Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Monsters v Aliens

This is topic Monsters v Aliens - 3D in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001535

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-01-2009, 10:43 PM:

Took the wife and we went to our local REG EDW 14 and watched this movie.. in Real D.

We both loved it - great animation, interesting yet obvious story with their subplots in place along with the side characters that has the possibility in stealing the show from the main "Susan/Ginormica" character. Definitely, once again, another big CGI hit for Dreamworks.

I've seen some of the 2D, film based version at some other theatres, yet, seeing it in 3D was the way to go with this kind of movie.

The Real D presentation was very good no 'hot spots' due to the usage of the silver screen-(even though I could tell of the obvious contrast due to this kind of screen usage), great sound balance - just an overall decent performance.

But, with this presentation, that NEC 2500 could have used a 6k bulb in there to help compensate the slight reflective reduction in using glasses whereas they were using a 4.2K LTI Helios bulb...which was running 113% over the maximum rate. One takes the glasses off, and you definitely got a nice bright picture with that size of bulb.

Wonder how the Dolby 3D/Image Master 3D would look compared to Real D?

Oh, we kept our glasses for the heck of it .. as souvenirs..

3.5/5 for me. Good kid show material towards the end of summer.

thx-Monte

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-02-2009, 02:02 PM:

I saw it last week (2D) and I must say I liked it. Technically it was very good. The story and script was OK. Don't know, like "Monster House" level, I guess, with better animation.

I think Dreamworks knows their market and has the tools and the talent. This movie would've done just as well in 2D as in 3D.

Of course, if you spend 20 Zillion dollars promoting it in 3D (Superbowl, etc) and even get Bank of America to finance part of the 3D viewing, then it's gonna do even better in 3D. But I guess a good chunk of those extra profits are gonna to to the marketing that put the spin to begin with plus the extra $15m in tools and rendering time it took to make the movie 3D instead of 2D.

But, overall, a good play on Dreamworks which should (barely) work for them. I say barely because the costs of this movie was high, so total payoff is still some way away.

These movies produce profits, no doubt, but it's also a big gamble with such high costs involved. Even if this movie grosses $100m (about $65m so far) and does fairly well in the video aftermarket, it's still not all-up-there profit-wise when we compare it to a stupid (R-rated) $15m movie like Valentine 3D that pocketed $50m at the BO.

Also, this movie was lucky it had really very little worth-it competition at the BO and with Spring Break etc it was very good timing. It would've been different if Pixar or Disney opened at the same time [Cool]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-02-2009, 05:47 PM:

You're forgetting all the ancillary profits still to come: Video, TV, direct-to-video sequels produced on the cheap, etc.

This will do very very well for PAR/DW.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 04-02-2009, 11:42 PM:

The theatre I watched it at had a VERY bright screen during the commercials. "Ok", I'm thinking. "It's 3D and they've put in the 'big bulb'." When the show started it amazed me how much darker the pictures was. Maybe we wouldn't have noticed if we weren't served up such a stark 'a/b' comparison. The details of some scenes were easier to see without the glasses.

Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it. Compared to a show like "a bug's life" at Disney, where they put critters right in your face, this was a noticeable curiosity.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-03-2009, 02:44 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it. Compared to a show like "a bug's life" at Disney, where they put critters right in your face, this was a noticeable curiosity.

I haven't watched it in 3D (2D only), so I can't comment for sure. But whether to get stuff to come out of the screen or remain mostly behind it is a filmaker's choice (within certain small restrictions).

But the perceived depth is relative to your seating position and the screen size. If, i.e., an object is placed half-way between you and the screen, it would be way out in the middle of the theater (say 100' out) if you are sitting in the back row (say 200' away).

But if you are seating in the front row, say only 20' from the screen, then the object will be half way between you and the screen, that is, 10' out from the screen.

To make 3D most confortable, it would be recommended to calculate it for the average size screen and the average (middle of the auditorium) seating possition.

I assume that's what was done and they made a VOLUNTARY decission not to stick stuff out the screen too much so they wouldn't be labelled as a "annoying, distracting gimmick" 3D movie.

Then again, you can't win. If you use 3D subtly to not bother people with it, then those that want (and paid for) the "3D" are dissapointed. If you throw stuff out of the screen every 15 minutes, those that went to watch a "normal" movie feel bothered by so much distracting stuff.

