Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 3-D movie advertising

This is topic 3-D movie advertising in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002285

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-08-2009, 01:10 PM:

I have had no problem with Disney advertising their DVDs & Blu Rays as Disney DVD/Disney Blu-Ray but the way they have been doing it with the theatrical release of A CHRISTMAS STORY has gone a bit too far. As we all know there are three methods to project films in 3-D in theatres at the present time-Dolby 3-D, Real D and IMAX 3-D. Newspaper advertisements for the film indicate the film is playing in selected Honolulu theatres in Disney 3-D, Real D and IMAX 3-D. Nowhere in the ad does it ever mention Dolby 3-D. Consolidated used to run a Dolby 3D trailer with their 3-D films but A CHRISTMAS CAROL opened with a Disney 3-D trailer giving the public the impression the film is being projected in a non existing system and that is wrong. I am wondering why Dolby is very quiet about this because I know the ads in our local paper is the same all over the country.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2009, 01:34 PM:

I've griped about the "Disney Digital 3D" or Dreamworks' "InTru 3D" nonsense. It's a bunch of marketing bullshit. It's just as illogical as a movie studio coming up with a fake brand of digital sound or film format to relabel something really filmed in Panavision and shown with DD/DTS/SDDS audio.

I think it's also unfair for RealD to get the only billing on certain movie posters. IMAX 3D and RealD get listed on plenty of posters, trailers and TV commercials. I'm having trouble remembering if Dolby 3D has ever been listed on a movie poster one sheet, movie trailer or TV commercial.

Are the movie studios expecting Dolby to pay them some sort of advertising fee to be included? Is RealD and IMAX paying the studios some sort of ad money to prevent the rest of the majors from coming up with their fake 3D brands too?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-08-2009, 01:41 PM:

There are a few other 3D systems out there that deserve mentioning, like XpanD which is quite popular outside the USA, as well as Sony 3D ("4K").

Yet other systems, like Master Image, i.e, have a roughly equivalent mainstream system (i.e. Master Image is very similar in results and technique to RealD), so no biggie being omited.

Also, if Technicolor 35mm 3D system ever takes off, that's yet another system perhaps "worth differenciating".

But I feel the 3D system used in projection really doesn't even need to be mentioned, as the film is the same and can be output in any of those systems with theoretically IDENTICAL results.

All 3D systems offer good performance of similar quality when properly implemented. Sure it could be nice to tell polarizing systems using silver screens (Sony, Imax, RealD, Master Image, Technicolor) apart from (usually) non-silver screen ones (Xpand, Dolby), but that's the only significant difference between systems and it's not even due to the "3D" itself but the use of the silver screen (or not), which hotspotting and contrasty colors can be a bit annoying.

Otherwise, Sony and Imax may result in slightly less artifacts and better image quality (i.e. no "flicker", full 4:4:4 12bits path, etc).

Anyway. Disney 3D is "nothing", same as Dreamworks "Intru 3D" etc etc. They just like to put a marketing buzz to their movies being made in 3D. They can be delivered in whatever system you want since they all should produce the exact same result. And they do with only minor differences in "image quality" (color fidelity, ghosting) but exactly the same kind of "3D quality", if such thing even exists.

Things don't stick out more or less pronounced from the screen in any system AT ALL, they are ALL THE *EXACT* SAME result "3D-wise", in the sense that they all strive to obtain the EXACT same result on the screen and the minor differences in "2D" image quality (like color or resolution) among them are a result of physical limitations, like having to use color filters in Dolby or Silver Screens in most others.

Disney probably receives money or perks out of advertising RealD and Imax in the promos, and Dolby and Sony (and XpanD and Master Image) just refuse to pony-up and are happy with the patrons not being so aware of what system they are experiencing beforehand.

