in and try to shed some sanity in this thread. There's lots of poppycock being spread about the quality of the 3D in this film, and I went in with an open mind. One pro review said the 3D was "very impressive", and other reviews also gave praise for the 3D. That went sharply against the comments in this thread.

I've seen lots of 3D films - I've been a life-long fan of 3D. I'm shocked at some of the comments in here and elsewhere about the quality of the 3D. The 3D in this film was very competently done. It certainly isn't a gimmick film, but it clearly wasn't meant to be. Some people go into these 3D films expecting things to come flying out of the screen every few minutes. If that doesn't happen then they claim the 3d is poor. They fail to notice the depth in the scene.

Some of the comments in this thread:

3D on the other hand was not very good at all.

The 3D was some of the worst I've seen in a while. The entire film is story-boarded like 2D without regard to z-axis motion. Intimate dialogue scenes, which comprise about half the runtime, were super flat with very shallow depth of field. Non-dialogue scenes had slightly more parallax and roundness, but still not enough. Even the CGI models were too flat. Action scenes were all fast motion and cutting. I can't think of a single benefit of watching this in 3D. Nothing was memorable or good-looking. Most of it was flat and smushed and blurred. Might as well have been 2D.

Total waste of native 3D rigs in the hands of 2D filmmakers. Conversion would have looked better.

I wish I had seen it in 2D as the 3D subtracts from the movie. It's basically a 2D movie shot with a 3D rig.

What an ugly mess! Overall, it wasn't worth the brightness trade-off for me. Worst 3D I've sat through since Priest.

3D 0/5 (was this even in 3D?)

Sorry but this is nonsense! It is not the strongest 3D presentation I have ever seen. For that you need to see some 50's films like House of Wax or Creature from the Black Lagoon. But this is very competently shot in 3D. There is a good sense of depth throughout, and there are some very impressive moments. There are many, many shots where the apes are gathered at the very front of the screen, in shadow almost, looking beyond, and you get a very strong sense that you are right there looking over their shoulders. Lots of times apes pass across the front of the screen and there's a very strong sense of depth as they pass by. Much of the film takes place in the forest, and there's a good sense of depth provided throughout those many scenes. Not all scenes are so impressive, and there are shots where you might be expecting stronger depth, but overall, the 3D is very well done. It's far better than the poorly-done 3D in Tron Legacy that I hear so much praise for. That film is a classic example of weak 3D throughout.

So don't believe all the negativity being spread about the quality of the 3D. I've heard comments about it being too dark. It wasn't for me. Yes, it's a pretty dark film throughout. The 3D was not a problem for me in that respect. The film itself was absolutely stunning. Very powerful, and no doubt one of the best films of the year I'll see. I loved the 3D in Transformers 4 also. Don't go in expecting a gimmick film. The 3D feels very natural in this.

I will end by saying that I do think 3D films in general still need to be stronger. Films in the 50's really knew how to use strong 3D and still make it easy to view. Hollywood seems to have forgotten everything they have learned back then. 3D films are definitely improving in the last couple years, and 3D conversion has made tremendous leaps in quality. But they still need to push forward with the depth more. I wouldn't call this film mild, but it wasn't as strong as it should have been. But I can say that about most 3D films they make these days. It's still a fantastic film with well -filmed, moderate 3D throughout.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Thanks Tigermoth. Disappointing to hear they went the Tron Legacy route for the 3D, to think of another disappointing 3D comparison, when comparing it to strong 3D titles.

They didn't go anywhere near as weak as Tron Legacy. It was much better than that. No, it wasn't what I would classify as strong 3D, but it was moderate. I've seen much weaker use in some films. I will say that Pacific Rim, Jurassic Park and Titanic were all excellent examples of 3D conversions that were stronger than this film. Like I said, it could have and should have been stronger, but I can say that about most 3D films. I still enjoyed it all the same.

[danoldrati]

The studio should thank thier lucky stars that they have a very good film but as far the 3D goes "BORING". Somebody forgot to tell the director the movie was being shot in native 3d. The 3D Creativity was zero.

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

With that being said there does seem to be the opinion that strong 3d = better on this site. That is simply not supported by what people in general have viewed as great 3d. Gravity for instance does not feature particularly strong 3d but it's reputation for its use of 3d is among the best.

In general, I expect two things from 3D movies.

