The Wall Street Journal interviews Jeffrey Katzenberg.
[P]eople are willing to pay a premium for the experience, [he says], as long as studios don’t put out “crummy movies and crummy 3-D.” ...
... meaning of course, the cheap-jack retrofits of flat-screen movies that the studios can't seem to resist and hurt movie-goers' eyes.
There are 37,000 screens worldwide, and lots more 3-D movies in the pipeline, so the technology is going to be around for quite a little while, cheapie fake 3-D and all.
The format is not my cup of tea, but having seen a lot of these dimensional features over the past couple of years, I do think that Dreamworks Animation does the moving View Master thing better than anybody else.
(Watch the video interview at far end of the link. I couldn't figure out a way to embed it up above, despite the buttons.)
Posts
27 comments:
Well, I was hoping 3-D was another fad that was going to die in about a year or two, but apparently it's different this time.
I do not want to watch movies cause of 3-D, it really does hurt your eyes, which is why I wait for the video.
So, he's finally said it--audiences are chumps and are fools for paying more money for lesser image quality. 30% less color, contrast, and brightness. Increased eye strain and headaches, and uncomfortableness.
.He's not the only one scamming the audience--just the loudest.
i just don't believe anyone who uses the word 'crummy.'
These "talkies" will never catch on dad-gummit, what'll they think of next color?
and animation done on a computer? Bah! You kids with your crazy talk...
Maybe Im one of the lucky few but I never notice the color/darkness difference in 3D films (and Ive taken the glasses off mid viewing and tried to notice the difference. Maybe I just go to higher quality theaters?). I also dont get headaches nor am I uncomfortable when watching the films.
Or maybe, more accurately, the people who complain about these annoyances are over-exaggerating, especially when theres always the non-3D screening you can watch.
especially when theres always the non-3D screening you can watch.
That's not always true, my theatre never offers non-3D screenings. Maybe it depends how many screens the theatre has available.
As old Samuel Goldwyn would say, "Count me out."
If you dig 3D it's all yours. The rest of us chumps will save our money.
And, get off my damn lawn!
So, he's finally said it--audiences are chumps and are fools for paying more money for lesser image quality. 30% less color, contrast, and brightness.
Actually he said nothing of the sort. He was criticizing hurried conversions like Clash of the Titans (which have been slammed by critics.)
You want the best 3-D experience, you should go to an IMAX screen, where the image is brighter. I don't like the format very much and so avoid it, but many think that it adds to their viewing pleasure, and God bless them.
That's not always true, my theatre never offers non-3D screenings.
Your town only has one theater? Maybe thats the problem...
Maybe Im one of the lucky few but I never notice the color/darkness difference in 3D films (and Ive taken the glasses off mid viewing and tried to notice the difference. Maybe I just go to higher quality theaters?)
I think you need to compare the viewing of a movie in 3D to its "regular" 2D counter part. The difference is quite noticeable and detrimental, in my opinion. I'm sure the studios wouldn't mind you running the comparison on multiple movies either.
I'm with Floyd, count me out.
I recently viewed an ice hockey extravaganza in 3D through the newest purchase at my wife's cousin's house. The television was impressive, and I can even argue a potential market for live-action 3D with sports. However, they still need to work out the bugs.
Someone needs to tell the ppl who go see and enjoy these 3D movies how dumb they are...
Imagine enjoying 3D - how pedestrian...
Definitely save your money and go see the brighter image. You can keep the water spot 5.00 dollar stained glasses that you throw in the recycled bin for another sucker to use. I'll pass, on the darker headache causing image as well.
This is an interesting article on that....
http://networkedblogs.com/cx76S
I like the 3D.
Im not a sucker, I just think the depth looks neat.
*shrug*
@ Anon 5:18
Dude, you are not playing along. See the way this blog works is you hate everything that any animation studio does, whine that life is not fair, say that you have more story sense than any of the so-called professionals, and hate anyone successful...
Come on now, if you cant play along - move along - this is not the blog you are looking for.
*shrug*
;)
Fun fact: 6 out of the top 10 grossing movies of the year were available in 3D--five of which were animated movies.
3D has propelled animated films to a record-grossing year in 2010. They've never accounted for so much box office in a single year or for fully half of the top ten grossers.
Bottom line is that it's good for the industry, audiences at large enjoy it, and it creates more animation jobs.
Viva la 3D!
The 3d in the converted Alice in Wonderland was horrible.
What goes up, will always go down.
Enjoy your 3D now because it won't last. Just like it didn't last the other 2 times it was a "huge hit" with the latter of those boasting it as being "greatly improved".
Every minute of my waking life is three dimensional. I'm not going to spend that dough to pretend I'm being convinced that the screen is the same. I want to look at the projected image. There should be more up there than just eye candy.
^thats the realization that audiences will come to in the next 24 months as the recession marches on, the buzz dies down, and 3D wanes.
3-D is just a way to get more money without having to get people in the seats. It's actually a pretty smart business move, but it will go away once people realize it is just a fad and a waste of money.
The thing that confuses me is that considering how bad 3D is... why are so many people returning to see it? People are punished by one 3D movie, then return to see another and another. Surely we live in a society of masochists. I'm, glad there are people on this blog who who better and endeavor to keep the people from seeing what they enjoy. Keep up the good fight!
I bet those people who enjoy 3D are Tea Party members - you know what I mean? "Those" types of people....
I go for the digital projection. CG films look better that way than on film
"There should be more up there than just eye candy."
Animation IS eye candy.
That's the business we're in.
Animation is RIGHTLY beautiful, colorful, full of movement.
If it tickles the vision centers of our brain, it should be done in animation. 3D is not for everyone's taste. But then neither is animation.
I hope at least some of the commenters will enter a nearby 3D screening, walk to the front of the room, and yell out to the assembled eight-year-olds, "STOP ENJOYING THIS MOVIE. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? TELL YOUR PARENTS TO SAVE THE EXTRA THREE BUCKS FOR YOUR COLLEGE FUND. BACK IN MY DAY, WE LISTENED TO THE GREEN HORNET ON THE WIRELESS AND IT WAS JUST FINE."
Get off my lawn and turn down that racket you call music!
extra 3 bucks only... I want to go to that theater.... the ones by me are a 7 dollar mark up.
Post a Comment