Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 3-D promotion in various magazines

   
Author Topic: 3-D promotion in various magazines
Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-23-2009 03:51 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Magazines owned by Time Inc. (Entertainment Weekly, People, Sports Illustrated, Time, and Fortune) this week feature a 13-page 3-D Preview section, complete with glasses bound into the magazine. It's full of ads (in 3-D) and articles about the upcoming slate of 3-D movies.

Problem: IT LOOKS LIKE SHIT! The glasses are something called "Color Code 3-D" (www.3dglassesonline.com) and instead of making the images pop out of the page, they make the images look like you're viewing them through stupid colored glasses.

Believe it or not, it's worse than the Super Bowl TV ad was. If the film companies want to promote 3-D so bad, "demonstrations" in other media are NOT the way to go about it unless their goal is to drive business away.

It also includes an article with a stupid comment by Jeff Katzenberg: "In order to bring people back to the movie theatres, we've got to do something exceptional...." Errrr, Jeff, last time I looked, this year was up quite nicely over last year in 10 out of the last 12 weeks.

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 03-23-2009 05:37 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just saw Monsters Vs Aliens, albeit in 2D. Nothing to write home about. Not a film most will want to watch twice. On par with, i.e., Monster House.

I have enough experience to know that it will look in 3D exactly like a CGI theme park ride like i.e. Shrek 4D. Many shots maximized to out-of-screen effects (i.e. small objects floating, or hands in diagonal sticking out). Plenty of depth everywhere. Only 3 or 4 stero-faults. Some novelty use of cuts.

Once Average Little Joe watches a couples more movies like this, the 3D will mean or add absolutely nothing. Films like this would make the 3D the novelty it's always been: good for a short while, nothing to get too excited about afterwards.

But we all know Hollywood is not waiting for 3D to save them. We know that 3D is only an excuse to move to digital. Now digital will save them, with faster, wider, cheaper distribution and a bit less "middleware".

Perhaps "save" is too strong of a word. Let's change it to "help". 3D will help a bit too, but less than digital will.

3D in magazines if done traditional anaglyph (or any variation like Colorcode) is very tricky and usually doesn't work well in color. Period. It's better not done.

Oh, wait, actually it is not done. Millions of printed publications hit the streets worldwide every month and virtually none in 100 years are in 3D.

There must be a reason, surely.

 |  IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 03-23-2009 05:41 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
One of the thing that annoy me the most is when some present day magazine and newspaper writers who do not know theatrical movie history would report that the 3-D of the films during the fifties were not good because the audience had to wear red and blue glasses and some people used to get headaches. I am pretty sure most of you will agree with me that dual projection 3-D during that period was the best with effects that was just as good as today's systems such as IMAX 3-D.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 03-23-2009 07:24 PM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I just checked out the TIME article. Oh man, that 3D was awful! I had to practically sit under a spotlight to see the 3D effect since the right eye is such a dark blue that almost everything gets cut out. The McDonald's add was the best, but even it paled compared to anaglyph. That's sad when even anaglyph is better. Really sad. The article was pretty boring and I didn't get very far in it.

Check out this picture I took a week or two ago. Red eye = left:

 -

Much more depth and even color than this "color code" nonsense.

 |  IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004


 - posted 03-24-2009 01:10 AM      Profile for Monte L Fullmer   Email Monte L Fullmer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Joe's classic "STRONG" booth! He should do a 3D anaglyph tour of this.

 |  IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002


 - posted 03-27-2009 07:20 PM      Profile for Claude S. Ayakawa   Author's Homepage   Email Claude S. Ayakawa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I used to subscribe to Time Magazine and let it lapse and had to buy the current copy featuring the 3-D article. Although the pictures were dark because of the glasses, the 3-D effect was not that bad in my opinion and the pictures including the ads were interesting. The article in the magazine was just a rehash of other 3-D articles about the resurgence of the format and was not very interesting. One of the comment the article that struck me as incorrect was when the writer said an earlier 3-D film format was photographed with two 65mm cameras. I remember reading a article in the fifties about Natural Vision 3-D with a picture of the big bulky two strip camera with two lens and I do not recall the article stating that the film used was wider than 35mm. Just like others who said earlier 3-D was anaglyph acluding the films of the fifties, the Time magazine writer should have done some correct research before he wrote the 3-D article.

-Claude

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 03-27-2009 09:25 PM      Profile for Mike Blakesley   Author's Homepage   Email Mike Blakesley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I would say the bottom line is that nobody but people like us cares HOW it's done, they only want to find out if stuff comes at ya real cool-like during the movies.

 |  IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 03-28-2009 12:03 AM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The Bloomberg web site had an article posted yesterday about new 3D system installations. The article talked about how the credit crunch reduced the target number of 3D installations Dreamworks had hoped to have ready in time for the release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Still, quite a few new 3D systems are being installed.

quote: Michael White, Bloomberg
March 26 (Bloomberg) -- Theater owners, slowed by funding delays that have hampered the adoption of 3-D technology, raced to complete upgrades for tomorrow’s opening of “Monsters vs. Aliens.”