I heard the rumor that some Disney people (executives) were "friends" (i.e. had interest or ownership) with RealD, so maybe that's also why they get preferencial treatment in ads. RealD is very aggressive in their marketing as they were born thinking they would become a monopoly in digital cinema 3D and rip benefits from every single person that ever saw a 3D film in cinemas in the world in the future.

But it is annoying to claim a movie is (sort-of) "made" in RealD or Disney 3D or Imax when it's just made in "stereoscopic 3D", like every single 3D movie (just about) ever made, and then you can "print it" in whatever delivery format you want, as they all produce (or try to) the exact same result. To include in the actual movie credits for certain systems and not the others is not very responsable nor accurate.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-08-2009, 02:32 PM:

I'm shocked, SHOCKED that the movie industry would deceive us with hype and misinformation. [evil]

Is this really any worse than having a generation of movie-goers thinking some films were shot in THX?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-08-2009, 04:03 PM:

I always laugh a bit when remembering one stupid comment I heard at the City Cinemas Gramery Theater on 23rd Street in Manhattan back in 1990 when watching a 70mm print of Fantasia: "we should have gone to the Ziegfeld where they have that Panavision stuff."

quote: Julio Roberto
There are a few other 3D systems out there that deserve mentioning, like XpanD which is quite popular outside the USA, as well as Sony 3D ("4K").

For the advertising we see in the United States, I don't mind the omission of XpandD in the ads since few if any American movie theaters are using that system.

As far as Sony goes, didn't they make an agreement with RealD?

quote: Julio Roberto
I heard the rumor that some Disney people (executives) were "friends" (i.e. had interest or ownership) with RealD, so maybe that's also why they get preferencial treatment in ads.

Is Disney mentioning RealD in their ads? I can't remember because the situation is so damned confusing. All I see is their big FAKE "Disney Digital 3D" moniker being promoted. I do remember seeing RealD branding on some of the Monsters vs. Aliens promotional material. But, like a proper stinky asshole, the folks at Dreamworks only mentioned the phony baloney "InTru3D" nonsense when the topic of 3D was discussed in the extras on that movie's Blu-ray disc. I do seem to remember shots of RealD hardware being shown briefly however.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-08-2009, 04:36 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
As far as Sony goes, didn't they make an agreement with RealD?

Yeap. Even more confusing then, as "RealD" could mean a regular DLP (NEC, Barco, Christie, Kinoton, Cinemeccanica, etc) projector with either an active Zscreen or an XL-zscreen in front shooting a silver screen with circular polarized filters at 144hz alternating a left-right 4:2:2 10 bits signal or a Sony LCOS 4K with two over/under 2K 4:4:4 12 bits images with dual lenses mechanically converging on a silver screen through passive circular filters being simultaneously refreshed at 24hz.

Totally different systems. Yet both "RealD" if we are to give it the name of the "distributor/manufacturer".

quote: Bobby Henderson
... at Dreamworks only mentioned the phony baloney "InTru3D" nonsense

While it's true that "Disney 3D" is total baloney, Dreamworks is sort-of giving the InTru3D name to the "process and tools" they use INTERNALLY to make ANIMATED films. Basically, they just gave a stupid made-up name to their ability to see the animated film in stereoscopic 3D throught the whole process which, until recently, wasn't quite so much the case (i.e. the scene had to be "rendered" or the layers composited before the animator/operator could really see the end result stereoscopically).

But, regardless, they are both bullshitters for giving "catchy names" to internal, non-really special, processes which produce virtually the same results as any other.

But we all know the deal with Panavision etc. It is not really too important WHO manufactured a given anamorphic lense or whatnot. That doesn't define a "whole" process. It's either anamorphic (no matter who, really), Super35mm, flat, or academy, or whatever. Making a huge fuss over a very small part of the process being "so special, so different", when all it is is using a slightly different manufacturer of the same process everybody else uses, is just marketing crap.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 11-08-2009, 06:19 PM:

Yes Julio, I admire Panavision products but it was a huge mistake to have their logo on 1.85 films. This destroyed the marketing of cinema Scope presentation. Similarly, 70mm blow-ups in 1.85 ratio confused the public and diminished the power of the process.

