This is topic Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002037
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-30-2008, 10:32 PM:
 
from imdb.com:

Katzenberg Urges Theaters To Step Up Pace On 3-D Conversion

While DreamWorks Animation chief Jeffrey Katzenberg has pledged to make all of his studio's future films in digital 3-D, he may not find a lot of theaters in which to show them. In a conference call with analysts on Tuesday, Katzenberg said that the conversion of theaters to 3-D has "dragged along, and it's been pretty disappointing." He noted that the addition of 3-D to the production of an animated film will cost the company $15 million more per film. But whether that additional investment will pay off, given the number of theaters that are currently equipped to show 3-D films, "is the thing up for grabs right now," he said. Meanwhile DreamWorks Animation said that its first-quarter profits came in at $26.1 million versus $15.4 million a year ago -- a 69-percent jump. Profits were driven by sales of Shrek the Third DVDs and the overseas ticket sales for Bee Movie.

================

(Mike here)

Hey Jeffrey! Try to keep in mind that we're NOT ALL BILLIONAIRES out here, willya? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-30-2008, 10:56 PM:
 
What a putz this guy. [Roll Eyes] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 05-01-2008, 10:15 AM:
 
Since that Jeffery guy is complaining, then, he should shut the hell up and spend his own money to upgrade the theatres. Sheez, what an idiot he is.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-01-2008, 11:26 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
He noted that the addition of 3-D to the production of an animated film will cost the company $15 million more per film. But whether that additional investment will pay off, given the number of theaters that are currently equipped to show 3-D films
Once everyone converts to 3D that money will just recoup itself, right? [bs]
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-01-2008, 01:36 PM:
 
Maybe if they had released Shrek on Blue Ray, their profits would have been a little teensie tiny bit higher.

I'm just sayin.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-01-2008, 01:45 PM:
 
If sales of Shrek the Third are the cause of them getting that big an increase in profits, that says something about their previous product. I mean, seriously, how bad could their earlier stuff be if THAT movie gave them a boost?
 
Posted by Michael Wilkinson (Member # 2389) on 05-01-2008, 04:02 PM:
 
Why then did 3-D fizzle out on 35MM??? Wasn't it just a fad back in the day? Why were more recent attempts so few and far between??? I know there were several different versions on 35MM but why didn't any of them work. I've still got a case of polorized 3-D glasses, a case of the blue-red glasses...sync motors, special 6K reels, and a double stereo-lens thing...WHY DOES NONE OF THIS STUFF HAVE A PLACE IN BUSINESS TODAY???

If cost was an issue with most or the 35mm 3-D formats, isn't cost an even bigger issue with digital systems today? We are supposed to loan customers $40-something dollar glasses to wear and re-wear?

What makes anyone so sure that 3-D will pay off in the long run?
Is digital 3-D so much better that the best 35mm 3-D that I will be absolutely blown away??? Okay, that was the first experience now isn't it back to the quality of the PRODUCTION???

Someone please educate me on this.
 
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 05-01-2008, 04:24 PM:
 
What happened with 3-D in the past is the same thing that is happening now. It is all about cost and quality of product.

This recent March 19 article from IMDB says it all:

3-D 'Clone Wars'? It's Not Happening, Says Lucas

Although numerous filmmakers and studio executives have been forecasting that 3-D movies will become the wave of the future, with several animation units being converted to 3-D productions exclusively, George Lucas has not joined the 3-D boosters' club. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly magazine, Lucas said that his August 15 release of the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the theatrical version of his Cartoon Network series, will not be presented in 3-D, despite numerous reports to the contrary. His reasoning? "Well, you know, it's expensive," he told the magazine, "and we felt that everybody kind of looks at the downside: It would cost twice as much to do it in 3-D as it did to do the movie in the first place. So you say, "Well, gosh, do you think we're going to get that much more out of it?"

