Comments on: Roger Deakins Says Don’t See ‘Blade Runner 2049’ In 3D

By: Newfirelock

Newfirelock — Sun, 29 Oct 2017 00:47:00 +0000

https://www.facebook.com/notes/james-rogers-bush/blade-runner-eyeball-to-eyeball/1570913292965001/

By: nNark

nNark — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:51:00 +0000

In fact, he never says to not see it in 3-D. He DOES say that he prefers the 2-D version, as intended. He even allows the 3-D may be a “compromise worth accepting if you are a fan of 3D.” BIG difference between that and your clickbait headline! Sorry, but The Playlist (and all news sites) loses major points with crap like this. Have the staff look up “journalism.”

By: videopat

videopat — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:16:00 +0000

There’s never a reason to watch ANYTHING in 3D. I don’t understand why some people seek out a 3D showing, when presumably all the clips that sold them in the first place were in 2D. Why would anyone think wearing dark glasses in a dark theater is going to make the experience BETTER? Native stereoscopic or post conversion … it DOES NOT MATTER. You have filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, J.J. Abrams, Guillermo del Toro and now Roger Deakins actively telling people to see their films in regular, old 2D. Haven’t we all learned by now that 3D is a joke?

By: videopat

videopat — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:11:00 +0000

In reply to KEVIN. The only way to EVER go is 2D.

By: imajez

imajez — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:49:00 +0000

In reply to Kevin Jagernauth. Which is still not Widescreen, as Deakins recommended.

By: KEVIN

KEVIN — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:44:00 +0000

I wasn’t sure which way to go. If it had been playing in imax 3d at my local theater ,I probably would have seen that.

Thankfully they only had imax 2d for this particular no film, and it looked absolutely fantastic. They had basic 3d not imax but I read that the conversion was quite dark.

I would still like to seen it in imax 3d just for the heck of it.

By: Jimmy Siu Yan Ngai

Jimmy Siu Yan Ngai — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 06:56:00 +0000

I’ve seen it in both IMAX 2D and 3D versions and agree the former format is more visually satisfying. The conversion is rather hopelessly dull.

By: mikecpi

mikecpi — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 23:12:00 +0000

I saw it in 3D and realized it was a post-production conversion early on. Very dull coversion at that – very little sense of depth for 3D. I saw it a second time in 2D and enjoyed the brighter screen. Recommended to friends planning to see the show to do so in 2D.

By: Hyoobaloinz

Hyoobaloinz — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:28:00 +0000

I saw it in 3D & it was incredible! Super immersive. Loved it so much that I’ll prob see it again in the Dolby 2D theater, to check out the improved dynamic range.

By: Kevin Jagernauth

Kevin Jagernauth — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:03:00 +0000

In reply to Barry Munkton. Read closely guy, I said IMAX 2D.

By: Barry Munkton

Barry Munkton — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:38:00 +0000

Deakins recommends seeing the film in widescreen 2D, but I guess if the writer of this article thinks IMAX 3D is better then we should just ignore Deakins and go with… Kevin who?

By: ander2faces

ander2faces — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:21:00 +0000

Here in Brazil, the majority of copies are 3D. The few 2D versions are scattered on awful schedules and most of the times are dubbed in portuguese (something that completely ruins the film).

The 3D actually didn’t bother me as much as I thought it would, but it is also completely unnecessary.

By: RyanT

RyanT — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:06:00 +0000

Dolby Cinema. Looks a ton better than digital IMAX (no screen door effect), proper aspect ratio, HDR, and Dolby Atmos. Oh and recliners instead of stadium seating.