Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3 3D Blu-ray (2023) [Region Free] READ FIRST POST

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by emailking

i saw the 3D trailer before Quantumania.

Same here, it seemed OK.

I'd like to see some strong 3D in these trailers. So OK, maybe the 3D can't be strong in the movies because [reasons], but that doesn't mean there can't be some strong attention-grabbing 3D in the trailer.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Same here, it seemed OK.

I'd like to see some strong 3D in these trailers. So OK, maybe the 3D can't be strong in the movies because [reasons], but that doesn't mean there can't be some strong attention-grabbing 3D in the trailer.

Keep in mind there are currently those vile low-life money-grabbing morons* suing Universal for $5m because Ana de Armas appeared in the trailer for the film Yesterday, but her part was cut out of the finally released movie. If they win their case (and, please god, they lose, have to pay heavy costs, and get sent to prison for abusing the legal system**) a film studio could legitimately worry that some rabid 3D fan might take similar action:

"Your honour, I put it to you that, in the trailer, Rocket's nose was clearly several feet in front of the screen but, in the released movie, it is only at screen level!"

Gasps of horror from the jury.

"And, therefore, for stereo anguish caused, my client deserves compensation from Disney in the order of $100m..."

*Just my opinion.
**An opinion I believe with a passion.

[Oboler]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Keep in mind there are currently those vile low-life money-grabbing morons* suing Universal for $5m because Ana de Armas appeared in the trailer for the film Yesterday, but her part was cut out of the finally released movie. If they win their case (and, please god, they lose, have to pay heavy costs, and get sent to prison for abusing the legal system**) a film studio could legitimately worry that some rabid 3D fan might take similar action:

"Your honour, I put it to you that, in the trailer, Rocket's nose was clearly several feet in front of the screen but, in the released movie, it is only at screen level!"

Gasps of horror from the jury.

"And, therefore, for stereo anguish caused, my client deserves compensation from Disney in the order of $100m..."

*Just my opinion.
**An opinion I believe with a passion.

This made me chuckle and I mostly agree, though I do think there’s a fair case to be made that if a product, be it a movie or anything else, is advertised a certain way, then the final product should represent that advert. I certainly don’t think that the compensation is worth any more than your money back though and certainly not 5 million, unless we’re talking Iranian Rial and the trauma caused was particularly severe and medically diagnosed!

Whenever I see old 3D movie posters, I do wonder how disappointed those poor naive customers might have been. Projection issues etc are widely agreed to have killed the first 3D wave, but I can imagine storming home having not been delivered a lover in my arms, or lion upon my lap as promised and vowing never to see another 3D movie again.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by Oboler

This made me chuckle and I mostly agree, though I do think there’s a fair case to be made that if a product, be it a movie or anything else, is advertised a certain way, then the final product should represent that advert. I certainly don’t think that the compensation is worth any more than your money back though and certainly not 5 million, unless we’re talking Iranian Rial and the trauma caused was particularly severe and medically diagnosed!

Whenever I see old 3D movie posters, I do wonder how disappointed those poor naive customers might have been. Projection issues etc are widely agreed to have killed the first 3D wave, but I can imagine storming home having not been delivered a lover in my arms, or lion upon my lap as promised and vowing never to see another 3D movie again.

Good point. I think back then I'd have been even more disappointed if they'd promised a lion in my arms, and a lover in my lap - and failed to deliver on that one..!

With this case though, my main issue is, where does it end?

I mean, what if the trailer made it look like it was going to be a great film, but it turned out to be terrible? Not at all uncommon. False advertising? Maybe. (Phantom Menace is the classic example of that for me. Awesome trailer; awful movie. I think I deserve a million dollars for that trauma...)

Or the other way around: The trailer didn't show a certain actor, but then he turned up in the movie. If I'd known he was in it, I'd have never paid to see it; I hate him, he traumatises me, etc. (My example there: I had no idea James Corden was going to turn up in The Three Musketeers - I want $50m for the trauma of him appearing in that film.)

Like you say, at best give them their money back, and maybe throw in a luncheon voucher, and tell them to bugger off.

Having said all that, I don't watch trailers these days. As far as I'm concerned, every shot's a "spoiler". I want to approach them fresh. So, I've no idea what the GotG trailer promises - or how good it makes the 3D look...

[Oboler]

Haha, it will of course end with all trailers featuring a disclaimer in microscopic writing “warning, contains scenes of James Corden. Do not watch.” I’m amazed that they don’t already.

[b_scott]

I really hope this is better 3D than the last 3-4 films. it's becoming pointless to pay extra for 3D

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Good point. I think back then I'd have been even more disappointed if they'd promised a lion in my arms, and a lover in my lap - and failed to deliver on that one..!

