katzenberg3dstunt katzenberg3dstunt

Dreamworks to broadcast 3D MvA trailer

Leave it to Jeffery. No stone is left unturned in promoting a Dreamworks animated feature. Now comes word that the studio will telecast a 3D trailer for Monsters Vs. Aliens during the Super Bowl on Sunday February 1st.

The special 3D glasses required, which are of the old comic book variety (anaglyph, red and blue), will be distributed in Pespi Cola displays in supermarkets nationwide. I’ve been to the press junkets and have seen over 20 minutes of footage from this film in InTruâ„¢ 3D and it looks spectacular. However, for the record, current publicity is painting a picture of 1950s 3D movies which simply isn’t true. The movies released during the 1950s 3D craze (B’wana Devil, House of Wax, Lumberjack Rabbit, etc.) were released in full Technicolor 3D, using polaroid glasses – not using eye-straining red/blue filters.

For your pleasure, some publicity images for 3D films from 1950s:

  • Bob Brouhaha

    According to the following article the glasses used will not be the usual Anaglyph type.

    Link: http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0109/582458.html

    Quote: Katzenberg promised the quality of the 3D will be superior to what has been done in the past. He said the glasses will use Intel InTru 3D and ColorCode 3-D, which updates the old red-blue Anaglyph system.

    The technology will also allow those without the glasses to see an almost ordinary image on the TV screen. But, Katzenberg added, it still doesn’t come close to the 3D quality moviegoers will see in theaters when the film opens stateside March 27.

    PS: If links aren’t allowed please remove it.

  • Andrew

    The idea of 3D films with 3D glasses is, to me, not realistic if you’re looking at it as the future of cinema. For one, the glasses are usually clunky, add to the cost of the ticket, and are more of a hindrance rather than an addition to the experience of watching a movie. If someone can invent a better version of those devices, people may be tempted to use them more often.

  • Pedro Nakama

    I saw part of this movie and I think it’s going to be a big hit.

  • phil

    interesting marketing choice…

    I would be worried that viewers not familiar with polarization in theatres might be turned off by anaglyph glasses, thinking that the whole movie was going to be done in that fashion.

    Oh, and Bolt’s 3d was really incredible, not hard on the eyes at all. So from now on, I will be seeing every movie in 3d when possible.

  • “Leave it to Jeffery. No stone is left unturned in promoting a Dreamworks animated feature.”

    When he promotes a good Dreamworks film that’ll be news, and comment banned.

  • I had a chance to attend a test screening of this film this past November (in good ol’ 2D) and am definitely interested to see how this plays in 3D, the way it was intended to be seen.

  • article boasts “While 3D telecasts are nothing new, this marks the first time one has been done for such a large audience.”

    Back in the 80’s an entire Superbowl halftime was broadcast in 3D. It was “Pulfrich-effect” 3D, not anaglyph, however.

  • So then, what happens when the Super Bowl rolls around, and well more than half of the audience doesn’t have 3D glasses? Some marketing plan…

  • One of the great treats of attending Bolt was seeing trailers in 3D, in the past there wasn’t enough in the pipeline to show trailers. I saw MvA, Coraline, and Up. Up was by far the most interesting. It’s too bad they didn’t include G-force, since it;’s a Disney film. MvA was the weakest, looking like it’s going for broad humor instead of character development (tho I haven’t seen more than the trailer, so I could be wrong) and the humor was only so-so. But Katzenburg has the right idea, this stunt has got us talking about it.

    to Andrew:
    Several companies have demonstrated 3D without glasses, I saw one demo at Siggraph and it worked, but only when you stood at a particular angle to the screen, and the effect was less impressive than the current w/glasses systems. There is a system that takes images from multiple (7, I think) angles and produces a lenticular-like image (similar to those 3D post cards). That seems to have applications at amusement park rides more than theatrical or TV.

  • Katzenberg appears to have something sinister growing out of the top of his head in this picture…

  • Here is the History of Animation Timeline presented in the InTruâ„¢ 3D article linked above:
    1906 First animated film, “Humorous phases of funny faces” uses chalkboard drawings
    1914 “Gertie the Dinosaur,” created by comic strip artist Winsor McCay, is considered the first successful fully animated film
    1928 Disney releases first cartoon with synchronized sound, “Steam Boat Willy,” starring Mickey Mouse
    1930s Comic strip favorites Betty Boop and Popeye the Sailor transition to film
    1937 “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” is the first full-length animated film. It took four years to make and cost $1.5 million
    1964 Julie Andrews dances with animated characters in “Mary Poppins”
    1989 “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” wins three Academy Awards
    1990s Computer-graphics imaging (CGI) goes mainstream
    2001 “Shrek,” produced by DreamWorks Animation, becomes the first Best Animated Feature Film Academy Award winner
    2009 “Monsters vs. Aliens” immerses audiences into the magic of InTruâ„¢ 3D