I also object to the free advertising by record companies on our screens and posters for their sound track albums. After all, they charge us a licence fee.

At least all the 3D marketing leads to a 3D presentation, except (of course) for the 90% of us who don’t have 3D projection.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-08-2009, 06:50 PM:

I see no problem with the Panavision logo on all films because it is the name of a company that produces both spherical and anamorphic lenses as well as cameras for the motion picture and television industries. Panavision scope movies like CinemaScope are not a different wide screen process but a variation of the original lens created by Dr. Henri Cretien, the French physicist. When the Panavision logo is used for flat films, there is a tag that states "Camera & Lenses by Panavision. If it was filmed in scope, it will read with the logo "Filmed in Panavision". If a film was shot with a spherical lens and presented in scope like Super 35, the credit will read Camera & Lenses by Panavision.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-08-2009, 08:26 PM:

Dolby 3D is featured prominently here:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/toystory3ddoublefeature/

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-08-2009, 09:18 PM:

I think instead of the posters and trailers saying

"IN 3-D!"

they ought to say

IN 3-D!*

*at additional cost

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-08-2009, 09:54 PM:

Mike,

Our Regal Theatre state in their directory advertisment---

A Christmas Carol 3D Event Pricing
10:30 1:00 3:30 6:00 9:30

-Claude

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-08-2009, 11:33 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think instead of the posters and trailers saying

"IN 3-D!"

they ought to say

IN 3-D!*

*at additional cost

Even more, they should at least say

*not available everywhere, in selected theaters only at an additional cost

... at least for the time being.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2009, 12:05 AM:

Revised: I think they should say:

"In 3-D!"
(At cinemas which can afford to blow $40,000 on something that could poop out in a year or two)

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-09-2009, 10:57 AM:

I seem to recall a few years ago someone pointed out that they saw the "Filmed in Panavision" credit at the end of a Seinfeld episode. And I seem to recall that I saw it too. So, yes, Panavision is guilty of causing confusion.

In response to the original post, I have the opposite opinion. It doesn't matter what process is being used in the theatre to show 3-D. If I go to a theatre I can reasonably assume that they have the proper equipment to play the movies they're advertising. So "Disney Digital 3-D" is less of a problem than terms like "Disney DVD" and "Disney Blu-ray." An average Wal-Mart shopper really does have to worry whether the gear he's buying is capable of playing the discs he wants to play. And most shoppers don't care to know the previous 15-year history of home theatre gear before they just go out and buy a @#$% piece of hardware! So, Disney's implication that they have a special home entertainment format is not welcomed.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2009, 11:56 AM:

quote: Greg Anderson
If I go to a theatre I can reasonably assume that they have the proper equipment to play the movies they're advertising.

Which is why I make every possible effort to strip out any "3-D" reference to all the movies we play. Sometimes it takes some trial and error on trailers, but those 3-D promotional bits are GONE.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-09-2009, 01:39 PM:

I think you should give people more credit than that, Greg

If what you said is true and there is a problem with Walmart type DVD customers getting confused with the terminology Disney DVD & Disney Blu-Ray, wouldn't you think Disney would have ceased labeling their discs as such a long time ago? Obviously, customers are smarter than that so Disney is still labeling their discs Disney DVD & Disney Blu-Ray.

There is a minor problem regarding misleading advertisment however when Disney say Disney Digital 3-D next to RealD and IMAX 3D in newspaper advertisments and run a Disney Digital 3-D trailer right before the feature, A CHRISTMAS CAROL. A theatrical projection booth in the United States will either have a Dolby 3-D, Real D or IMAX 3_D i but no Disney 3-D projection equipment because it does not exist.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-09-2009, 03:15 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
If what you said is true and there is a problem with Walmart type DVD customers getting confused with the terminology Disney DVD & Disney Blu-Ray, wouldn't you think Disney would have ceased labeling their discs as such a long time ago? Obviously, customers are smarter than that so Disney is still labeling their discs Disney DVD & Disney Blu-Ray.