1. Semi-realistic depth cues and proportional volume (technical aspects)
2. Story-telling and art direction that utilizes the z-axis (creative aspects)

DotPotA is severely lacking in both categories. Gravity does the second award-winningly well, and the first good enough.

Most people don't consciously recognize #1 but respond very subjectively and emotionally to #2. And some people, like Matt Reeves apparently, enjoy or tolerate 3D that looks just like 2D because that's what they're used to. The phenomenon with this forum is that most of us "3D enthusiasts" have watched so much 3D that we intuitively notice the technical aspects. Hence the preference for "strong 3D," which roughly correlates with better roundness/proportional volume. Just seeing stereo depth and maybe a pop-out if lucky becomes no longer enough. We want the complete experience that the best 3D movies have offered.

So who is better, not defending them, but they are simply giving there opinion in what is a still new (sure 3d has been around since the 50's but for those filming in 3d it is new to them) and developing area of photography that is highly subjective.

I don't know of any journalistic sites with reviewers that understand and evaluate the technical aspects of 3D applied to movies. Most poorly articulate what their 3D experience was like and say "good" or "bad" or how it made them feel, which isn't helpful for previewing technical quality. CinemaBlend gets an 'A' for effort, but their scoring system is odd, and their reviewers need some 3D education and experience because they are wildly inconsistent. I usually can't relate to what they're describing. Like tigermoth said, it seems like they just make stuff up.

Some Blu-ray review sites have been a little more consistent for me but it is still very hit and miss with them as well. There are some forum members here and at AVS that do have more technical knowledge of creating 3D, and I usually agree with or can easily respect their opinions. A stereographer named Clyde de Souza has done a few critiques on his blog that I really enjoyed and learned something while reading.

http://realvision.ae/blog/category/s...d/3d-critique/

[UFAlien]

I actually went ahead and saw it anyway, you guys got me curious. Good movie, 3D - while IMO not as terrible or unnoticeable as some people are saying - was pretty disappointing. As has been pointed out it really seemed more like an afterthought with the lack of z-axis movement and composition and the general shallowness. There wasn't a single shot that really stood out to me and some were just offensively flat.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

the apologists are just helping the slaughter by denial. I saw this in a packed theater and there were lots of people taking their glasses off and on to see if they were working properly. Fanboys need to understand that not everyone has the same affinity for things like they do, casuals just don't feel satisfied with something so mediocre and unsatisfying. I stand by my comments that wearing shades to see this movie, the awful long lens compositions, and the shallow dull paper cutout 2.3D of this movie subtracts from the viewing experience.

Sorry that is baloney. What is hurting 3d is the number of unneeded 3 conversions for films meant to be seen in 3d and the premium price that is charged to see a film in 3d on top of the cost of glasses. A film maker deciding to shoot in 3d and it not being to your preference is not what is hurting 3d.

[gamermwm]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I actually went ahead and saw it anyway, you guys got me curious. Good movie, 3D - while IMO not as terrible or unnoticeable as some people are saying - was pretty disappointing. As has been pointed out it really seemed more like an afterthought with the lack of z-axis movement and composition and the general shallowness. There wasn't a single shot that really stood out to me and some were just offensively flat.

Wow. Disappointing to hear about the 3D being poorly done. If they want me to pay more for a 3D edition - and they usually do with releases such as the Lego 3D edition - they better make me feel like I got my money's worth

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by tigermoth

What is this 2009? Conversions are fine and most movies can be converted successfully and still deliver on a decent 3D experience. Audiences are fine paying extra if they feel like they are getting something extra for their buck. Surcharge at the boxoffice isn't impacting 3Dnegativly.

Of course a surcharge causes less people to view the film in 3d. That is the most basic of supply and demand principles at work. Conversions can be decent, but I said unneeded conversions, not conversions as a whole. The kind that are done regardless of what the film maker wants (Thor 2 and Godzilla come immediately to mind).

Originally Posted by BleedOrange11

In general, I expect two things from 3D movies.

1. Semi-realistic depth cues and proportional volume (technical aspects)
2. Story-telling and art direction that utilizes the z-axis (creative aspects)

DotPotA is severely lacking in both categories. Gravity does the second award-winningly well, and the first good enough.

I tend to agree with what you are saying, but that doesn't mean it will always hold true or that others will or have to agree with you on what is subjective as it is entirely down to opinion. As with all things films my only (contradicting) rule is the only rule is there is no rule. There are general trends seen as good, but often this trends are not followed and something fantastic can result.