Monsters vs. Aliens to Become the First 3D Trailer in Superbowl History?

Posted on Saturday, January 3rd, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

Last week I recieved a mysterious e-mail:

Happy New Year -


please keep a lookout for an exciting announcement crossing the AP Wire this
Sunday, January 4th concerning the new film, MONSTERS VS. ALIENS.
Ooze gonna’ save us in 2009?

I sent a inquiry out to my Twitter followers trying to figure out what the big announcement could be, but got no response. But today ComingSoon recieved a tip revealing all.

Apparently Monsters Vs. Aliens will be the first movie trailer in Superbowl (or maybe even television history?) to be broadcast in 3D. On February 1st, during the Superbowl, the 3D trailer will air. So where do you get the 3D glasses for this experiment? Well, as you might have heard, NBC is also airing a special 3D episode of Chuck later in the month (the trailer is likely to re-air in 3D at that time). Viewers will be instructed to pick up special glasses at any Sobe or Pepsi display at participating retailers to be able to watch the commercial and television show in 3D. I love the idea behind the concept, but the execution is pretty baffling.

Sadly, this is Anaglyphic 3D technology (aka Red eye/Blue eye)  which is 50 year old technology. I’ve heard Jeffrey Katzenberg speak about the dangers of the public’s perception of that old technology. His big pitch is that the new technology is far superior, and that the concept of Anaglyph is holding the 3D movement back. I’ve been a big supporter of DreamWorks Animation’s 3D workflow, and the technology, but this seems backwards, even to me. James Cameron has also been outspoken against studios using Anaglyphic technology for DVD releases.  So it seems strange that Katzenberg would use the old technology to promote the new technology. Almost sad.

Update: Apparently Anaglyphic 3D technology (aka Red eye/Blue eye) will not be employed for this stunt, even though red/blue glasses are shown in the television advertisements. The glasses will use Intel InTru 3D and ColorCode 3-D, and Katzenberg says it will be better than the old anaglphic technology but not anywhere close to that of today’s 3D digital cinema. But from what I understand, ColorCode 3-D is amber and blue lens, and is only a slight improvement on the old Anaglyphic technology.

photo credit tvbythenumbers

Comments 

 

Related Posts

Tags

3D, Action/Adventure, Animation, Dreamworks, Movie Trailer News, Sci-Fi, , ,

  • CharlesAntoine
    It's a great idea but I think a little bit strange. I always thought the 3D would be explore only in the theaters. But I'm sure Katzenberg knows what he's doing. It isn't certainly a bad idea but maybe they should explore it later because most people don't know what all those things mean. You just have to ask them in the street to know that people really don't know anything about 3D technology. They would say you 'I think it's something in the theaters but what it really is ?' That is the problem and people will watch the 3D trailer during the Superbowl without understanding what's happening on their TV. That's what I'm thinking. 3D technology is not for now. We just have to wait.
  • I do not think they should promote the film with the old technology. I agree with what you had to say Peter; presenting the commercial in the old format might make people feel hesitant to seeing the films.
    Still, what an awesome idea! I will still be going out and finding some glasses for the big commercial!
  • nikki
    i got the dumb glasses and it was only a stupid 2 minute commercial!!! what a ripoff!!!
  • Seth
    You are right on point, Peter.

    Tremendously bad call to promote amazing new technology with the old red and blue glasses.

    A couple of questions: could the new technology work on home TVs with the right glasses? Will the movie be later released on home DVD with the old technology as well? If that's the case... then this makes a little more sense.
  • When I was at DreamWorks Animation, they were editing the film live on a 60 inch DLP television in 3D. We had to wear these pretty big glasses(which needed to charge on a base) that had some kind of mechanism in the front to create the flicker. I'm sure that these type of glasses could be made much smaller if there were a demand for them in the home, but I don't think the people behind the 3D push want that to happen. They want 3D to be a theatrical attraction.
  • Wow it's nice to hear from someone on the inside. I think that if 3-D looked any better than it does now and the bigger glasses you speak of were a decent price, I'd probably buy some.
  • If you're interesting in reading what katzenberg says about 3D and how it fits into the future of cinema, I highly recommend you check out this article
  • Reading that just accentuates the point that something is awry, since Katzenberg doesn't believe 3D should be used as a gimmick, yet a 3D trailer during the superbowl is nothing but a gimmick!
  • Thanks for the link Peter.
  • Ameesh Shah
    Dear Peter,

