How to Train Your Dragon: I'm already bored of 3D

Here's a lot of the specs for digital cinema:

http://www.dcimovies.com/

They include some interim standards for 3D, but a lot of that is a moving target. Some theater owners don't agree as to what constitutes proper brightness levels, for example. 14fL was the standard for film (in a pitch-black room) for more than 50 years; I'm not convinced it's even that bright for 3D video at this point.

Standards only work when everybody agrees on them and they're enforceable. The industry is in a bizarre, chaotic state at the moment, and I think a lot of things are up in the air. The fact that there's three different 3D standards (RealD, Dolby 3D, and MasterImage 3D), plus 35mm film, digital video, and two kinds of Imax, plus two kinds of screens (regular and reflective-silver) tells you that nothing is really etched in stone at this point. Plus you have people shooting movies in 3D, vs. turning flat movies into fake-3D later on -- using one of about ten different fake-3D systems.

To me, 3D is kind of like where digital movie sound was in 1990: a lot of systems being demonstrated, lots of confusion, studios making bad decisions, technical malfunctions, and money being spent in the wrong places.

 

From what I see, kids (including mine) are hooked on seeing movies in 3D now.

 

In my area, it's $12.50, which is pricey for the midwest.

 

sounds like a riot!

 

It ended up at $494 million worldwide, so it likely turned a profit. Add in the ancillary stuff - and the money made off of "Dragon" video products/TV shows - and I think it ended up fine for DW...

Two years after that deadline, 3D remains alive!

 

Yes, that's definitely into profit. The sequel, though... I dunno.

I think 3D laid a huge egg in home video, and everybody's quickly abandoned that and gone to 4K. I also think everybody has realized that they still need to exhibit movies in both 2D and 3D, or else it scares off a huge percentage of viewers. Captain America just made $500M as of today, and I'm curious what percentage of that was in the (dimensionalized) 3D version or the flat version. In truth, I think the only reason for 3D for most theater owners and studios is to make more money... not to make more entertaining movies. There are rare films like Avatar, Life of Pi, and Gravity where the 3D really becomes part of the story, but I don't think it's necessary for non-blockbuster films. Do I really want to see a Woody Allen comedy in 3D? Or an Drew Barrymore romantic film in 3D?

Meanwhile, here's the new trailer for the Dragon sequel:



The smoke particulate and liquid VFX work is really good, and it's amazing how much Dreamworks pushes the envelope with Pixar. Beautiful looking movie... but this is a very, very busy summer for kids' movies. I like Jay Baruchel's voice, but man, the missing foot on his character bugs the hell outta me. (Again, it's a plot change Dreamworks threw in that's not in the books.)

 

yes, but some are just so enamored by the 3-D effect they don't care if the movie is off...sorta like an audiophile who listens to the music for the sound of the recordings over the quality of the music.

 

I'm gonna go on record with the prediction that "Dragon 2" will do better in the US than the first movie. For one, it has virtually no "family" competition. It opens more than a month before the next animated film - and that one's the "Planes" sequel, which doesn't have "A-list" written on it.

In addition, I think the popularity of the "Dragons" franchise has grown over the last few years. As noted in this thread, the first one wasn't a HUGE hit, but I get the impression its grown in stature since 2010 - its DVD/BD release along with other showings and the related TV shows and whatnot seem to have made it a bigger deal.

I'm guessing it makes $200 million US easily, and it could go much higher if it's actually any good...

 

That sounds high to me, but I fell on my face with my prediction that The Lego Movie would do poorly. I'm gunshy when it comes to family movies!

I knew early on that Captain America would be a huge hit, but I had no idea it would make $500M this fast. It's gonna clear a billion, easy, in the next three months. I dunno about Dragon 2, but I know Dreamworks is desperately pushing it since their stock sank after Mr. Peabody.

 

Were 3-D to become the standard presentation format, then storyline, acting and enjoyment would, as they are, become the standard; 3-D is no replacement for any of those primary elements. Otherwise it's just a gimmick.

 

I dunno - $200 million isn't what it used to be. 13 movies made $200 million US in 2013 - 13!!!

If "Croods" can pull in $187 million, I see no reason "Dragon 2" - a sequel to a much-liked film - can't make $200 million, especially given its lack of competition and its prime mid-June release date.

I'm sticking with $200 million as the bare minimum - I could see upwards of $300 million if it's good. Frinkin' "Despicable Me 2" made $368 million last year and it had actual competition!

