Avengers: Age of Ultron 3D Blu-ray (2015) [Region Free]

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Well said Suntory.
While I love strong 3D pop outs, it's tough for a film to find a story driven excuse to include them in nearly every shot unless the movie calls for it based on its theme. See Turtle's Tales 2 as an example of constant pop outs thanks to the fact they're swimming in water as if floating, allowing for maximum pop outs in many shots.

But yeah, relating to Avengers 2, the pop outs were hardly there.

I've yet to see Avengers 2. I have seen I think two films in cinemas this year, neither where worth the price of admission either. I prefer just watching from the comfort of my home with better video, audio, food, drinks (if I so desire) and more comfy seats.

Once I add the cost of fuel etc, it is just cheaper to flatly blind buy films I want to see in 3d then seer them in a cinema, doubly so if I wait for a sale on 3d blu.

[levcore]

Out today in the UK, will be picking this up at lunchtime. I enjoyed this way more than the first movie.

[Radioactive]

Have we given up completely on Wal-Mart exclusive slips? Would be tres cool to have, although I'm sufficiently satisfied by the standard 3D cover.

[tehill]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I've yet to see Avengers 2. I have seen I think two films in cinemas this year, neither where worth the price of admission either. I prefer just watching from the comfort of my home with better video, audio, food, drinks (if I so desire) and more comfy seats.

Once I add the cost of fuel etc, it is just cheaper to flatly blind buy films I want to see in 3d then seer them in a cinema, doubly so if I wait for a sale on 3d blu.

I mostly agree, I do like watching a film on a giant screen, however the quality is much better at home

[Gizz]

Last night was the firs time that I had seen it in 3D and It was quite good in 3D but I still think the first film is better. But I think the 3D was better in this film.

[levcore]

First 3D rewatch last night at home, after seeing it in Imax 3D in theatres. I think the change to scope makes the movie more cinematic but obviously the full screen 3D presentation was one of the best things about the first movie. I think the 3D is on a par with the first or perhaps the first had ever so slightly stronger 3D. It's hard to say due to the change in ratio, i just think the 3D comes off better in Avengers 1. That said the 3D is still great here throughout. I think the movie is far superior to the first movie, which i never really cared for. This one actually has a story and lots of fun action scenes, i also prefer Ultron as a villain. It still has a lot of the same problems as the first movie, such as awful Whedon dialogue and puns but i found it much more enjoyable overall.

Compared to the first though i hardly noticed any pop outs whereas in the first movie the Chitauri were flying out of the screen as well as Iron Man. Maybe it's the widescreen lessening the effect i don't know.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by levcore

Compared to the first though i hardly noticed any pop outs whereas in the first movie the Chitauri were flying out of the screen as well as Iron Man. Maybe it's the widescreen lessening the effect i don't know.

It's less a case of the widescreen lessening the effect and more a case of it being just another boringly conservative conversion. Nice depth, nothing more to say about it.

The sad thing is that Whedon shot the first one in 1.78:1 because he knew it would help the 3D, but idiots complained that it looked like a TV movie (which it certainly didn't in 3D) so he was made to go scope for the sequel.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by the13thman

It's less a case of the widescreen lessening the effect and more a case of it being just another boringly conservative conversion. Nice depth, nothing more to say about it.

The sad thing is that Whedon shot the first one in 1.78:1 because he knew it would help the 3D, but idiots complained that it looked like a TV movie (which it certainly didn't in 3D) so he was made to go scope for the sequel.

I read it was to do with framing the Hulk within the set pieces they had with the other characters. The dop from the first avengers is very hit or miss, at his best he is essentially top tier, but when he misses he is good but far from great.

Originally Posted by tehill

I mostly agree, I do like watching a film on a giant screen, however the quality is much better at home

I like the idea of going to a cinema, I don't like the idea of paying a massive sum for the tickets (which where I live are now way overpriced), then having to pay for very overpriced food or drink (of which they don't sell things I want anyway) or I have to sneak it in, sitting through up to 50 minutes of adds (I actually timed this, and it was before a film that went for 80 minutes though they usually 'only go' for 30 minutes, which is 30 minutes to long), then hope I don't get annoying/disturbing audience members and the pay off, essentially seeing a big often sub par presentation earlier then I could see at home.