Regal Entertainment Group, the largest U.S. exhibitor, and Carmike Cinemas Inc. were still converting screens this week for the DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. movie, which casts monsters as good guys defending Earth from an invasion.

The last-minute additions will put “Monsters vs. Aliens” on more than 2,000 screens in the U.S. and Canada, the widest 3- D opening ever. The credit crunch has threatened to spoil the plans of DreamWorks and other Hollywood studios that will release more than a dozen 3-D films this year to increase box- office revenue and entice audiences with the special effects.

“It is something that really cannot be achieved at home,” said Bruce Olson, president of Milwaukee-based Marcus Theatres, which is digging into its own pocket to double the chain’s 3-D screens to 27 out of a total of almost 700.

“Monsters,” featuring the voices of Reese Witherspoon,Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, Rainn Wilson and Stephen Colbert, is expected to take in $55 million in its opening weekend, the estimate of Pali Capital analyst Rich Greenfield.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, chief executive officer of Glendale, California-based DreamWorks Animation, said in July 2007 he hoped 5,000 or more 3-D screens would be ready for the opening, which at the time was set for this summer.

That was before the credit crisis stalled campaigns by two industry groups to borrow as much as $1.7 billion to replace thousands of 35mm projectors with digital equipment.

Bad Timing

DreamWorks officials declined to be interviewed. Enough screens are available worldwide to produce a return on the studio’s investment, Chief Financial Officer Lew Coleman said on a Feb. 24 conference call.

DreamWorks climbed 54 cents, or 2.6 percent, to $21.36 at 4 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading, and has declined 15 percent this year. Regal rose 17 cents to $13.19 on the New York Stock Exchange and Carmike lost 10 cents to $2.55 in Nasdaq trading.

The crunch hit just as studios prepared to release their largest slate of 3-D films. Movies scheduled for later this year include “Avatar,” director James Cameron’s first feature film since “Titanic” in 1997. The movie will be distributed by News Corp.’s Fox studio in December. Walt Disney Co. is releasing the animated Pixar comedy “Up” in May and a 3-D version of the original “Toy Story” in October.

“The timing couldn’t have been worse,” said Michael Campbell, CEO of Knoxville, Tennessee-based Regal, which has almost 6,800 screens.

Added Cost

Conversion to 3-D comes in two steps. First theaters must jettison traditional projectors for digital equipment. Additional modifications are needed to show 3-D films.

A theater can be converted to digital projection for $50,000 to $75,000. Additional equipment needed for 3-D movies, including an add-on for the projector and a new screen, runs $5,000 to $10,000, according to Michael Lewis, chief executive officer of RealD, the largest 3-D equipment supplier.

Carmike switched all of its 2,300 screens to digital on its own in mid-2008 and is bearing the added cost of upgrading to 3- D, Fred Van Noy, chief operating officer of the Columbus, Georgia-based chain, said in an interview.

The company planned to add 3-D to two screens this week, bringing the total to 500, the most of any U.S. chain.

AMC Entertainment Inc., the second-largest theater chain, today announced an agreement with RealD to convert 1,500 of its 4,628 screens to 3-D. Closely held AMC operates about 309 theaters in five countries.

‘People Gravitate’

“If the movie’s good and the effects are there, people just gravitate to this technology,” Van Noy said.

Regal is also putting 3-D hardware on digital projectors this week, Campbell said in an interview. The exhibitor has added 3-D to about 80 screens in recent months to reach about 240 for “Monsters vs. Aliens.”

Owners are making the investment because 3-D films tend to generate two times to four times the box-office sales of regular movies, Carmike’s Van Noy said. They draw bigger audiences of people willing to pay $2 to $3 more per ticket, he said.

“From a business-plan perspective, it’s a very solid investment,” Van Noy said. “Studios are pretty committed to delivering 3-D content in a pretty huge way.”

Analyst Greenfield estimated in a March 18 note that the ticket premium for “Monsters vs. Aliens” will average $3.18 at theaters in the U.S. and Canada. Exhibitors and studios typically split box office sales, making the premium attractive to both, he said.

“They’ll do enough to recoup the costs of the 3-D, but I think there’s more benefit than just what they recoup today,” said Michael Pachter, a Los Angeles-based analyst for Wedbush Morgan Securities. “Seeing the movie in 3-D is an experience and it will make people more likely to see the next one.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Michael White in Los Angeles at mwhite@bloomberg.net.


 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99


 - posted 04-01-2009 10:09 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Google has made THE ENTIRE INTERNET in 3D!!!!!!! Just download and printout the special paper glasses, download and install Google Chrome (Windows XP and Vista only) and BEHOLD!!!!!

http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/chrome/cadie/

3D movies suck compared to this.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)  
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.