    The glasses you are talking about are Designed by Dolby, I am I correct? and are designed for a format, that TV hasn't been designed for. Those glasses where clear/ or polarized and where for a silver screen. These glasses don't work with out a silver screen. The anaglyph glasses or red blue, or in this case amber and deep blue glasses are only thing that works. It sucks I agree since you can't have the most hue of color but at least it works.

    I was at a small gathering of individuals who make and design and independent movies in 3-d, and their components. on a fun note to not make those glasses go to waste they've recently designed a web camera in 3-D.
    heres a link:

    <a href="https://www.expansys-usa.com/p.aspx?i=178102"target="_blank">https://www.expansys-usa.com/p.aspx?i=178102
  • nikki
    u should not even try to waste ur time on something sooooo stupid!!!
  • Johnny Boy
    3D was lame 50 years ago and is still lame now.
  • nikki
    it is soooo totally lame!!!
  • Yeah I heard about this earlier when I was watching the Colts play. I heard Pepsi and Sobe were giving them away where ever you buy those products. They also said there would be a Sobe lizard commercial in 3-D.
  • nikki
    who cares about the sobe lizard anyways!@#$$#@!%
  • PiratedTVPro
    ... if you're going to post this then get your facts correct. This is not Anaglyphic 3D. The glasses shown were not the red/blue glasses.
  • I have added a screen capture from the television which shows that the glasses are in fact the red eye/blue eye glasses.
  • Fixy Correctorson
    No, your screen cap shows that they're glasses with something red behind one lens and blue behind the other. On the actual commercial they were clear with the polarized sheen on them.
  • Wow you are totally right
  • james cameron: "you want a trailer in crappy 3D? fuck it. the audience can do without a trailer and wait for the damn film."
  • I remember 3D shark week on Discovery channel. Hit up a lens crafters and you got some red and blue glasses. Trying to remember if they promoted 3D shark week with 3D commercials or not. Anyone remember?
  • Remember the episode of Third Rock that had 3D? That was a big deal.
  • Palmer
    It's retro, but it begs the question. Aren't these red and blue 3D glasses cheaper to make than the newer ones?
  • Much cheaper. If you wanted to do the current 3D at home it would put you back at least a few hundred per a paid of glasses because they having a moving shutter in them.
  • Palmer
    I'm actually talking about those plastic tinted 3D glasses that make you look sort of like Buddy Holly. I think they're called polarized 3D glasses.
  • The glasses with polarized lens won't work at home for some reason, maybe someone with a background in the tech behind the 3D can explain why.
  • Sanfam
    I'm not technically an expert in this field, but the reason is simple: Modern televisions are unable to output two distinct images through polarization. The reason polarized 3d movies work is because two images are being displayed at the same time, each having passed through a polarizer of either horizontal or vertical alignment. The light that is reflected off of the silver screen is then filtered one more time by the polarized lens in the glasses, which only let the light from a specific polarized projection (horizontal or vertical) through.

    You can't replicate this on a television. LCD Shutter glasses remedy this problem by actively blocking light from entering the eye with an electronic shutter (usually an LCD panel that blackens every other frame). The problem with this is that for an effective and transparent viewing experience, the feed must be at least 50fps (as each eye will only end up being exposed to half of those frames).