It's not a question of smart vs. not-smart. There is a large group of people who think anything with the name "Disney" written on it is automatically much better than anything else, so that's why they plaster their name on everything. I have a friend who's that way... he is a very smart guy (a paramedic, in fact). He loves the Disney theme parks, and some other park might have a new ride that's the best thing ever, but it's "not Disney" so he's automatically down on it.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-09-2009, 05:37 PM:

Seinfeld *was* filmed in Panavision then. A lot of sit-coms used to be shot on 16- and 35mm film until they transitioned mostly to HD, F900s and such. Now I think there are only a couple of film sitcoms left.

Of course, "Panavision" equipment is mostly rebuilt Mitchell stuff, and now they have "Panavised" a lot of other Sony HD stuff.

I think their 16mm camera, the Elaine, was at least partially original, but their lenses are also built by other manufacturers.

So Claude's saying that Filmed in Panavision is different than "Disney DVD", isn't entirely true, as Panavision is ultimately just a rental house that modifies other companies' equipment and maintains it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-09-2009, 06:50 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
Seinfeld *was* filmed in Panavision then. A lot of sit-coms used to be shot on 16- and 35mm film until they transitioned mostly to HD, F900s and such. Now I think there are only a couple of film sitcoms left.

Seinfeld was never shot on film.

What are the couple that are still? Surely that's not the case.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-09-2009, 07:29 PM:

quote: John Wilson

Seinfeld was never shot on film.

What are the couple that are still? Surely that's not the case.

Yes it was, all of it.

Not that this is definitive, and I personally find citing IMDB as annoying as saying "Google it," but in lieu of the Kodak article I read on it a few years back:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098904/technical

Sitcoms started on 35mm in the '50s, with "I Love Lucy" and the like, gravitated back towards video, as they were multiple-camera shows.

Then, in the late '80s, early '90s with HD on the horizon, a lot of them gravitated back towards film for future HD protection.

Which ones, John? IDK, might not be any now, but I saw a couple "2-1/2 Men?" & "30 Rock" as of two years ago that still were in a list.

Last I watched regularly, not being a big sitcom follower, was "That 70's Show." 35mm, think it was 3-camera.

"Cameras and Lenses by Panavision" doesn't mean "shot on film" today, as Panavision rents HD cameras now too, but it did until the late '90s.

It used to be that over 70% of dramatic television was shot on film in the U.S., circa 2005. It's only been in the past two years that digital has made serious in-roads.

As of last season (so it is probably down to 40% now), 45% of U.S. dramas were film.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-09-2009, 08:51 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
Yes it was, all of it.

Well that's amazing. I'm watching re-runs every night and they look pretty ordinary.

I thought maybe the exteriors in 35mm but the interiors? In this (that) day and age?

Anyway, Karl speaks the truth here.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 11-09-2009, 10:12 PM:

Agfa had a deal going with the Seinfeld shoot for a while. I remember the ads in American Cinematographer and the Panavision cameras with 2000' magazines.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-09-2009, 11:22 PM:

Seinfeld was indeed shot on film. Additionally, the TV series was produced at a time where it was VERY EASY to tell the difference between shows shot on film or with video cameras.

I also remember numerous TV entertainment shows featuring on set footage of the Seinfeld production that clearly showed Panavision film cameras on the set.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2009, 01:05 AM:

I remember when WKRP was on -- it was shot on video because it was cheaper to license the songs for video than for film. (I never understood why.)

