It wouldn't be JimHillmedia.com without a fawning, sycophant article about Dreamworks animation.

Why is this news?!? Disney has been doing 3D for the last 3 years!! Disney has done Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and Bolt ALL in 3D.

But since Dreamworks (aka Johnny come lately) has done it, that means that it is SOOOO AWESOME.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

The difference between Disney's 3D and Dreamworks' 3D is when the 3D is done. Disney's 3D is added in post-production where, as Jim mentioned, Dreamworks renders the movie in 3D. I believe this is the first time this kind of 3D has been done.

It really is phenomenal looking.

Why does everyone wave red-blue anaglyphic glasses around when they say "this is not your father's 3D"?  Red-blue 3D has been relegated to cereal boxes and activity books for years now; even Magic Journeys at Epcot in 1982 used polarized lenses.  Color anaglyphic hasn't been the state of the art in almost thirty years.

That said, 3-D isn't going to be the wave of the future until glasses that actually fit well over prescription frames are widely available.  And even then, I still seem to have problems with the focus, I think due to the distance the polarized lenses are from my eyes (due to the intervening corrective lenses).  I'm still not sure I actually get the full experience at Muppet*Vision, Honey I Shrunk the Audience, or Shrek 3D.  I did see Meet the Robinsons in 3D and it was all right but I don't think it was necessary either.

Having done some 3D photography and video, I think Jeffry Katzenburg may be in for a surprise. I hope that he's not in for the surprise I think he's in for becuase I do want this new 3D thing to take off. I don't thik it will. Why? Because no matter what you do there will always be a segment of the audience that won't see the effects. I was terribly unimpresseds with Disney's Real D version of Meet the Robinsons. I loved the movie but I ended up taking off the 3D glasses. I haven't seen the stuff that Dream Works has done in 3D. I should get to a theater and hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised. However, it's not 3D that will see the picture. It's the story and only the story that will sell it.

Ok..tough crowd.  Disney fans sure do make their distant for Katzenberg so transparent.  He could release an amazing movie and there will still be those same mouth-breather fans of Disney that will never forgive him for leaving the mouse and going out on his own (an being quite successful at it too!)

However, you should all be aware that 3D now is very different from even back in the "Magic Journey" days.  Not all polarized #D is created equal. I went to a seminar at the directors guild here in LA all about new 3D technology.  It opened my eyes to the fact that there is so much more involved with it.  they have made tremendous progress in making even polarized 3D more palatable to the masses.  Everything from eye strain to making clean edges when an object is cut off by the edge of the screen.

So, before you start posting about how this is all old news, maybe you should think about what you know and maybe do a little research.

No distaste for Katz here. I can't think of any other movie studio that has been able to realistically compete against Disney Co in the animated film arena for an extended period of time. Pixar obviously has excelled, but their films have always been released under the Disney nameplate, and when Pixar started, that meant something.

1) Katz must be aiming for economic recovery within the next two years. Most families and even animation fans readily admit to "waiting for the DVD" to see the latest release. If story is what makes a good film good, that story will work just as well in 2D.

2) Katz needs to make and market the animation to appeal to teenagers. If you've worked in a movie theatre you know teenagers can make any piece of junk profitable. Storyline and believable characters are not so important. Teenagers will be the main market segment that won't balk at the higher ticket price. Dad bringing his family of four is not going to be thrilled that his family is seeing the most expensive movie in the multiplex. ("I'm just takin the kids to a freakin Cartoon!")

3) Katz is withholding something about the financial story. Studios make their main $$$ after the film leaves the theatre. It's a constant negotiation of terms between theatre chains and movie studios as to which gets what amount of $$$. Now the theatre owners are going to install new equipment (again), and have additional work (3D glasses maintenance, repair, cleaning), and collect more money. The studio doesn't need or want more $$$ going to theatres. Something doesn't add up there.  If this had been a new system to see their movies in 3D AT HOME - then I could understand the hype.  

I work at a movie theater (unfortunately ours isn't equipped with 3-D), and one of my fellow managers (who also happens to be an animation/film buff) got the amazing opportunity to go see one of these previews, except, the one he went to presented the first thirty minutes of "Coraline," the first forty minutes of "Up," and this thirty minute presentation of "Monsters vs. Aliens." All in that order.

Now, according to him, "Coraline" was solid and there were some amazing shots and effects (such as hummingbirds coming off the screen and then zooming back around the titular character into the screen). Half of "Up's" footage was incomplete (storyboards, sketches, rendered animation minus the textures/lighting) but was just as solid, if not more. In fact, my friend couldn't stop raving about the film's warm and engaging plot.