I do think its fitting that Lionsgate has announced production of a digital remake of that 1980's chestnut "My Bloody Valentine" to be called (what else?) "My Bloody Valentine 3-D".
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-01-2008, 06:30 PM:
 
Well Lucas proves his smarts in that imdb article. Because all the Star Wars nuts will flock to the theatres, 3D or no 3D, he'll save the $15 million or whatever it would cost.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-01-2008, 06:37 PM:
 
quote: Michael Wilkinson
Why then did 3-D fizzle out on 35MM???
For one thing, the movies weren't very good. I mean, look at what was being released in 3D back in the 1980s. Friday the 13th Part III in 3D was arguably the best show out of the bunch, and without the 3D it's a pretty shitty movie.

Then you have the issue of trying to show the 3D movies after a print has been used. One splice in the print and your sync is all screwed up. The friend of mine who manages our local Carmike told me nightmarish stories about trying to run midnight shows of Friday the 13th Part III in 3D with a badly used print.

That's the really big plus with the digital 3D systems. You don't have nearly the trouble getting the 3D to work. IMHO, companies like Paramount should digitally transfer those old 3D movies like Friday the 13th Part III in 3D and re-run them as midnight shows in digital 3D. At least now the freaking 3D will work!
 
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-01-2008, 09:01 PM:
 
We played a pristine 3D print of Fri/13th III a couple years ago, still a terrible movie. W/O 3D completely worthless.

YO! Katzenberg! if you're looking, we've got a projector, just send the equipment and install it, we'd be glad to exhibit your 3D pix.
 
Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 05-01-2008, 11:49 PM:
 
It's a generational thing.
My generation found 3-D movies to literally be a headache. Not everyone can view these things without some sort of eye strain. The new generation has had little product to view in 3-D (Lava Girl not-withstanding).
A lot of the problems were technical issues, including the "stacked" 3-d format that Bobby mentioned, where one splice being off-frame can cause the movie to be unwatchable. (And these movies frame-lines, where to cut, where not to cut, could be different between titles.) lens compatability was another.
Digital may improve the technical aspect of 3-D, but because we are not alike eye-wise, this will only be a fad, and not a main format for movies.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 05-02-2008, 01:09 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
For one thing, the movies weren't very good.
*COUGH* Meet the Robinsons *COUGH*
 
Posted by Paul Van Dusen (Member # 3640) on 05-02-2008, 03:07 AM:
 
I love how these production companies piss and moan about theatre's keeping up with the times, but never offer any money to help us out. Apparently they think those pretty silver screens are just donated to us.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-02-2008, 03:37 AM:
 
Wait a minute....wasn't Lucas the one who was going to go back an re-release all the Star Wars titles in that new computer-generated 3D process -- 2D dumped in/hard drive spin/3D regurgitated out? So if it is good enough for old 2D material, how come it is not good enough for shooting original 3D material? Why has he all of a sudden gotten cold feet?

Ahhh, I get it....when it's the exhibs, then they should just jump on the roll-out bus for digital conversion lickity split.....money is no object; but when it is the producers who need to invest in 3D production, well, all of a sudden we are counting pennies, eh? Here's one of the big producers pretty much telling the world that if it's going to cost him an extra $15M to produce in 3D, hell, why should he? He can make as much $$ in 2D! All of a sudden the committment to producing 3D isn't quite as firm and rosey as one might have thought. Sounds like it may even be on the wain.

Bet hearing that a big release from Lucas WON'T be produced in 3D must be making the execs at AMC, Regal, et al, want to just run out and invest in another 2000 3D digital installs!

And as far as Katz-and-bomb, first it was, "hey, all you schmucks, you all need to get with the program and install Deee-Cinema so us producers don't have to pay for crummy, scratch, dirty, fading, jittery 35mm prints." So up steps AMC, Regal and the rest, and they start the very costly conversions even without any hard definative agreements on how that virtual print carrot that was/is/maybe held out will work. And now, only a short time later, here he is whining about how the exhibs just aren't dancing fast enough to his digital tune; he's pouting because they are being (finally) fiscially cautious.