 

Prefer 5D... The Byrds.

 

I was very surprised that Croods was as good as it was, when I finally got around to watching it on home video. Surprisingly entertaining movie. I think a lot of the deal on these kids' movies boils down to timing: if there hasn't been a decent movie for under 12-year-olds in about 4-5 weeks, then it's almost a slam dunk. But the key is for the movie not to suck.

 

I agree that "Croods" was better than expected. I only saw it theatrically because a friend and I wanted to see a movie and it was the only one neither of us had seen. It wasn't a classic, but it was fun:

http://www.dvdmg.com/croods.shtml


And the timing subject continues to be a reason I think "Dragon 2" will do so well. It really doesn't have ANY direct competition for those "family dollars"!

 

Dragon 2 will be huge regardless of release date.

 

Kinda how I feel, but don't you think the release date helps it even more?

 

I think timing is everything with a lot of these pictures. And no question, the trailer did look like fun to me.

 

I wasn't wild about the first film and have little reason to believe I'll like this one more.

That said, I do need to watch the first one again - maybe I'll like it more the second time.

"Megamind" is by far the best recent DW Animation effort in recent years, IMO. It deserved a better box office fate...

 

And just to bring this thread up to date: I finally got around to watching Dragon 2 on Blu-ray, and I thought it was an incredibly well-made film. The visuals are just amazing (thanks in no small part to consultant Roger Deakins), and the lighting and camera movements were just astonishing. This movie borders on Lord of the Rings complexity in terms of massive battles of people and enormous creatures. They also did an astounding job with all the VFX particle work -- smoke, water, snow, etc. -- to the point where it's hard to tell where the world of live action ends and the world of animated cartoons begins. It's an amazing film.

One bad thing, though, story wise...

Spoiler

I thought they got rid of Hiccup's father in kind of a perfunctory, off-hand way, almost like it didn't matter and wasn't serious. I think this was a major error in judgement to not make his death much more real and have much more of a dramatic impact.

But the movie got very good reviews for the most part and made a ton of dough -- though not as much as the first one -- so I'd still call it a success overall.

 

One of my college buddies was an effects supervisor on this, my kids seem to watch it daily. I like it, wish we'd seen it in 3d

 

Hasn't changed since Day 1 colored glasses - a gimmick that doesn't improve the movie.

 

it's a gimmick but it's certainly different from colored glasses and can make it a lot of fun. I think animated flicks work best, like Pixar but both life of Pi and gravity were stunning in 3d and to me made great films even better

 

According to Box Office Mojo, the first film made $494 million worldwide, and the sequel made $618 million worldwide.

The first movie did better in the US than the sequel did, but the sequel did MUCH better than the original outside of the US than the original did...

 

You're absolutely right. I'm puzzled, because I remember earlier this year, Dreamworks' stock went down because the movie grosses on Dragon 2 didn't go as high as they expected. As far as I know, this is the only Dreamworks film in two years to actually make money -- following Rise of the Guardians, Mr. Peabody & Sherman, Turbo, and Penguins. Technically, the latter may soon break even, since it's still pretty new. But it won't be anywhere near Madagascar's $600M+ box office.

I did like Dragon 2 quite a bit, particularly the rollicking score and the wisecracking dialogue. But I also had the same problem I did the last time: all the adult cast has British or Scottish accents, but 100% of the teenage kids speak like they're from modern-day Southern California. Makes absolutely no sense. This is really emphasized when Hiccup actually imitates his father's Scottish accent (courtesy of Gerard Butler) at one point. There's also a weird story thing in the way a major character's death was handled, as well as who caused the death, which kind of gets quickly dismissed and forgotten about. This kind of "story shortcut" seems to happen quite frequently with Dreamworks' films, and I generally don't see this sort of sloppiness with Pixar.

But despite these misgivings, I liked the film and thought it was a nice diversion. It's good entertainment... you know, for kids.

 

I'm thinking the impact on stocks was because the initial US grosses weren't as good as expected. I think everyone expected the sequel to do better than the original in the US, but it came out of the gate with a disappointing opening weekend and never recovered.

It opened in the US before a lot of the rest of the world, so no one knew it'd do as well as it did internationally. If it'd opened everywhere at the same time and done great internationally, the stock decline might not have occurred, but after a lackluster US opening weekend, stocks declined.

I didn't realize "2" did as well overseas until I looked up grosses tonight. I knew it was a disappointment financially in the US and had no idea it'd done so well elsewhere...