Just ranting.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-03-2009, 02:50 PM:

Question: How do they make a 3-D movie anyway? Do the film makers stare at computer screens with glasses on to see how the efx will look? Or do they manipulate things some other way?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2009, 06:21 PM:

If you're talking about computer animated movies a second camera eye is rendered with the second camera position placed 3"-4" to the left or right of the primary camera.

I don't know what the crews use to test the 3D renderings. My guess would be a screening room equipped with RealD and/or Dolby 3D. Computer monitors that do 3D wouldn't give a real world demonstration on how the finished product would actually look.

quote: Jack Ondracek
Can someone explain this to me? The stereotypical "paddleball" effect was my first indication that nothing seems to come 'out' of the screen. It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it.

Yeah, it's pretty much a judgment call on the part of the movie producers to have objects protruding out of the screen or not. Most 3D movies have at least a couple "in your face" 3D sight gags. Beowulf had a couple (guy on a horse points a spear right into the camera, the main character is dangling above the castle with the pointy tip of one tower stabbing at him from below). Coraline had a knitting needle come well out of the screen.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-03-2009, 06:29 PM:

Well, that would depend on what tools you are using. Nowadays, the main choices are CGI for animated features and dual-camera rigs for life action.

With CGI animation, like the Monsters vs Alien movie, the "scene" is already in 3D inside the computer, so you pre-visualize it in steroscopic (two views, one per eye) 3D whenever you want on a 3D computer monitor (either passive or active) or a 3D projection setup (usually, a two-projector rig).

You can see some of that in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XqYSv8ZpfU&fmt=18
[link is to a youtube video with one of the Monsters vs Aliens featurettes]

You can freely adjust where in the space your subjects are by adjusting the virtual position of the subjets and the virtual cameras (=the spectator's eyes). If you have some restriction or want to play with depth, you can adjust the distance between the (virtual) cameras (interaxial distance) or their convergence (how much they are towed-in with respect to one another, like when you cross your eyes towards your nose to look at something that is only a few centimeters in front of your face).

To shoot life action, you do the same thing, except with a pair of real cameras. You can monitor the scene in 3D with a compatible monitor and 3D glasses or by looking through two eyepieces in a dual viewfinder sort of like this:

http://red.cachefly.net/14/epic2.jpg
[link is two a view of a dual RED Scarlet camera 3D rig fitted with dual viewfinders. Brad, should I upload this image to the server and link from there? I don't own the copyright etc, but I guess it could be fine]

But most of the time, seeing real 3D in life action is not needed. From the two views, and a stereo calculator if you need it, you can guess how it's gonna look like from just the two flat 2D views. So often time, many non-specialty scenes in 3D films are just treated and monitored like a normal scene in 2D.

During the 80's, i.e., when most 3D shooting was done with a single 35mm camera with a 3D lens, there was virtually no 3D monitoring being done. Just like with film before video taps, it was shot "blind" just from experience and calculations (i.e. focus, exposure, temperature, etc) until the film was developed, a daily struck and viewed through a projector.

I know the DP of a 3D film shot in Spain, Comin' at Ya, (Fernando Arribas) who shot for a good couple weeks until it was realized that the 3D lens system being used wasn't working right and the film had to be re-financed and re-shot.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-04-2009, 06:06 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
When the show started it amazed me how much darker the pictures was.

Jack...

Go catch it over at the Neptune Theater. They have a Master Image 3-D system over there running about 6 to 7 foot lamberts. Let me know how it compares to what you saw... It's actually a theater worth visiting if you've never been in there... pretty darn cool and not a single setp in the entore theateror balcony!!! All ramped. Pretty interesting for 1921 architecture.

Mark

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 04-04-2009, 06:32 PM:

I think people have forgotten that this film (not movie!) was designed to be a 3-D feature. In 3-D it looks good and the jokes (gags) work better. In 2-D the film looks washed out and the reason for the film being there is lost. In the end it is a sensible feature. 3/5

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-04-2009, 07:33 PM:

CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 13
PRESENTATION: Dolby 3-D Digital Cinema, THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Letterbox presentation with closed-in side masking (maybe due to the 3-D?)
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

The 3-D popped here. There were a few places where the audience jumped and gasped as stuff popped outward, resulting in much giggling.

THE PLOT: A girl glows at her wedding. Wackiness ensues.

I liked the look of this a lot. The attack probes had a nice retro appearance. There's lots of Star Wars and Close Encounters references. Seth Rogan's blob was pretty funny, but the rest of the heroes and villains were pretty pedestrian. I was checking the auditorium clock pretty regularly after about an hour.

