Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Katzenberg: Theatrical 3D will be gone in a year if crappy conversions peeve audience

This is topic Katzenberg: Theatrical 3D will be gone in a year if crappy conversions peeve audience in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006120

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2010, 06:16 PM:

Katzenberg: Biz at 3D crossroads

Variety

3D is either A) The industry's biggest bigscreen innovation in decades and its biggest growth opportunity; B) In danger of fading within a year; or C) All of the above. According to Jeffrey Katzenberg, the answer is C.

The DreamWorks Animation head says Hollywood is at a "genuine crossroads," and the decisions studios and producers make in the next few months could ensure a healthy life for film-going -- or kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Last weekend was significant in the evolution of 3D because it marked the bow of the highest-profile 3D conversion: "Clash of the Titans," which Warner Bros. converted from 2D at the last minute. On that weekend, DreamWorks Animation's "How to Train Your Dragon" was in its second week and Disney's "Alice in Wonderland" continued its run -- giving auds a chance to experience three very different applications of the same technology.

The issue for Jeffrey Katzenberg is what he calls the "cheeseball" conversion of "Clash," with results that have been almost universally panned by critics. Warners insiders conceded to Variety that some at the studio were unhappy with the look of "Clash 3D" as it was seen at some screenings. But in public, Warner execs have defended the movie and argued that its strong box office performance proved that moviegoers are satisfied.

All over town, in film and TV offices, 3D is being debated. To get the dialog started, Katzenberg was invited to meet with a group of Variety reporters and editors for a wide-ranging discussion on 3D and why, in his opinion, the industry is in danger of incurring a major self-inflicted wound and setting back the entire bigscreen experience. Here are excerpts of that discussion.

Jeffrey Katzenberg: I think we are at a genuine crossroads. Today, 3D in theaters offers probably the greatest innovation and opportunity for movie makers, studios, exhibitors and, most importantly, the consumers, of anything that's come along in several decades.

I think people have really misunderstood what my anxieties have been about in these last few weeks. We had the largest 3D release platform for "Dragons" than any movie today. It's not been about losing 3D screens for "Dragons."

So the issue of "Clash of the Titans" is actually not about theater (capacity) and theater access, it is about (what) that movie represents -- a different experience. And in my opinion, one that, if replicated, and becomes the standard, is the end of 3D.

We've seen the highest end of (3D) in "Avatar" and you have now witnessed the lowest end of it (in "Titans"). You cannot do anything that is of a lower grade and a lower quality than what has just been done on "Clash of the Titans." It literally is "OK, congratulations! You just snookered the movie audience."

The act of doing it was disingenuous. We may get away with it a few times but in the long run, (moviegoers) will wake up. And the day they wake up is the day they walk away from us and we blew it.

Does it take the moviegoing public one movie, three movies, five movies to get to the point where they are discerning the difference between good and terrible? By the time that happens, there will be another 20 or 30 or 40 movies in the pipeline but we (will already have) killed that goose that is delivering us golden eggs.

Every company right now is sitting, assessing what approach and what process and what economics to invest in the 3D platform. There are dozens of decisions literally that are about to be made or have just been made in the last 30 or 60 days and in the next 30 or 60 days, the sum of which will determine what happens to 3D.

Variety: You're talking about the bad post-converted 3D on "Clash." How is "Clash of the Titans" any worse than "Alice in Wonderland?" There was a lot of criticism of the converted 3D in that movie.

JK: All 3D is not created equal. It is first and foremost a very, very powerful creative storytelling tool.

Starting with a filmmaker who designs and shoots his story with 3D as part of that storytelling is going to be a huge difference from a 2D film that is put through a down and dirty post-production technical process. It is absolutely analogous to taking a black and white film and colorizing it. It's technically possible to do but it's not what the creators designed. And it doesn't look right.

("Alice" director Tim Burton) said "Look, I'm not gonna shoot it in 3D but I will very specifically design shots and sequences in this film" which then in the post production process can be amplified and, through special effects, actually deliver a pretty high-end 3D experience.

So you have movies that are authored in 3D. You have movies that are conceived and post-produced in 3D and you have 2D movies that are converted. I say with absolute confidence that right now, today, for this year, there is no technology that exists that can take a 2D film and post produce it into a 3D premium offering.

And if we as an industry choose this 2D to 3D post-production conversion, it's the end. As quickly as it got here, that's how fast it will go away.

We have seen post-production conversion of 2D movies to 3D which actually play pretty sensationally on a television. On a smaller monitor, the images hold up in a much more compelling way. So I think there is (going to be) a market for 2D conversion (for the home). I think it's a disaster for movie theaters.

V: Do you think once homevideo starts going to 3D, that will be significant enough to change the economics of the studios?

JK: You mean to convert their library into 3D? It's a couple of years away. And maybe it's why I am just sort of apoplectic about this because the revenue (today) from a successful 3D release net to the studios is greater than the erosion in the DVD market over the last two years. Look, for the last 40 years, every time we've reached this (economic downturn), something's come along to save the movie business. Home television, pay television, VHS, DVD. Now 3D comes out of the blue, out of nowhere. Nobody expected this.

V: Why will these post-conversions kill 3D? In the early days of sound, there were quick-and-dirty conversions of silent movies to sound, and that didn't kill talkies.