Or I could wait for the home release..... In all fairness I do have a nice cinema nearby that mostly plays older films, is kept clean, can't recall there being any adds, presentation has always been good unless impossible (eg: and old film that simply doesn't have any quality prints left), but they sadly don't do 3d currently. But fast food cinemas (chain cinemas), I don't have time for them beyond the very rare occasion (The Martian may be on such example that gets me to the cinema).

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I read it was to do with framing the Hulk within the set pieces they had with the other characters. The dop from the first avengers is very hit or miss, at his best he is essentially top tier, but when he misses he is good but far from great.

Apparently lots of people complained that while all the other Marvel movies were in scope format, The Avengers wasn't. Look at these comments left on Amazon as an example:

"I prefer purchasing/watching in widescreen format (which I did because its listed as widescreen on the casing) and was very disappointed when I played the movie and it is displayed like a full screen version.

Does anyone feel ripped off? All my other Marvel movies are in widescreen format... why not this one?"

"All my prior Marvel movie collection is the standard widescreen (I just bought The Incredible Hulk Blu-ray and was happy to watch it with the black bars) and very sad that out of all movies, "Avengers" had to be changed from what I'm used to watching. Boooooooo!!!!!"

"Thanks everyone for educating me on the different aspects of Widescreen. I just hope maybe one day that I will own a copy of The Avengers Widescreen Edition 2.35:1 (Black Bars)."

You'd have thought that the AOU cinematographer (who worked on Guardians Of The Galaxy and Wrath Of The Titans) would know that 3D looks better in 1.78:1 but after the negativity around the ratio for the first film it simply wasn't even an option... the idiots won.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Apparently lots of people complained that while all the other Marvel movies were in scope format, The Avengers wasn't. Look at these comments left on Amazon:

"I prefer purchasing/watching in widescreen format (which I did because its listed as widescreen on the casing) and was very disappointed when I played the movie and it is displayed like a full screen version.

Does anyone feel ripped off? All my other Marvel movies are in widescreen format... why not this one?"

"All my prior Marvel movie collection is the standard widescreen (I just bought The Incredible Hulk Blu-ray and was happy to watch it with the black bars) and very sad that out of all movies, "Avengers" had to be changed from what I'm used to watching. Boooooooo!!!!!"

"Thanks everyone for educating me on the different aspects of Widescreen. I just hope maybe one day that I will own a copy of The Avengers Widescreen Edition 2.35:1 (Black Bars)."

You'd have thought that the AOU cinematographer (who worked on Guardians Of The Galaxy and Wrath Of The Titans) would know that 3D looks better in 1.78:1 but after the negativity around the ratio for the first film it simply wasn't even an option... the idiots won.

I think there is a different reason. He has already done multiple aspect ratios, with it opening up to 1.78:1 for the 3d presentation with Wraith (not sure how it is at home, but in cinemas the 2d release was scope, 3d was 1.78:1). For cinemas scope works better anyway as it just gives more picture info to the sides if the cinema is set up correctly.

The person you quoted is simply ignorant, the only way a scope version could be made would to be to crop the image, which is not what was intended. Also since when is 1.78:1 not widescreen.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I think there is a different reason. He has already done multiple aspect ratios, with it opening up to 1.78:1 for the 3d presentation with Wraith (not sure how it is at home, but in cinemas the 2d release was scope, 3d was 1.78:1). For cinemas scope works better anyway as it just gives more picture info to the sides if the cinema is set up correctly.

The person you quoted is simply ignorant, the only way a scope version could be made would to be to crop the image, which is not what was intended. Also since when is 1.78:1 not widescreen.

Wrath is 1.78:1 on 3D Blu. Scope is deemed to be more "epic" and is indeed best for most cinemas, but then you have IMAX screens, which suit the fuller frame. AOU doesn't even have IMAX sequences like GOTG does - it is scope purely as a result of ignorant dunderheads complaining about the aspect ratio for the first film. I guess by now some people don't even remember 4:3 TVs so to them 1.78:1 is "full screen"...

[micnic]

As an owner of a scope screen at home I was always bothered by the AR of the first Avengers movie (simply doesn't fit this kind of movie). So at least this is something to look forward to (haven't seen the movie yet). But I was quiet with my complaints so far.