    I wish the publicity agents could get their facts straight, it’s especially egregious when the try to present a scholarly “timeline”. These are all milestones, no doubt, but their facts are a bit off:
    Humorous Phases of Funny Faces is a very early US film. But in England, Arthur Melbourne Cooper’s Matches: An Appeal enthralled audiences in 1899, and even earlier in the mid 1890’s Emile Reynaud showed animated films before the motion picture film was invented by using an extended version of his Praxinoscope.
    Gertie is a definite masterpiece. But it was not even Winsor McCay’s first film, that was Little Nemo (1911), and it would have to be considered successful. In Paris, Emile Cohl made wonderful short films, like Fantasmagorie (1908) which had a very successful run throughout the world, but it was not the sensation that Gertie would later become. Gertie was the first to show an original character created for animation.
    Steam Boat Willy was a great cartoon, and the first to popularize sound, but Max Fleischer made several sound cartoons a few years earlier.
    “Comic strip favorites Betty Boop and Popeye the Sailor transition to film”. I love these characters, but how is that a milestone? Characters had come from comics since Nemo. Krazy Kat and Mutt & Jeff were also popular decades before. And while we’re at it Betty Boop was a cartoon character first, then presented in comics.
    In publicity of the time Disney identifies Snow White as “our first animated feature” which could accurately apply to the country or the studio. El Apostle (1917) from Argentina and Adventures of Prince Achmed (1929) from Germany both preceded it. Snow White was the first in sound and color, and it was the most successful…by far.
    Julie Andrews dancing with animated characters in “Mary Poppins” is lots of fun, but again, not a milestone. McCay appeared with Gertie, although as a live appearance not an optical trick. Max Fleischer did wonderful live combinations in his Out of the Inkwell series. In features Mickey shook hands with Stokowski in Fantasia (1940), and a few years later Donald Duck played on Acapulco beach in The Three Caballeros (1944).
    Computer graphics going mainstream is a sort of generic acknowledgment. In 1977 audiences saw CG in Star Wars, that is as mainstream as films get, even though it was a wireframe rendering on a screen. But with films like T2 (1991), and Jurassic Park (1993) CG was believable and here to stay, so I’ll give them this one.
    OK “Shrek” is a good film and did win the first feature animation Oscar, but Snow White and Toy Story both won honorary Oscars, if that category had existed in 1937 or 1995 those films surely would have won.
    Who even cares what InTruâ„¢ 3D is? Chicken Little (2005) was the first animated feature in 3D and the first feature film to use 3D digital technology. There were dozens of 3D animated shorts made in the 50’s thru the 90’s.

  • top cat james

    Looks like Larry’s finally been pushed too far. “C’mere, ya chowderhead” *BANG*

    And what’s Shemp using as a weapon… a toilet brush?

  • Killroy McFate

    Is it me, or is Jeffrey shrinking?

  • Saturnome

    Steve Seagal: regarding this Arthur Melbourne Cooper’s Matches film, I actually read some doubts about it’s year of release. It may be a WWI propaganda films. I’m having hard time to find more infos though. But I usually accept Reynaud as the first animated film maker.

  • I also saw part of this movie and I wasn’t really happy with the 3-d thing. Some things looked cool, but in my opinion the stuff that it’s not in 3-d looks blurry and they kinda kill the colors. I find it more distracting than entertaining overall. It’s interesting but I’d rather read the whole screen myself instead of the things they decided to point out.

    The movie itself does look pretty funny, though. It didn’t seem quite as good as Kung Fu Panda IMO, but it looked entertaining.

  • Theodore UShev

    The glasses won’t be red/blue (or cyan) If it is ColorCode 3D, they will be green/violet, which is in principle anaglyph as well, but with better preservation of colors/ghosting. It seems that Intel just “uses” the technology, which is from a Denmark company. I’m curious to see the trailer…

  • Justin

    According to the website the viewers that don’t have 3D glasses will just see faint yellow and blue halos around the objects. They claim that it isn’t very distracting.

  • Ninjew

    I would love to see some of those old shorts restored to their original 3D glory.

    Seeing the Three Stooges, Bugs Bunny and Popeye in 3D would actually be kinda cool…