The folks at at Pearl Studio and DreamWorks have been working on the animated film Everest for a few years, and now the film has a new title: Abominable. The movie focuses on a group of humans who befriend a Yeti. That makes Abominable the second soon-to-be-released animated Yeti movie. What a time for cinema!
Read More »
For horror franchises, getting turned into a maze at Universal’s Halloween Horror Nights is a badge of honor. Hostel, Scream, The Thing, A Nightmare on Elm Street, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and others have all been immortalized as interactive, three-dimensional experiences and this year, two new properties are being added to the list. Silent Hill and The Walking Dead will each be represented at the seasonal event, which takes place every Fall Universal Studios Hollywood and Universal Studios Orlando. Also, DreamWorks has signed a deal to exclusively license their characters – such as Shrek, Madagascar and others – to a new theme park being developed in northern New Jersey.
Read more about each after the jump. Read More »
Posted on Sunday, December 7th, 2008 by David Chen
Variety reported this past week on some important goings-on in the world of 3D at the 3D Entertainment Summit in Century City. Apparently, 3D is the future of cinema (not surprising, given the summit’s title), but there were also some interesting statistics revealed:
- Despite the growth in the number of 3D screens in America, they consistently generate twice the audience and three times the amount of revenue of 2D screens
- The 3D screens playing Bolt, Meet the Robinsons, and Chicken Little outperformed their 2D counterparts by 2.5 to 1.
- For Dreamworks Animation, the cost of making a film into 3D is an extra $15 million
One of the most significant quotes comes from Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks. According to Katzenberg, 3D is “a premium experience and has the consumer paying a premium price.” Katzenberg stated that Dreamworks will start charging $5 extra for their 3D films starting with Monsters vs. Aliens in 2009.
I’m quite ambivalent about this news. On the one hand, I understand that more work is required for 3D films, both from the producers of a film and from the theaters that must somehow project the images and have the infrastructure in place to distribute glasses, etc. On the other hand, I don’t feel like the quality of the 3D films I’ve seen recently (specifically Bolt and Beowulf which both would have cost me about $10-12), would have motivated me to fork over an extra $5 just to catch them in 3D.
Editors (Peter Sciretta) Note: In San Francisco, most theaters charge a $2.50 surcharge for 3D films, but I’m not sure if that is the case all around the country.
Discuss: Do guys think it’d be worth it?
It looks like all is not right in Spielberg-land.
Read More »