Early Reviews of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens: Looks Good but Still a Ways to Go

I've been tracking the progression of Dreamwork's Monsters vs. Aliens for some months now, as advertisements hit theatres and the television (including a Super Bowl commercial that failed to impress potential consumers with its 3-D technology). Now early reviews are starting to come out as the film prepares for its March 27th U.S. release date.

Kirk Honeycutt at Rueters enjoyed the plotline of the film and found it quirky and entertaining. He does make mention of an overuse of 3-D "gags;" apparently there are multiple instances of objects flying towards the screen, something that I believe studios have to get over if 3-D is going to have any legitimate place in the future of cinema. Todd McCarthy at Variety doesn't seem to have been too distracted by the 3-D effects, as he limits the mention of them in his review to pointing out one at the very beginning of the film and leaving them out of the rest of his review. Which begs the question: which format did he see it in? It looks like we'll have to wait a few more days before we can get some more substantive reviews about the use of 3-D in Monsters vs. Aliens, so come back later for more reviews!

3-D on TV: Reviews

During Superbowl weekend, two 3D spectacles hit the little screen in living rooms across America. The first was the Monsters vs. Aliens 3D trailer that aired during the Superbowl game; the second was a special episode of Chuck that was filmed in 3D format.

I was unable to watch the Monsters vs. Aliens trailer during the Superbowl, but the review over at First Showing indicates that my fears about the the promotion were right. The quality of the commercial was low, especially since it required the use of the more retro and cheap two-color glasses that are a step backwards in 3D technology. What's more, despite the supposed huge campaign to hand out these glasses, many people had trouble finding them before the game, meaning that a good chunk of the audience was stuck watching a blurry picture on the screen for the duration of the trailer.

Chuck, while still handicapped by the lack of glasses, seems to have done a bit better, though the strong material of the show probably helped carry the technology. I was glad to see that the format of the picture was still watchable without the glasses, so that those who were unable to obtain glasses weren't unable to watch the show. Chuck, aside from opening the episode with a scantily-clad Sarah in Chuck's dream, made fairly good use of the 3D format, only once throwing the obligatory knife at the screen and instead using the technology to add some depth to its Intersect-flash moments and rock concert scenes. Still, the glasses provided were only as good as one can possibly get with free technology. The days of regular 3D programming are far from here.

Paramount Steps up Subsidies for Conversions to 3-D Screens

The Vault is going to take a quick time-out from Oscar coverage to report the latest news bulletin regarding the ongoing project to make theaters nationwide be capable of screening 3-D films. In October, five major film studios signed a contract with three major distribution chains to help pay for the cost of these enhancements. Now Paramount, one of the original five, has gone even further in the assistance it is offering in order to combat the effects of the economic downturn. According to Variety, this new deal bypasses the chain conglomerates of AMC, Cinemark, and Regal Cinemas and instead goes straight to individual theatres, offering to what is called a "'virtual' print fee." Theatres will be rewarded if they convert "at least 50% of screens to digital," with more money offered if those screens are also capable of 3-D projection.


This move comes just a few months before the release of Monsters vs. Aliens, a film that will utilize the 3-D technology. Paramount is obviously hoping that the investment into theatres now will bring in substantial profits later, as box office receipts for three-dimensional prints versus "flat" two-dimensional prints of films has been noticebly higher. Add to that fact that there is a wave of 3-D films due out over the next few years (Variety notes that there are twelve this year alone, while last year there were two) and it stands in the best interest of studios and theatres alike to see that they are ready to meet the coming film season.

3-D Looking to Become a more Permanent TV Fixture

Readers must forgive the Vault for its inundation of 3-D posts of late, but news just seems to be pouring out of the wood works. Just take a gander at this Monday Los Angeles Times article, which discusses moves that are being made to potentially make three-dimensional pictures a more regular feature on television. The Consumers Electronics Show this weekend will be featuring several televisions from various companies that are "capable of displaying 3-D like pictures." Part of the recent interest comes from concerned movie studios who want to make sure they get the most bang for their buck for investing in expensive three-dimensional escapades by allowing consumers to purchase a 3-D version for home. The studios have an excellent point. 3-D is all fine and dandy on the big screen, but how will that translate to the box in your living room? Current technology means you either opt for the "flat version," or try out a 3-D version complete with old-school red-and-blue glasses, like in The Polar Express remake released late last year. Unfortunately, the attempts to translate the technology from one screen to another have failed; scroll down to "Customer Discussions" on the above link and you will find some very unhappy people who switched off the format ten minutes into the movie. The new televisions that are being displayed this weekend are supposed to be taking a step forward towards smoothing out the major kinks in home-viewing experiences by adapting the advances made in theatre to these smaller venues. Philips even has developed a TV that doesn't require glasses to view the three-dimensional format.

