Monsters Vs Aliens new 3d movie from Dreamworks.

Dreamworks is coming out with a 3D, computer-animated film…and it doesn’t make yer eyes bleed to look at the promos.

http://www.scificool.com/first-look-at-dreamworks-monsters-vs-aliens/

Apparently, the plot is that a California girl is hit by a meteorite, & transforms into a 49 foot 11 inch giantess. She is captured by the military, & imprisioned with other monsters.

When Aliens attack, the monsters join with humanity to kick butt.

Anybody know more?

BTW–yes, it is a tribute to the old 50’s era monster/sci fi flicks.

I love the voice acting cast, but I can’t get too excited about yet another CGI movie. I’m not the biggest Pixar fan like some people here, and I’ve actually loathed most non-Pixar CGI movies. Ugh, don’t get me started on how much I dislike the Shrek series.

However, if they ever get Rainn Wilson, Hugh Laurie, Seth Rogen, Will Arnett, Kiefer Sutherland, and Stephen Colbert together for a live-action movie, I’ll be there on opening night.

Intrigued…sign up…newsletter…etc, etc.

The website is up already!

I’m not sure. Dreamworks has pretty consistently disappointed me.

(But if it feels like Science City Zero, I’m there.)

I hope this crashes and burns and leaves a huge, smoking crater that no one in Hollywood will risk going anywhere near for a thousand years.

Why?

Because I, and about 12% of the male population, can’t see 3D!

We see out of both eyes just fine, we just can’t resolve 3D images. I’ve heard all the nonsense from James Cameron and others that “No! This is different! It will work this time!” Bullshit! I attend SIGGRAPH, and every freaking year there’s the latest and greatest in 3D, every year I try it, and every year I wind up having to cover one eye because it’s a doubled mess!

12%! This is like saying “Come see this film!” But don’t bother if you’re gay. Or if you’re black. Or if you are part of any roughly equal-sized minority population. There are plenty of 3D presentations out there right now, and I’m able to safely ignore them because they are just 3D processed versions of 2D films (except “U2 3D” and I wouldn’t watch that on a bet). But Cameron and others are blithering that this is going to become the standard for theatrical distribution. I saw over 160 films in the theater last year. If this inanity becomes the standard, that means I have to wait until the movies come out on DVD! This is unacceptable. My only hope is for every one of these “Exclusively in 3D!” presentations fails miserably.

Are you referring to Warren Ellis’ Planetary, or something else?

We should stop making movies entirely while we’re at it, because of the blind population that can’t see them.

I will give up the joy I would have experienced at this wondrous film so that I can, in solidarity with you, cover one eye in protest.

Oh wait, on second thought fuck that.

How dare you mention yourself in the same breath as Blacks and Gays?
And definitely not Black Gays,they are good people but people like you with your funny non 3d seeing eyes I really hate .

You come over here,come in our cinemas and watch our films!
Why dont you just go back to where your wanted.

You damned …er…differently sighted evil person you.

And just you stay out of IMAX theatres as well.

I can’t see in 3d either, so I support your rage. :smiley:

But I’m “blind” in one eye - not really, but my right eye is so dominant that my brain rarely process what’s going on in my left.

It’s a strange world … let’s keep it that way.

I absolutely love 3D films. I will see it if it plays locally.

I can cure this.

It involves hooking up an electrical generator to a set of metal underpants (we make them from aluminum foil).

Then, we shock you until you squeal like a little girl, and your eyes light up like a cartoon character.

Once the smell of bacon fills the air, we shut off the juice for a moment, to let you catch your breath, & promise to never-ever again dump on what promises to be a fun frolic of a movie.

Then we give you two more jolts. Just for funsies.

But, only if you want it.

Do you want it? :smiley:

This would be a quality rant if the movie was only being released in 3D or that the 3D mattered in any way to your enjoyment of the plot and the characters.

It’s not and it doesn’t.

This movie will appear in regular movie theaters where it won’t be 3D and you’ll be able to enjoy it as a… ya know… regular movie. I’m sorry and all for your condition, but at least make your bitching semi-coherent.

I hate to interrupt the pile-on on gaffa, but I wanted to pull this tidbit out of the paged linked by the OP.

Does anyone else find this…interesting? Unlikely? Movie tickets have always cost the same, whether the movie cost $100,000 or $100,000,000 to make. Movie makers have made up the difference by volume. If there was some structure to raise, or dare I say, lower the price of a movie ticket based on the price of the movie–I think the “small” movies would be better able to compete with the blockbusters if the ticket cost half as much.

If he was just talking about the cost of the 3-D glasses, sure, that has always raised the cost of seeing the movie, but it doesn’t really “add to the film’s budget.”

Anyway, I wonder if theaters will really charge a higher ticket price for Monsters, and if people will pay it.

Of course blind people see movies in the theater all the time. Ever hear of Descriptive Audio Service? As do the deaf - when I volunteered for the Chicago International Film Festival I found out that they had an office of Deaf Outreach. Blindness and deafness are fundamental handicaps and, while they cannot cure them, Hollywood films accommodate them with DAS and subtitles under the American with Disabilities Act. To see the subtitles for major films playing in theaters near you, look at the back wall of the theater near the projection booth and you’ll often see a large LED sign displaying subtitles in mirrored text which is displayed by a mirror that sticks into the cup-holder.

So yeah, the deaf and blind can, and do, enjoy movies. In the theater. But if this 3D shit catches on (unlike every other time Hollywood has tried it) 12% of the population that cannot resolve stereo images is out of luck. (Basically, if you cannot resolve one of those “Single Image Sterograms”, you’re in the same boat as me. Welcome.)

And this idiocy means one thing - higher ticket prices. Because every one of these systems still requires glasses. Which never work right for those of us who wear glasses already. Providing glasses means stationing employees to distribute and collect said glasses. And the whole purpose of a multiplex is to minimize the number of employees needed. This will require two employees stand at the entrance of the theater for 30 minutes before and at least 10 minutes after every single showing. This is the main reason the ticket to the 3D presentation of any film costs several dollars more.

3D is not a fundamental improvement in movie-going, like sound. It’s just a gee-whiz thing that will make movies more expensive. I have no problem with the current use of this stuff for special event presentations. But Cameron and others are talking about this as the standard theatrical presentation. And yeah, I will have to wear an eye-patch, as well as glasses on top of glasses. And 12% of the audience is going to be annoyed and, assuming Cameron’s dream comes true, will be permanently lost as movie-goers.

Movies playing in “3D theaters” have always cost more than a standard movie ticket.

And to gaffa, if you think 3D movies will ever catch on for all movies, you’re crazy. Building a 3D system at home is ridiculously expensive and time-consuming to set up. Even if 3D caught on like that, a 2D version of the movie will always be available.

And what about haughty Oscar-worthy dramas. No one is going to want to see that in 3D.

Geez, now that you mention it, Planetary would make a great series of movies! Why are they screwing around with Watchmen instead?