With this case though, my main issue is, where does it end?

I kind of agree with you but I also kind of agree with them. I think the audience has a right to expect an "advertised" actor to appear in the movie. There's a long history of high profile actors like Ana De Armis being shown in a trailer, then only appearing for a cameo. But in the end, the studio can easily win as long as they can prove that the trailer was made before she was cut from the movie. Otherwise there is a case here to be made for deliberately misleading advertising.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by cdx47

I kind of agree with you but I also kind of agree with them. I think the audience has a right to expect an "advertised" actor to appear in the movie. There's a long history of high profile actors like Ana De Armis being shown in a trailer, then only appearing for a cameo. But in the end, the studio can easily win as long as they can prove that the trailer was made before she was cut from the movie. Otherwise there is a case here to be made for deliberately misleading advertising.

Could this court case also put the kibosh on the "Geezer Teaser" related issue? Maybe it could go as far as the issue the critics claimed with Ant Man 3 having an ersatz ensemble cast.

On this film, I still can't quite accept that the controversial poster for it is official, it looks like something that would be used in a meme.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by cdx47

I kind of agree with you but I also kind of agree with them. I think the audience has a right to expect an "advertised" actor to appear in the movie. There's a long history of high profile actors like Ana De Armis being shown in a trailer, then only appearing for a cameo. But in the end, the studio can easily win as long as they can prove that the trailer was made before she was cut from the movie. Otherwise there is a case here to be made for deliberately misleading advertising.

I agree with them up to the point of, "I've been duped - I want my money back!". Fair enough. But, "I've been duped - I want a million dollars!" Scumbags.

And, as you say, in this case it should be very easy to prove the trailer was made in good faith. And, if/when that is proved, I hope these money-grabbing clowns bringing the case suffer a heavy financial loss.

I mentioned earlier that I've not seen the Guardians 3 trailer. One reason is that I don't watch trailers, as previously mentioned. The other is, and I think I might possibly be alone in the world with this opinion - the two GotG films are two of my least favourite MCU movies (full disclosure - I'm not wild about any of them).

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

The other is, and I think I might possibly be alone in the world with this opinion- the two GotG films are two of my least favourite MCU movies (full disclosure - I'm not wild about any of them).

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there's always an exception to the rule

[cdx47]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

Could this court case also put the kibosh on the "Geezer Teaser" related issue? Maybe it could go as far as the issue the critics claimed with Ant Man 3 having an ersatz ensemble cast.

New phrase (to me), had to Google it.

[PlexShaw]

Tickets going on sale today, and have already booked mine here in the UK. There are some 3D screenings available and, crucially for me, that includes IMAX 3D, which I've gone for on opening day (3 May over here).

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PlexShaw

Tickets going on sale today, and have already booked mine here in the UK. There are some 3D screenings available and, crucially for me, that includes IMAX 3D, which I've gone for on opening day (3 May over here).

Are they doing a trilogy marathon over there, too? Here it is going to be an IMAX exclusive.

[PlexShaw]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

Are they doing a trilogy marathon over there, too? Here it is going to be an IMAX exclusive.

Not that I've seen anywhere listed, although I wasn't really looking for it TBH. If it is going to happen here, it would have to start on the 2nd because the screenings from the 3rd are all day (one near me has a showing at 6am).

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by PlexShaw

Not that I've seen anywhere listed, although I wasn't really looking for it TBH. If it is going to happen here, it would have to start on the 2nd because the screenings from the 3rd are all day (one near me has a showing at 6am).

The way they are doing it over here, the marathon is one day earlier and it starts with enough time so that the 3rd movie would be likely starting around midnight.

[PlexShaw]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The way they are doing it over here, the marathon is one day earlier and it starts with enough time so that the 3rd movie would be likely starting around midnight.

Yeah, I use Regal's website a rough guide to follow how the release is being handled in the US. Looks like the IMAX marathon (which is 2D unfortunately) starts at 7pm-ish on the 3rd, so Vol.3 will start at around midnight as you say. Then on general release the next day.

In the UK, Disney haven't done any midnight opening screenings since The Rise of Skywalker, so I wouldn't anticipate there being a marathon screening here on the evening of the 2nd.

[RitwikKN2002]

RealD 3D exclusive poster:



https://twitter.com/RealD3D/status/1...593255424?s=20

[b_scott]

I think it's a great idea to base the final volume on justice for Rocket. Personal story about a character we all care about.

[BluBonnet]

Oh, yes we all care about the giant rabbit

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by RitwikKN2002

RealD 3D exclusive poster:



https://twitter.com/RealD3D/status/1...593255424?s=20

Much better than that earlier poster than drew criticism.

Hopefully 3D can add back the dimensionality to Nebula.