Is that new "Avatar" movie intended for an audience of furries?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

I've been hearing a lot of hype, but I've seen the previews and I just don't get it.

[proteus_lives]

1. Isn't a tech hype?

You know for 3-D, the level of special effects and all that?

Because the story and plot is nothing original.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Yeah, this 3-D was played out in the sixties.

Old gimmick is old.

I suspect, or at least hope, that this is the high water mark for 3-D and it goes away after this. I didn't mind 3-D in kids movies like Journey to the Center of the Earth, or bad horror movies like that one about the miner that had something to do with Valentine's day. But c'mon. 3-D is not the sign of a good movie.

[JCMach1]

4. The studios feel 3D is a way to prevent pirates!

Try making a theatre screener of a 3D movie. Ain't gonna happen.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Really?

Sounds a little tinfoily.

[JCMach1]

13. Here you go-

Jeffrey Katzenberg popped into Sydney this week to display some secret segments of Monsters V Aliens. The movie (which has Stephen Colbert playing the President) looks hilarious, and the 3D effects are quite astonishing. It’s not a gimmick – you’re right there.

But it seems that the movie isn’t just a movie, it’s a revolution. Katzenberg and Dreamworks are taking 3D very seriously. How serious? Try ‘we’re only making movies in 3D now’ serious.

Here are the best bits from his Q+A:


Where do you see the future of 3D?
I think it will have the same effect as sound in the 30’s and colour in the 40's - within five years you didn't see any silent films or any black and white films. I know it's hard to imagine now, but I really believe that almost everything you see in movie theatres in five to six years will be in 3D.
It's how we see. I don't think it matters if it's a big action movie or a drama. It intensifies the emotions. It's not about 'breaking the proscenium'. It's actually the opposite. It's about immersing the audience in the storytelling itself.

I think we will look back 8 years from now and say that this was the moment.


Have you had difficulties getting the technology into theatres?
It's an opportunity for exhibitors. There hasn't been any innovations in movie theatres for decades, whereas in the home there's been innovations like crazy over the past ten years with flat screens, digital stereo surround sound and HD. This is the first thing that has come along that trumps everything at home in a big and significant way.
It will migrate to the home, but five years after the cinema. This is finally a reason for people who stopped going to the theatre to come back. The distributors are actively involved in financing the role out of digital. Bolt will be released this week in the US on 1400 theatres, when Monsters V Aliens comes out next year we hope to roll out on 2500 theatres, by the time the next Shrek movie comes out in Summer of 2010, I expect 75% to 80% of admissions in North America will be in 3D.


How much does it cost?
We spend $150 million making an animated movie. This process ads another $15 million. We have hired another 150 people at our studio, and they are only working on 3D.


The cost to cinemagoers will be an extra $5 per ticket - is this 3D just a cynical exercise to earn more cash?
In a very dramatic way, people have sought out the premium experience, with 3D movies like U2 in concert. Yes it's more, but you get more for your money.


How has 3D effected Dreamworks Animation?
Madagascar 2 was the last 2D film made at the studio. Virtually the whole studio has been converted. It has changed virtually every aspect of the filmmaking process, from pre-production to special effects.


Is this also a piracy prevention exercise?
90% of all piracy is some guy coming into the movie theatre with a camcorder. They look like crap. If you take your glasses off in 3D, the screen looks like crap, so any piracy attempts will be double crap! It is a boon for us in terms of anti-piracy... http://www.scifitv.com.au/Blog/2008/11/Katzenberg-Converts-Dreamworks-To-3d-Production/

[Richardo]

15. 3D adds 10% to the cost of the movie, and >50% to the price of the ticket?

I think we have our answer.

[Ptah]

16. How about two video cameras?

:shrug:

[Frank Cannon]

12. The new 3-D is here to stay

It's about the only thing drawing people to spend craploads of money to see a movie in a theater anymore. Why in the hell would anyone drop $10+ to see the latest Jennifer Aniston rom-com crapfest on a big screen?

I think 3-D, like any other special effect, is a tool that can and should be used in the service of a good story, characters, etc. I wouldn't say 3-D is the sign of a bad movie, but it certainly won't make a bad movie better.

[rcrush]

3. All CGI aliens are lame

I demand real people.

[kentauros]

5. What about hand-drawn aliens?

:D

[rcrush]

6. Is that his wang?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. That was the unfunniest Naked Gun movie ever.

But fuck yeah- hand drawn, I'd take that over motion capture any day.

At the end of the credits of the last Pixar movie I saw there was a little tag "100% animation- no motion capture was used in the production of this film." Now that's quality.

[kentauros]

9. In a way, rotoscoping is "motion capture animation".

Fleischer Studios used it extensively (Gulliver's Travels, for one), Disney picked it up for many of their big fairy-tales and it was used most recently, in Richard Linklater's movies "A Scanner Darkly" and "Waking Life".

I'm more interested in a good story and great characters to tell it. Doesn't matter how they deliver the story, so long as it's compelling :D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Yes, there's nothing in animation that gets my goat more than rotoscoping.

I'm not bugged by Fleischer using it, that was very early and those were experiments.

And the Disney animators, IIRC, used it in their studies of movement but not the actual film. In Bambi, for instance, they'd film fawns, drawn them over and over, using rotoscope, etc. But the final product was hand drawn.

But others? Fucking Ralph Bakshi? C'mon.

[kentauros]

11. So, Sleeping Beauty was not rotoscoped?

The motion looks too smooth to be hand-drawn, even if they did it over and over.

I like Ralph Bakshi, so there goes your opinion of mine :P

[CatholicEdHead]

14. It is targeted to those who grew up playing 3D video games

And the general hard core gaming market in general.

[MilesColtrane]

17. I read in an interview with Cameron in which he said that the camera he developed changes..

the way the 3D image is seen on the screen. Something technical about the focal plane.

It sounds like the visual equivalent of regular stereo versus binaural stereo.

The Daily Mail described it like this:

If you've had previous experience of 3D, your impression will probably be one of a flattish image with the occasional object 'flying' at you'.

But these advances are different - the entire screen has depth, taking on the appearance of a window through which the viewer is watching a 'world' on the screen, with a distinct foreground and background, rather than a flat, moving painting.

In effect, the cinema screen becomes a theatre stage.

[rcrush]

18. Is this movie good or is it just a bunch of CGI and 3D crap?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Haven't seen it.

But it looks like somebody gave Jar Jar Binks his own Christmas movie in Smurfland.

[Richardo]

20. From what I've seen in the trailers it's an averagely-rendered CG game

Even the actors look CG. x(

[rcrush]

21. I think the blue alien smurfs are actually all CGI.

It looked like a cool movie until I saw the ALL CGI Aliens. That just screams lazy to me. Why cant we have actual actors or puppets anymore?

[CatholicEdHead]

22. Get around the actors' unions by using CGI