All of a sudden Deee-Cinema isn't enough for Mr. K....now he's berating the exhibs because they aren't converting their conversions to the even more expensive 3-Deeee digital equipment.

Paul's got the right word....a freakin Putz!
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-02-2008, 10:29 AM:
 
quote: Jonathan M. Crist
It would cost twice as much to do it in 3-D as it did to do the movie in the first place.
When talking about a CGI rendered Pixar type movie (which is what Clone Wars is, if I'm not mistaken), isn't most of the cost in the R&D, the character model creation and the setup and animation of the scenes, not in the rendering time itself? It seems to me that to render a second eye, while certainly adding a cost to the overall production, wouldn't come anywhere near double the cost. Or am I missing something?

When done properly, 3D is stunning to look at compared to 2D. There were two main reasons why it failed in the fifties. 1) Doing it properly, but more importantly consistently properly was difficult, and 2) CinemaScope was cheaper.

Hell, theaters these days have a hard enough time getting ONE eye on the screen properly, let alone two. For that reason and a myriad of other reasons, I'm not sure 3D will last long this time either, which is a shame. I could be wrong.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-02-2008, 01:15 PM:
 
You're not wrong. I wish they would spend the money on story development and writing, as opposed to making it look like things are going to hit us in the face, which adds nothing to a good story. The real world is 3D; a good movie doesn't have to be.
 
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-02-2008, 10:08 PM:
 
And the real world is W I D E and all those thousands of great classic movies filmed in 1.37:1 didn't seem to be marred much by their modest aspect ratio. Same for color and any other technical develpment along the way....sure they could enhance the experience, but if there isn't a really good story there at the very core, the technology alone won't hold one's attention for more than a few times, but after that, "so what?"

In fact, I was just thinking about IMAX and the first time I saw it and was awed by the overwhelming spectacle, but you know what, that first IMAX film was a wonderful, engaging piece of cinema in and of itself. And every IMAX title I've seen after that almost all have be really well-made, artistic winners. I think that has a lot to do with the staying power of the format. But imagine if they were putting some of the drek that's released these days up on that IMAX screen....they could triple the screen size and no one would give a hoot.

I don't care if it is in 3D or not; if there isn't a smart, inventive, well-told story that is carried by the technology, then it's just so much hardware and of interest only to industry people who hope to make money with it.

Think thumbs; two thumbs down is still two thumbs down, only they'll be in 3D.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-03-2008, 04:24 AM:
 
quote: Frank Angel
Katz-and-bomb
Bwahaha... Good one Frank... you just upped hiz Putz factor by at least ten with that one [thumbsup]

quote: Mark J. Marshall
There were two main reasons why it failed in the fifties.
Actually it failed back then because there were not enough "one eyed" partially blind [Cool] directors like Andre DeToth making cool 3-D films like House OF Wax!

Mark
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 05-19-2008, 12:21 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
For one thing, the movies weren't very good.
That may be true of 3D films of the 1970's and 80's, but certainly does not apply to the 3D films of the 1950's.

quote: Bobby Henderson
One splice in the print and your sync is all screwed up. The friend of mine who manages our local Carmike told me nightmarish stories about trying to run midnight shows of Friday the 13th Part III in 3D with a badly used print.
Friday the 13th Part 3 was single roll over/under 3D. The only way to get this out of sync is to splice the top of one frame to the bottom of another, ie, projectionist error that could easily have been fixed if the operator had taken the time to inspect the print.

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO, companies like Paramount should digitally transfer those old 3D movies like Friday the 13th Part III in 3D and re-run them as midnight shows in digital 3D.
The studios would do better to transfer many of the great 3D movies from the 1950's such as:

and any of the other 60 or so 3D films from that time period.
quote: Bobby Henderson
At least now the freaking 3D will work!
It worked then. The problem was/is that people do not like wearing those glasses. Killed it then, it will kill it now.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2