Still doing a strong business, obviously. Pretty good crowd.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-04-2009, 07:35 PM:

Sounds like the Warren screwed up and ran it in "flat".

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-04-2009, 07:38 PM:

quote: Sam Graham
auditorium clock pretty regularly after about an hour.

(going off-topic on this one for a bit..) That's definitely old school (which I haven't seen in years )and a big no-no in the meantime: having a clock in the auditorium - like having a clock in your lobby.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 04-05-2009, 04:23 AM:

What a let-down.
I'm a fan of CG animation (and teach it). But this seemed to be a collection of scenes rushed together. Too fast, no development.
Saw it in 2D. The paddle scene is not "an homage" to "House of Wax" but just another reason 3D will always be a gimmick.

Dreamworks needs to get some good writers.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-05-2009, 10:11 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Sounds like the Warren screwed up and ran it in "flat".

Very strange considering that Warren has alot of stacked 3-D systems and is a top notch presenter. Being the first scope 3-D release I fear that not enough techs got the scope 3-d target in time for setting up the projectors. One can still set up scope 3-D without the target but they obviously did not. I'd be willing to bet that a number of places ended up running it in flat.

Mark

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 04-05-2009, 02:19 PM:

We didn't let the Christie guys leave until they had both form factors done correctly. Course, after they had installed the newish Real-3D frontend thing (the one with the asymmetrical dual outlet ports) which are clearly formatted for SCOPE, they had better.

On the target note; we had multiple complications with the scope 3d on CP2000's with the zoomable Kinoton lenses not having enough magnification in that format (on the short throw screens). Having to bring in a new lens could have caused that silliness.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-05-2009, 05:21 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Sounds like the Warren screwed up and ran it in "flat".

Exactly. I should know that by now.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 04-07-2009, 03:39 PM:

quote: Jack Ondracek
It's got very good depth, but the screen surface seems to be an invisible 'glass wall', and everything seemed to be behind it.

I've noticed this in every Real-D 3D presentation I've seen, so I've been thinking it's just how the digital 3D systems work. However, this film in IMAX 3D has plenty of in-your-face stuff. The paddleball thing makes you flinch, every time, even when you know it's coming. I imagine that the left and right versions rendered for the feature are the same, no matter which 3D system is used to project it, so it has to be in the manner of projection used. Or screen size. [Razz]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-09-2009, 10:35 PM:

I had the opportunity to see MONSTERS VS ALIENS in IMAX 3-D at the Dole Cannery 18 today and felt it was a typical animated film with a simple story that probably appeals to children and young people but I was kind of bored and dozed off a couple of times. I only made an effort to see the film because I wanted to check out the IMAX 3-D at the Dole and I was not disappointed. Digital IMAX 3-D is awesome! Now that I have seen the difference between it and the two other digital formats- Real D and Dolby 3-D, I hope more quality live action movies are released in IMAX 3-D. Does anyone know if James Cameron's AVATAR will be in IMAX 3-D? I know he had prodiced a 3-D IMAX underwater documentary movie before and it was very well received. Because MONSTERS VS ALIENS had used a dual projection system, the picture was nice and very bright and for the very first time, the glasses I wore to view the movie was very comfortable. The lenses were very wide and I did not feel like I was wearing a 2nd pair of glasses over my prescription glasses to view the movie in 3-D.

-Claude

Posted by Scott Ribbens (Member # 180) on 04-11-2009, 06:42 AM:

quote:
Very strange considering that Warren has alot of stacked 3-D systems and is a top notch presenter. Being the first scope 3-D release I fear that not enough techs got the scope 3-d target in time for setting up the projectors. One can still set up scope 3-D without the target but they obviously did not. I'd be willing to bet that a number of places ended up running it in flat.

Mark

Correction, "Monster House" was Scope 3D.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-11-2009, 11:18 AM:

Beowulf was in 'scope and 3D as well.

However, I think they may be talking about newer lens systems for D-cinema projectors like the Christie CP2000 series. Originally, the system would just crop into the 2048 x 1080 pixel area for a 'scope image (2048 X 852). New anamorphic accessories will allow the full 1080 pixel height of the chips to be used for sharper images.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-13-2009, 09:44 AM:

We watched this yesterday afternoon with a bunch of kids. The kids were riveted through the whole thing, so that's a good sign.

I thought it was very good. Lots of grown-up jokes that went over the kids' heads. There were a few "obvious" 3-D effect bits (like the paddleball scene) but I think those could have been trimmed or changed and the film would have done just as well in 2-D.