    There's lots of stuff to talk about, but my lunch is over.
  • BBF
    Actually, shutter glasses alternate with the even/odd fields that are present in each frame. So a standard 30fps signal has 60 fields per second. Each eye is still seeing 30fps, but one eye only sees the even lines of the picture while the other sees the odd. Problem is, this only works with old fashioned "tube" tvs, as most newer tvs are progressive scan. Even if you set them for interlace (two fields per frame), they don't have a fast enough refresh rate to clear the first field before the second one shows up.
  • Bob Brouhaha
    Who knows maybe they'll show the 2-D and 3-D version and thus show the contrast of both versions of the movie.
  • They said during the football game tonight that the 3d episode of Chuck would be the night following the superbowl.
  • Dr. D
    I saw 20 minutes of footage of the film during a presentation by Katzenberg... I was not impressed at all... not impressed with the story, the animation, and their new proprietary 3D technology.
  • This is a great idea. While it is a small, simple thing that really isn't a huge deal, this will create a lot of buzz for this movie and will really help it in the long run.
  • Not really. The red-blue method of 3D looks horrible, and besides, many people are turned off by gimmicks. I know I am!
  • I understand what your saying, but think of it this way. What are we talking about right now? Monsters vs. Aliens. What will people be talking about during the 3D Trailer? Monsters vs. Aliens.

    Am I going to go out and get a pair of 3D glasses for this? No. Was I really interested in this movie from the trailer? No. But any publicity is good publicity, especially when it comes from a studio with the reputation of DreamWorks.
  • True, but Avatar comes out a week after this movie. Many theaters only have one or 2 3D theaters...MvA is f-ed!
  • This gimmick feels especially cheesy. I can't imagine a number of adults going out to get these 3D glasses to watch a commercial spot during the Super Bowl. This promotion is for the kiddies.
    I do not see a bunch of hardcore football fans pulling out the 3D glasses in anticipation to watch the MvA trailer...ahahahahaha. Lame.
  • the old man
    Actually Philip's has a TV now that they manufacture a lens on the screen to achieve 3-D. No more need for glasses. Like most of this kind of technology, It's a little slow getting into the market place, read expensive. However, as HD becomes more prevalent and more content is adapted to 3-D, it'll be the next big thing to sell you a new set.
  • That sounds insanely cool. It's going to be weird when we're all old and our grand kids will be asking "what was it like watching TV in 2 dimensions?" (well, if we have nerdy grandchildren).
  • Do you think they've done the math pertaining to how many people won't have the glasses on at the precise time the trailer airs, thus looking like a red and blue mess/mistake on screen and rendering their promotion pointless and wasted to what will probably be the majority of viewers?
  • I am sure they have done the math of selling the product involved in this promotion.
  • So they're expecting about 100 million people to actually go out and get 3D glasses just for their trailer?

    RIIIIIGHHHTTT.....
  • nikki
    like anyone wants to waste their time and gas money just to go get some stupid 3d glasses for a 2 minute commercial!!@@#%$!
  • Yepp, they mentioned it on the Saturday night game. They made a big deal out of it and Jerome Bettis actually had on a pair of the glasses. Apparently the glasses are at some SoBe life water stand thing in stores.
  • Well, this movie is officially going to suck. When marketing a movie that's using "brand new technology", using the oldest 3-D technology to advertise it shows that they don't have full faith in the movie!
  • Maybe they going kitsch. I mean the movie is making fun of the 50's 60's Monster movies anyway so the marketing might just be trying to connect with the theme.

    But yeah terrible idea.
  • Joe
    It's in "regular" 3-D for the sole reason stated somewhere above: Dreamworks is not willing to pay hundreds of dollars per consumer for this ad which already costs at least 2.5 million, assuming it's a 30-sec. spot.
  • From what I understand, ColorCode 3-D is amber and blue lens, and is only a slight improvement on the old Anaglyphic technology. Having two colored lens will still lead to all the problems of Anaglyphic (headaches, loss of colors...etc) While it isn't exactly the only technology, its not much different from the old technology
  • What I meant is your screen cap shows whate he is saying... If you look carefully it is a red sobe behind the left eye piece and a blue chuck cutout behind the right eye piece...
  • yeah. but the screencap also shows the amber/blue glasses on Chuck in the background :)
  • Good eye! I couldn't see the box because the pic resolution isn't large... That is very strange to market a product and have the product look completely different
blog comments powered by Disqus
gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2009 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.