The 3D world of both "Coraline" and "Up" mostly go IN to the screen instead of popping OUT. For those of you who saw "Bolt" in 3D, you'll be familiar with the effect that happens when a character is slightly cut off of the screen, with the parts that are showing awkwardly bulging out, but missing things like ears or feet. As Pete Doctor himself described the 3D for "Up," he said that watching it "is like looking through a glass window at a completely 3D world, it's layered, and real."

From the many things I've read and watched about "Coraline," it's very similar to this. The set of Coraline's normal home is built in much tighter and on a slant, so that it's suffocating and dull...and yet there's something cozy about it, too. When she goes to the alternate version of her home, where her Other Mother lives, the set it built so that everything expands and grows, but the atmosphere is creepy; you get the feeling that she shouldn't be there.

Like "Monsters vs. Aliens," "Up" and "Coraline" where built to be in 3D from the start. Pete Doctor also explained a special software that "Up" and "Coraline" were using, that blends the 3D together from shot to shot, so that the effects are consistent in a scene, and so that the effects don't wind up popping in and out, in and out at you as say, two characters are talking to one another.

According to my fellow employee, "Monsters vs. Aliens" does not utilize this software, and after viewing previews of "Coraline" and "Up," it was noticeable, and at times, jarring. But then, the man who gave me all this information has an eye for detail.

Something that couldn't go unnoticed, though, is that after the "Up" presentation was done, it received a standing ovation.

The "Monsters vs. Aliens" presentation had to follow this round of applause...and it was quite awkward.

According to my source (a huge monster flick buff, so there could be some bias) "Monsters vs. Aliens" was "good, but not as great as it could be." There were some pop culture jokes, and some just really didn't fly. Unfortunately for Stephen Colbert fans, his character in the movie doesn't hold any of his mannerisms...which wouldn't be a bad thing if Colbert was allowed to play other personalities...which he's usually not. It wasn't a completely bad review, and he did mention that there was some beautiful animation at work and that Dreamworks is trying harder these days to push story, but following "Coraline" and "Up," it was a bit of a disappointment.

Obviously this is just one person's opinion, and that every member of that audience  he was in walked away with a different opinion. I just wanted to pit his opinion against the one in the article.

I myself will openly admit to having a bias against Dreamworks, for many reasons. And that I've been one of the few people who didn't laugh once in the "Monsters vs. Aliens" trailer. I'm intrigued by the film, but my interest has been totally eclipsed as I've been desperately awaiting "Coraline" and "Up" (not to mention the "Pinocchio" Platinum Edition DVD! <3).

Dreamworks could prove me wrong this time. But that's not going to be enough for me to start dissociating them with their reputation for good. I must say, though, that I feel extremely sympathetic for the artists who work under that lunatic Katzenburg.

SuperGrover, my point was not that polarized-lens 3D hasn't improved in 30 years, it's that red-blue anaglyphic isn't the technology to which people should be comparing today's 3D technology.  I can't imagine anyone seeing a 3D movie advertised and thinking "oh but I hate those red-blue lenses!"

That said, it'd be nice to know which films used this better technology, because right now, based on my experience with the theme parks, I still feel like I'm missing something, and the glasses don't fit well.

The major difference between theme park 3D and theatrical Digital 3D is that theme parks use linear polarization while the modern Digital 3D systems use circular polarization.

What this means is that in a theme park movie, tilting your head causes the 3D glasses not to filter properly, and you will see a doubled, blurry, non-3d image. This is because one filter looks for "vertical" light, while one looks for "horizontal" light, but both will let in "diagonal" light.

With a theatrical presentation using circular polarization, tilting your head has no effect on the effectiveness of the filters. The filter there look for "clockwise" light or "counter-clockwise" light, so the orientation of the glasses doesn't matter. The 3D effect becomes less effective the more you tilt your head, but you never see a double or blurry image.

My 2 cents...

I think that this newer 3D will face the same challenge that BlueRay DVD is facing now... a good number of people either a) won't be able to see a difference or B) won't be able to tell enough of a difference, to justify the price hike. I can only speak for myself but there hasn't been a movie made that I would pay an ADDITIONAL $5 to see. Think about it, I pay $10.25 for an adult ticket right now... an additional $5 will be a 50% increase in price!!!

Maybe they can solve all the technical problems with 3D so they have  TRU 3D , but to me the more important issues to solve are the artistic problems of consistently composing shots and editing to compensate for the 3D so that the 3D process is not intrusive.

What works for a theme park ride (or a video game) is not necessarily what tells a compelling story on film.

Usually the "3D" takes me out of the film .  My experience has been that it's usually an  "INTRUDE" process, not IN-TRU-3D process.

I'm afraid the mindset that automatically thinks  "3D" is better is the same mindset that equates "realism" in animation with the highest form of artistic expression. (the type of person who thinks ultra-realistic CG renders of every single hair and pore on a character is what really counts.)

But good luck to them. I hope they find a way to make it more integrated into the story-telling process and less of an intrusive gimmick.