The "B.O.B." character was my favorite. It tops Disney's gopher-in-a-ball from "Bolt" for imagination.

The story? Maybe not quite as predictable as some.....if this had been a Disney movie, they would have had a sad, sentimental but happy-ever-after ending where the girl returns to normal size, marries the guy (who is not such a clod after all) and they adopt the monsters as pets.

Over all, 3.75 out of 5 stars from me. If it had been a pure 2-D movie without the 3-D distractions, I would have given it 4 stars.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-13-2009, 01:15 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
(like the paddleball scene) but I think those could have been trimmed or changed and the film would have done just as well in 2-D.

Yep, wife really jerked her head back when she thought the 'ball' was coming right at her...

quote: Mike Blakesley
movie without the 3-D distractions

kinda reminds us of gadgetry added .. like a Cadillac - loaded with tons of gadgets that is not necessary to operate a vehicle...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-19-2009, 08:29 PM:

I'm surprised that nobody here (including me) brought up the way-cool treatment of the Dreamworks logo. It brought me to full alert, that's for sure.

Not quite as well done as the phony film-break in Gremlins, but probably the best one since then.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-19-2009, 08:51 PM:

I assume you're talking about the Gremlins 2: The New Batch thing where the film breaks and melts into the projector.

That's probably the only thing that made me appreciate seeing a 70mm Dolby SR mag version of the movie (back when I lived in NYC in 1990). The evil gremlins are making hand puppet shadows over a white movie theater screen. You hear their voices through the rear speakers in the auditorium. It was pretty funny. Outside of that, the sequel pretty much sucked ass.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2009, 11:12 AM:

You're right, it was Gremlins 2. I still remember it: I was sitting in the office just casually watching the screen (we can see the middle 15 feet or so from the office) when I saw that "film break" happen. I raced up the stairs and had just grabbed the booth door handle when I heard the Gremlins start laughing and saw the shadow puppets. It was a great gag.

Also agreed that it was the only decent gag in the film.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 05-02-2009, 08:00 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
New anamorphic accessories will allow the full 1080 pixel height of the chips to be used for sharper images.

They're not new. The problem has been that no one is buying the anamorphic lenses. In fact, I know of a theatre circuit that is getting rid of the ones they did have, in favor of the one-lens approach.

IMHO, the industry screwed up by offering this "letterboxed" scope in the first place. Scope has always been brighter and higher resolution than flat - with film. Not so in Digital Cinema - it's just the opposite now.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-27-2009, 09:40 PM:

Finally got around to seeing this movie on Blu-ray Disc™.

I had a lot of fun watching a rented copy of this movie. I may even buy a copy of it. For me it's a solid three star effort, if not another half-star more.

Technically and visually speaking, I think this is by far PDI/Dreamworks' best effort (in terms of story, I still think Shrek is superior). There's a lot of really tasty visuals in this one. I'm not sure if it equals the work of Pixar, but I have a difficult time trying to find any fault in it. One area where I think PDI/Dreamworks has one up on Pixar is their more edgy sense of humor. Yeah, some of the humor will be over the heads of kids. But, seriously, screw those kids! Us adults need animated movies geared more for us once in awhile!

As far as the story goes, yeah, it's pretty pedestrian. But the plot is little more than a framework for all the nostaligic jokes. This movie definitely doesn't take itself seriously at all. The one sort of serious aspect I really like: a very strong, capable female character. "Susan" isn't Ripley from Aliens or Clarice Starling from The Silence of the Lambs, but it's still thrilling to see her kick ass and save the day in the end.

Image and sound notes: nothing to complain about. The video quality looked awesome. The sound mix was nicely aggressive. Lots of surround channel use.

Some random observations:

If others don't see it, I at least do. I think the folks at PDI/Dreamworks were looking at some Mort Drucker cartoons from MAD magazine for inspiration when they drew up their caricatures for this movie.

I don't seem to remember Tom Brokaw ever having a moustache. But fear the 'stache! Boomer Sooner, mofo! (shaking the jello to inspire shame.)

Is it an accident that Galaxar looks strikingly similar to Jeffrey Katenberg? I guess "I'll never eat lunch" in Hollywood again for that remark!

I really loved the abstract looking alpha channel footage during the end credits. That stuff just seemed perfect against the B-52's classic song Planet Claire. Maybe very few people would appreciate that footage. I was strangely fascinated by it. I could watch that stuff over and over again. Actually I have. This BD rental lasts 7 days. The Purple People Eater tune during the end credits underscored the retro flavor of this movie.