At around the same time, the same company was producing the Mary Tyler Moore show which was shot on film. It was very easy to see the difference...both shows looked good, but they just looked different somehow.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 4255) on 11-10-2009, 08:48 AM:

Video tubes of that era are easy to tell by massive light streaking. They were worst on Newvicon tubes, but these are mainly consumer tubes.

WKRP looks very muddy today, and it is unfortunate that they went with video since they won't release the DVD's with the original music anyway. I just won't buy them.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-10-2009, 12:42 PM:

The other unfortunate thing is there is no way to take a classic sitcom sourced on video and re-master it in high definition. Most TV shows shot on film can be transferred to HD. Seinfeld is one of those examples.

The Prisoner TV series was recently released in a box set edition for Blu-ray. It has received positive reviews for the video quality. The original episodes of Star Trek have been well received.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-11-2009, 04:53 PM:

CML recently compiled a list of US television production, in the person of Paul K. Miller, but scores of people contributed. Here's the current list, as of Sep. 28.

The takeaway is that there is a lot less film aquisition than there used to be, but there is still plenty.

--jhawk

quote:

16mm Film:
Burn Notice - USA- Mike Most
Chuck - NBC- Mike Most
Crash - Kodak - Ingrid Goodyear & Sean Green
Degrassi: The Next Generation - CW- Kodak - Ingrid Goodyear - Canada
Eastbound and Down - HBO- Ingrid Goodyear
Eastwick - ABC - Ingrid Goodyear
Friday Night Lights - NBC- Ian Ellis
Greek - ABC- Ingrid Goodyear
Heartland - CBC- Ingrid Goodyear - Canada
In Plain Sight - USA- Bruce Johnson
Lincoln Heights - ABC- Ingrid Goodyear
Men of a Certain Age - TNT- Ingrid Goodyear
The Middle - ABC- Ingrid Goodyear Confirmed by Mike Most
Monk - USA- Mike Most - This is the last season.
One Tree Hill - CW- Mike Most
Psych - USA- IMDB
Saving Grace - TNT- S Peterson
Scrubs - ABC- Ingrid Goodyear

35mm Film:
24 - FOX- Mike Most
30 Rock - NBC- Mike Most
Beastly - CBS- Ingrid Goodyear
Big Bang Theory - CBS- IMDB
Big Love - HBO- Ingrid Goodyear
Boardwalk Empire - HBO- Jendra Jarnagin - (HBO Scorsese Pilot)
Breaking Bad - AMC- Ingrid Goodyear & Aaron Wise
Brothers & Sisters - ABC- Mike Most - Started on Genesis, now 35mm Cynthia Pusheck
Castle - ABC- Mike Carmine
The Closer - TNT- Mike Most
Copper - ABC- Fuji - David Perrault & Brian Heller
CSI - CBS- Ingrid Goodyear
Desperate Housewives - ABC- Mike Most
Entourage - HBO- Mike Most
Flashpoint - CBS- Ingrid Goodyear
Fringe - FOX- Mike Most & Ingrid Goodyear
Ghost Whisperer - CBS- Argyris Theos - 2 perf 35mm
Glee - FOX- Ingrid Goodyear - Human Target will replace Glee at midseason.
Grey's Anatomy - ABC- Mike Most
Heroes - NBC- Mike Most - Chuck replaces Heroes in the spring.
House - FOX- Fuji - Mike Most & Eric Adkins
Hung - HBO- Ingrid Goodyear
Kings - NBC- Ingrid Goodyear
Lost - ABC- Mike Most
Mad Men - AMC- Mike Most
The Mentalist - CBS- Ingrid Goodyear
Nip/Tuck - FX- Mike Most
Private Practice - ABC- Mike Most
True Blood - HBO- Mike Most
Two and a Half Men - CBS- Ingrid Goodyear