[levcore]

It's a shame that the vocal idiots got to dictate the AR of the sequel.

Ant-Man will be 'full screen' so they better get used to it.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by micnic

As an owner of a scope screen at home I was always bothered by the AR of the first Avengers movie (simply doesn't fit this kind of movie). So at least this is something to look forward to (haven't seen the movie yet). But I was quiet with my complaints so far.

The first Spider-Man and Hulk movies weren't scope and they both looked great but, to be fair, if I had a scope TV then I'd want everything in that format too!

[bigrob]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Apparently lots of people complained that while all the other Marvel movies were in scope format, The Avengers wasn't. Look at these comments left on Amazon as an example:

"I prefer purchasing/watching in widescreen format (which I did because its listed as widescreen on the casing) and was very disappointed when I played the movie and it is displayed like a full screen version.

Does anyone feel ripped off? All my other Marvel movies are in widescreen format... why not this one?"

"All my prior Marvel movie collection is the standard widescreen (I just bought The Incredible Hulk Blu-ray and was happy to watch it with the black bars) and very sad that out of all movies, "Avengers" had to be changed from what I'm used to watching. Boooooooo!!!!!"

"Thanks everyone for educating me on the different aspects of Widescreen. I just hope maybe one day that I will own a copy of The Avengers Widescreen Edition 2.35:1 (Black Bars)."

You'd have thought that the AOU cinematographer (who worked on Guardians Of The Galaxy and Wrath Of The Titans) would know that 3D looks better in 1.78:1 but after the negativity around the ratio for the first film it simply wasn't even an option... the idiots won.

These reviewers on amazon should not be allowed internet access

[micnic]

Originally Posted by the13thman

The first Spider-Man and Hulk movies weren't scope and they both looked great but, to be fair, if I had a scope TV then I'd want everything in that format too!

Movies in all formats can look great and I don't want everything in scope. I watch a lot of old academy format movies and don't have any problem with them. I just have my preference for certain kind of films, that's all.
The decision about the AR of a movie should always be an artistic one.

[Wootini]

Dear God. I remember back in the day when people would complain about the black bars on their rented videotapes! One time I was renting a tape from a place just as a woman was returning hers complaining that there were black bars obscuring the picture. The clerk politely attempted to explain letterboxing and aspect ratios, but she wasn't having it.

And now that we have widescreen TVs and TV itself is now broadcast in widescreen, it's not wide enough for people and they WANT the black bars? That would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad…

On topic: Jealous that the UK gets this early. I won't get mine for a couple weeks yet. But glad to hear the 3D is good. I only got to see this in 2D in the theater because my husband hates 3D. So at home is the only way I can see most of these in 3D. At least I take comfort that I won't have to worry about shoddy 3D alignment or dark projections or anything like that at home!

[bud_brigman]

Originally Posted by Wootini

Dear God. I remember back in the day when people would complain about the black bars on their rented videotapes! One time I was renting a tape from a place just as a woman was returning hers complaining that there were black bars obscuring the picture. The clerk politely attempted to explain letterboxing and aspect ratios, but she wasn't having it.

Had the exact same experience back in the day. As someone who paid extra for the letterbox videotapes, I was surprised when DVD became the norm that OAR was supported almost all of the time.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Wootini

Jealous that the UK gets this early. I won't get mine for a couple weeks yet. But glad to hear the 3D is good. I only got to see this in 2D in the theater because my husband hates 3D. So at home is the only way I can see most of these in 3D. At least I take comfort that I won't have to worry about shoddy 3D alignment or dark projections or anything like that at home!

Just got mine today. My wife doesn't like watching films at home in the dark so I have to find time to watch it.

Days Of Future Past was the last film I had ruined by shoddy 3D alignment so I don't watch 3D films locally any more, I have to shell out big bucks to see them in central London.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by the13thman

Just got mine today. My wife doesn't like watching films at home in the dark so I have to find time to watch it.

Days Of Future Past was the last film I had ruined by shoddy 3D alignment so I don't watch 3D films locally any more, I have to shell out big bucks to see them in central London.

My understanding was alignment issues shouldn't happen. You literally have to set up your equipment in the wrong manner to get it don't you? Makes me glad most cinemas go for a one projector solution as even with digital they can't handle two it seems.