It seems unlikely that a 3-D wave is going to come crashing into the television market anytime soon, especially with the dubiousness of the success of the technology in film. That won't stop TV execs from trying to hook audiences: look for a 3-D episode of Chuck to air after the Super Bowl! Apparently NBC thought that all the glasses wandering around for the Monsters Vs. Aliens trailer that will air during the game were too good an opportunity to pass up and announced last November that they would be putting together a special episode in that format. As a fan of Chuck, my question is this: will the transmission of a 3-D picture mean that those who don't want to watch it in that format will be stuck with a blurry picture? As much as I'm interested in seeing how the technology fares for an entire hour, I'd hate for people to turn away from the show because they can't view it. Check back for more details here as they emerge.

Superbowl Monsters Vs. Aliens Ad in 3-D: A Step Backwards?

With 2009 promising to be the year to see if 3-D movies can gain traction in Hollywood, I was intrigued by an announcement that Dreamworks will be airing a 3-D trailer for Monsters vs. Aliens during the Super Bowl. Peter Sciretta in the above link expresses doubt at how well this publicity stunt will turn out, and I'm inclined to agree. While the promotion may help spread the word about the format of the film, it may also reinforce the perception of the technology as a tacky gimick, the exact opposite opinion studios want potential audiences to be forming. Sciretta has reportedly discovered that the glasses that will be given away with Pepsi will use a slightly different process than the old red-and-blue glasses, but the quality will not be much improved. In addition, the glasses will still be the cheap cardboard kind, which cannot help the image of 3-D. There will of course be people out there who will realize that the cardboard is not the same material as the glasses in theatres, but there is a good chance others will be turned off by the 3-D trailer.

And a movie that is bound to used as evidence that 3-D will never be a serious format is the upcoming release of My Bloody Valentine 3-D. The film's quality mirrors that of many of the old fifties horror flicks that doomed the technology in the past (For more Vault discussion on 3-D from earlier decades, see my previous post). But hope is on the way if Monsters vs. Aliens can pull off a decent success; if it doesn't, then Pixar's Up should have a good run at showing any potential in the process. If Pixar can't pull off 3-D, then I don't believe anyone can.

Glasses of the Future?: A Review of Bolt and 3-D

A little over a month ago, I posted at the Vault my thoughts on the future of 3-D film making, writing that I believed that the technology has a viable future in cinema. This weekend, I had the good fortune to find friends who would indulge me in my request to not only see the new Disney animated feature Bolt, but to see it in a three-dimensional screening as well. The film, which was the first at Disney to be produced under Pixar-head John Lasseter, follows the saga of titular hero Bolt, a dog who is unaware that his "super powers" are the result of television special effects, a fact he discovers as he journeys cross-country to find his owner, Penny. The movie is also the first of several using the 3-D process to be released by animation companies over the next few years. While my experience revealed that the use of 3-D is by no means flawless, I saw hope for the technique.

To start with, the perennial glasses provided by 3-D company RealD are a step up from the bulky contraption I used the last time I saw a film of this nature. They were as lightweight and as comfortable as everyday sunglasses, resting easily on the head and causing no problems during the film. As for the screening itself, I found myself agreeing with the test audiences of the 3-D Journey to the Center of the Earth mentioned in an article in The Guardian in my last post. Those viewers complained that too many cuts made them unable to appreciate the depth of the images created by watching a film in three-dimensions. My impression of the action sequences of Bolt was that they were distracting because of their blurriness; before the picture could settle and my eyes could reestablish the 3-D effect, there would be a cut to another shot. Since the opening ten minutes of the canine movie was a lengthy chase scene, I worried that the quality of 3-D was not what I had hoped. Later parts in the film, though, proved my doubts wrong. Quieter, more contemplative scenes that allowed for long camera holds showed how powerful the depth of field of 3-D could be. At one point, Bolt and his friends sit in a hilly meadow, and I felt like the grassy plains really did extend into the distance. Another powerful moment contained Bolt clambering through a burning building. The three-dimensional effect of iron beams resting askew on top of each other provided a perilous jungle environment that looked real enough for a person to clamber over. These instances lead me to believe that the technique of 3-D will definitely have a place in cinema in the future.

What do other bloggers think of 3-D and Bolt? Karen Dahlstrom of Big Picture Big Sound was mesmerized by it, writing that the technique was "appropriate and seamless." She also gives the interesting observation that since it renders the animation on a more realistic scale, it might be "too harrowing for young children." Bruce Handy at The New York Times is more of the opinion that Hollywood is going through another fad, making comparisions to the earlier three-dimensional boom of the 1950s. He makes great use of news articles from that era to show the relative rise and fall of the technology during its first foray into mainstream cinema. Finally Sherwin Loh of The Straits Times thinks the movie is a definite step up from the usual gimmicky affairs associated with 3-D, as Disney focused more on enveloping viewers in the environment than in making them duck from flying objects. The bottom line, however, is that it will take more than one successful application of the process in a film to prove that 3-D is here to stay. With several such movies slated for release next year, we will have to wait to render a more thorough analysis.