Digital Acquisition:
90210 - CW- Genesis - IMDB
Accidentally on Purpose - CBS- Mike Most
The Beautiful Life: TBL - CW- Mike Most & Dave Satin - CANCELED
Better off Ted - ABC- Mike Most
Bones - FOX- Sony F35 - Mike Most & Eric Messerschmidt
Bored To Death - HBO- D21 - An Tran
Brotherhood - SHOW- Mike Most
Brothers - FOX- Mike Most
Californication - SHOW- F23 - Mike Most & Randy Wedick
Cold Case - CBS- F35 - Patrick Cady & Mike Most FLASHBACKS Ingrid Goodyear
Community - NBC- D21 - Mike Most & An Tran
Cougar Town - ABC- Mike Most
Criminal Minds - CBS- F35 - Mike MostTom McDonnell
CSI: Miami - CBS- Mike Most
CSI: NY - CBS- F35 - Mike Most & Mark H. Weingartner
Damages - FX- F23 - Jendra Jarnagin
Dark Blue - TNT- Genesis - IMDB
Day One - NBC- Mike Most
Defying Gravity - USTV- F35 - Daniel Mulligan - Canada
Dexter - SHOW- F23 - Vincent De Paula & Daniel Mulligan
Dollhouse - FOX- Panasonic 3700 - Mike Most
FlashForward - ABC- Mike Most
The Forgotten - ABC- Mike Most
Gary Unmarried - CBS- Mike Most
The Good Wife - CBS- Mike Most & Dave Satin
Gossip Girl - CW- F23 - Dave Satin & Randy Wedick
Hank - ABC- Mike Most
HawthoRNe - TNT- ARRI D21 - IMDB
How I Met Your Mother - CBS- Mike Most
Human Target - FOX- Mike Most
In Treatment - HBO- Sony 950 - Jendra Jarnagin
Law & Order - NBC- Genesis - Mark H. Weingartner & Jendra Jarnagin
Law & Order: Criminal Intent - USA- originally submitted as Digital by Mike Most, amended to 16 mm then back to Digital by ARRI via Greg Lowry
Law & Order: SVU - NBC- Mike Most
Leverage - TNT- Red One & Sony EX1 - Randy Wedick
Lie to Me - FOX- Mike Most
Medium - CBS- Genesis - Randy Wedick
Melrose Place - CW- F35 - Mike Most
Mental - FOX- F23 and 900R - Graham Futerfas
Mercy - NBC- Mike Most & Dave Satin - Parenthood replaces Mercy in spring.
Modern Family - ABC- Mike Most
Murderland - ?????- F35 - Daniel Mulligan - Will delete if not confirmed
NCIS - CBS- Mike Most
NCIS: Los Angeles - CBS- Mike Most
New Adventures of Old Christine - CBS- Mike Most
Numbers - CBS- Genesis - Mike Most & Randy Wedick
Nurse Jackie - SHOW- ARRI D21 - Mike Most, Dave Satin & An Tran
The Office - NBC- Sony - Google
Parenthood - NBC- Genesis - Mike Most & IMDB
Parks and Recreation - NBC- Mike Most
Past Life - FOX- Mike Most
Royal Pains - USA- F23 - Jendra Jarnagin
The Sarah Silverman Program - Comedy Central- Red - Rhet Bear
Sherri - Lifetime- Dave Satin
Smallville - CW- Mike Most
Sons Of Anarchy - FX- S Peterson
Southland - NBC- Red 1, Iconix - Bruce Johnson
Supernanny - ABC- Mike Most
Supernatural - CW- D21 - An Tran
Three Rivers - CBS- Mike Most
'Til Death - FOX- Mike Most
Trauma - NBC- Mike Most & Rod Williams - Day One replaces Trauma in the spring.
The Tudors - SHOW- Mike Most
Ugly Betty - ABC- Jendra Jarnagin & Mike Most
V - ABC- ARRI D21 - An Tran
Vampire Diaries - CW- Mike Most
Warehouse 13 - SYFY- Genesis - Millimeter
Weeds - SHOW- Mike Most
White Collar - USA- Dave Satin