It's a smart move, they're selling their movies and show at a high price to other services ravenous for decent contents while Warner, Universal, Netflix etc. are just wasting spending billions...

To me it is a gimmick. If you like it and enjoy it, awesome, but if it is the big selling point of a movie, that usually means the movie is a big piece of shit that needs a gimmick.

No, i miss them every day and i hate people like you for making them go away

Some conversions are very good, though. Most of them are effects heavy, so while the live action often doesn't look great with the 3D conversion, the animation effects are easily retrofitted for 3D. I've been to over 100 3D flicks.

I was just a bit too young when those '80s movies came out but would have loved to have gone to them. I have a 3D TV, though, and bought Metalstorm as one of the BDs. I also own two versions of F13 3D; have watched the anaglyph version but not the active 3D.

>I know that Sony owns Crunchyroll--which only caters to one genre, and technically there's the free Crackle service

Sony sold Crackle.

But it also runs PlayStation network.

That’s 2 streaming services.

Oh interesting! I loved it in 3d, I hope you get to see it on the big screen in 2d in the future :)

The dorety secret is that it took many yesrs for Netflix to turn a profit and most ofnthe streaming services are operating at a loss. The infrastructure for running a streaming service is massively expensive.

I have never experienced a movie which was actually better in 3D. I don't know if it's the awkward glasses, or the expectation my brain has of 2D images on a 2D canvas, but these days I make a point to not watch the 3D version of a movie.

It's not that I don't like them, I just don't believe they improve the experience in any way.

they still make them? This post would have been more relevant like 10 years ago, wtf? Or do you mean cgi/animated movies?

It makes me really nauseous. Even the newer HFR 3D, while less blurry, it still hurts my eyes.

I think streaming is going the other way and you're more likely to see some of these other streaming services fold. Sony understood the market was saturated and it's safer for them to just license their content to other streamers.

I don't know if you realize this, but Peele's films are usually allegorical. And each of his films has felt less and less of a need to overtly spell out the allegory for the audience.

In Get Out the allegory was explained in a exposition dump while Kaluuya is strapped to the chair watching the TV.

In Us the allegory isn't really explained, but the mechanics of the others are. The audience is still left to determine what the surface people and others are suppose to represent in society.

And in Nope nothing is explained beyond conjecture. Yet there is still allegory. I mean there is simple idea of how humans exploit creatures in order to film them. Which involves aligning interests. Throughout the movie this is achieved with the alien by feeding it horses. Yet, this isn't the alien's true motivation, and as such the human characters still view it as savage due to their inability to understand the alien's desires. You can then take this explanation as an allegory for things like slavery. Where slaves were forced to work, and physical punishment was used to ensure work. So that is the physical punishment aligns interests because the slave doesn't want to be whipped for instance and the owner wants labor. Yet when this failed slaves were often talked about as untrainable brutes or savages.

All I'm saying is the allegory of the film is there you just need to put in the effort to look for it.

I agree with this. I really enjoy when 3d is used to create depth a lot more than when it's trying to throw things into my face.

He's mentioned getting production started on something sooner though it hasn't been announced what.

His at the mountains of madness script was pretty terrible and is one of the biggest dodged bullets of all time.

As someone who can't watch 3D movies (chronic migraines with glasses, can't wear the 3D glasses without screwing my head up), I also hate 3D movies, and am a little upset that the theaters around my place don't offer standard releases until a week after the 3D version came out. Ant Man being the most recent example of a film that they released in 3D here but not standard edition.

I thought gravity was pretty good in 3d, but for the most part its white objects on a black background, so I think it would have sold just as well in 2d. If I'm not in a group I will always choose regular because of the glasses over glasses thing.

Lego Movie was good, Ant Man 3, not so much

This post was actually sparked by seeing Titanic 3D. I really really wish it was an option to see it in its original format. I was so distracted.

The book is pretty slow, and you sort of realize that it's probably a metaphor for aging and death part of the way through, and then the end really hits you hard. I can't wait to be an emotional wreck at the end of this

i don't hate them, but I don't want to pay extra for them.

They give me a headache too! And sometimes I need to take the glasses off to rest my eyes a little but then the screen is unwatchable because it’s all blurry. It’s just not a fun time usually.

I thought the same, but then I saw titanic on this rerelease. It’s fantastic. Cameron really gets it.

The best 3d "movies" I saw were Shrek in 4d and T2, both at Universal Studios.

I enjoy 3D. Best case scenario is when they offer both formats and let people choose, so we can all see a movie the way we prefer.