Blast from the Past: The Future of 3-D Films

The latest news to be brought to the attention of readers of The Vault is this: a decades-old fad may soon be coming to a theaters everywhere. On October 1, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Universal and Lionsgate signed a deal with Regal Cinemas, AMC and Cinemark to cover "the majority of the costs" to upgrade their cinemas with new digital systems. Roughly 14,000 locations will be affected by this agreement, which will take three years to fully enact. While the main benefit is that films can now be transferred to venues "over a phone line" instead of in physical reels, studios are licking their chops about an intended side effect: these 14,000 screens will now be ready to play 3-D pictures. The contract is the newest manifestation of what seems to be a growing interest in this format, as evidenced by its use over the last year in the films Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Disney announced in September that it is developing sixteen three-dimensional movies, including the nearly completed Bolt, which is scheduled to release in November. The prominent animation company is not the only one diving headfirst into this niche in the market. Given that this style of filmmaking has often been much maligned, it may be surprising to some that the technology is being invested in so wholeheartedly. But the revelation that the three-dimensional version of Journey to the Center of the Earth sold three times as many tickets as the standard version has many rethinking their past criticisms. It is my opinion that a combination of poor content and inadequate projection capabilities has been largely responsible for the failure of 3-D to gain traction. Both of these obstacles appear to be well on their way to being conquered, making the format a viable medium for the future.

As I just mentioned, a large hurdle preventing the proliferation of 3-D films has long been the technology itself. In his article on the history of three-dimensional effects, Andy Rose of Movie Maker discusses how early products created "severe eye strain after short periods of time" or required the head to be held at a precise angle for the effect to work. This is certainly not an experience that will garner repeat business. But today, companies such as RealD 3D have resolved many of these problems through such innovations as digital projection and polarized glasses that allow freedom of movement and prevent physical pain. RealD has even made it possible for those who are color-blind to view three-dimensional pictures. Not everything is completely solved, however, as filmmakers are still discovering the best way to handle the new medium. When Journey to the Center of the Earth was screened for test audiences, they showed a dislike for the rapid cuts inherent in an action movie and instead wanted longer sequences that would allow a full appreciation of the depth of the image before them. This may mean that the three-dimensional method should not be used for fast-paced adventure films and instead be reserved for more contemplative pieces that allow for longer camera shots. Like all new techniques, it will take some time for a total understanding of 3-D to be realized, but this should not discourage its use altogether.

The process of 3-D is hardly new and innovative. Jeremy Kay at The Guardian explains that it is actually over a century old. It gained popularity during the 1950s as studios tried to compete with television by providing an experience that could only be found in theaters. But the craze died out, aside from a few sporadic releases over the next few decades. Why? A good portion of the blame can be charged to poor storylines that most likely would have failed even without the added projection "gimmick." By examining a list of 3-D movies during the 1950s (scroll down to find the relevant section) one can discover such gem titles as Cat Women of the Moon, Revenge of the Creature and Jesse James vs. the Daltons. Admittedly, some, like Kiss Me, Kate and Hondo, were of quality content, but by and large these were overshadowed by the plethora of cheaply made horror and fantasy flicks. Films in later decades were hardly better; Jaws 3D is a prime example. With the future of 3-D resting on the above-mentioned material, it is little wonder that studios saw small promise in the format. But the pictures that are slated for development seem to be aiming for a higher level of excellence overall. For instance, Disney's Pixar, which has turned out one hit movie after another, will release all of its future products in 3-D according to the announcement I referenced earlier in this post. Studios with solid credentials such as these can hopefully be trusted not to sacrifice elements like plot when putting this new technology to work.

Some, including none other than prominent film critic Roger Ebert, believe that 3-D detracts too much from the story itself; Ebert goes so far as to say he will view Journey again in standard form "to see the movie inside the distracting technique." I concede that, for a long time, his criticism has held true. As Ebert points out, viewers of many 1950s movies were unable to become engrossed in the plots since they were continuously being startled by "thrown" objects. But 3-D was a novelty several decades ago and as such, the studios could not resist showing it off. Today's audiences are much more familiar with the process and are already accepting of how the film is being presented, allowing them to enjoy the experience as a whole. I recently had the opportunity to view Hondo in a restored three-dimensional print. Although the Western was not devoid of spears hurled towards the camera, the intimate feeling it created, akin to watching a stage show, albeit on a large scale, impressed me. The screening proved that 3-D can enhance a performance by being an adornment that aids in the overall production, not the key idea around which a film is constructed. The technology will most likely continued to be perfected to render the clearest picture possibles. It is up to the artists of the cinema world to make the most of it.