JK: Here's the difference: We are asking the moviegoers to pay a 50 percent premium to come see these films.

So I think (there will be a) backlash. It will be a whiplash. They will walk away from this so fast.

V: It seems you're talking about two different things. You're not talking about 3D itself going away. You're talking about 3D as a premium experience, as an opportunity for the industry being so undermined that it collapses.

JK: Well, de facto, (3D) will go away, because with no premium being paid for it, and the cost (to) exhibition in terms of what they have to invest in it, I think it all does collapse.

V: But what if TV goes 3D? Don't movies have to keep up?

JK: It's bigger than this. We have been waiting now for 10 years for the rollout of digital cinema, literally one decade. For years and years and years, it's gone nowhere. Talk about the savings of that to Hollywood, it's billions. Once you've reached a full digital platform, you've (eliminated the cost of) prints.

So for the last four or five years, the raging debate here has been the inability of Hollywood to convince exhibition, because there's really nothing in it for exhibition. It doesn't change the economics of their business. They can't charge more for a digital experience. The thing that finally got everybody off the dime was when there was something in it for exhibition, which was 3D.

So now take that 3D out of the equation and you derail that (digital) train. And who's the biggest beneficiary of digital, of a full digital platform? Hollywood. So when you want to talk about the effect of actually blowing this, it's unbelievable.

V: James Cameron says that ultimately he's not worried about the future of the technical quality of movies as long as TV keeps getting better, because movies have to be better than TV.

JK: Well, if you look at the last 10 years, the home experience has gone through spectacular innovation. The movie theater experience in that same 10-year period of time hasn't innovated at all, and moviegoing declined. Now suddenly here are two new formats (Imax and 3D). For the first time in almost a decade admissions are way up. Almost all of it can be attributed to 3D. There's a reason to get out of the home and go back to the movies.

V: Isn't the concern right now to some degree the great reception that "Clash" has had when you look at the numbers? I haven't heard any backlash yet, except from critics.

JK: The leadership of Hollywood is ultimately going to determine whether we take the low road or the high road. And I am convinced that there (is) a high road to take, and that it would produce the best opportunity to come along for our business in a decade. I'm even more convinced that if we take the low road, we'll be out of the 3D business in 12 months.

Warners is not alone (in considering after-the-fact 3D conversion). They're just the first one to come to the party. It's surprising in that it is the biggest, richest, most successful and best-run studio in the world. So you expect more.

V: Have you talked to your colleagues over at Warners about this?

JK: I have said this directly to all of them. But I have not talked to them since I saw the movie.

I want to be really clear. Barry Meyer, Alan Horn, Jeff Robinov are the best in our business. They are people who have run their business with such a high level of integrity. Alan Horn has such a great conscience about things that go on in his movies that come out of his studio. He cares. What happened on "Titans?"

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 04-09-2010, 07:42 PM:

3D has already come and gone a couple of times in history. Does anyone here know why it "went away" in the past?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-09-2010, 08:35 PM:

Here is my observation about 3-D over the years in Hawaii. I was first exposed to cinema 3-D in the early fifties. Among all of the screens the locally owned Consolidated Theatres had in the entire Territory of Hawaii at the time, only the Liberty in downtown Honolulu was showing 3-D films when it was introduced. A few months later, the Varsity also began showing them as well as a few independently owned theatres. None of Consolidated's prime Waikiki Beach and other downtown theatres as well as their neighborhood theatres got them except the Varsity. The same is true with the over /under 3-D system in the eighties when Consolidated's Kuhio and the Royal's King Theatre were the only theatres in the state to play 3-D movies using that system. Both systems just faded away but they have been many revival dual projection 3-D showings during the past fifty plus years. The difference between 3-D in the past and now is the number of theatres with the system. With the exception of Consolidated's Kahala Mall Theatres, every theatre complex in Honolulu have at least one 3-D screen now. Regal's Dole Cannery has three Real D systems as well as IMAX Digital 3-D. Their two other complex, Pearlhighland and Windward Mall have one Real D screen. Consolidated's Ward has three different systems-Dolby 3-D, Xpand 3-D and Technicolor 3-D. The Mililani has two Dolby 3-D systems. The Kapolei and the Pearlridge each have a Dolby 3-D and a Technicolor system. Both the Koolau and the Koko Marina has one Technicolor 3-D system . Maui has two houses with 3-D. As far as I know the other islands in Hawaii do not have any theatres with a 3-D system-yet.

If the industry learn from the mistake Warner Brothers made with their fake 3-D movie, THE CLASH OF THE TITANS and release only movies created in native 3-D, the process has a very bright future and deserve to succeed. If greed gets the best of some studios and release more films in fake 3-D, the process will just fade away only to be resurrected again sometime in the future.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2010, 08:44 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
the industry learn from the mistake Warner Brothers made with their fake 3-D movie, THE CLASH OF THE TITANS and release only movies created in native 3-D, the process has a very bright future and deserve to succeed.

Looks like the problem is, the studios have greenlit about two dozen of these "conversions" over the next couple of years, so there's going to be more crappy 3-D than good 3-D. Outside of animated films, it might take "Avatar 2" before we see another "good-looking" live-action 3-D movie.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-09-2010, 09:22 PM:

The reason why 3D disappeared in the past: the movies themselves were shit.

No new technical process involving sound, projection, 3D, smells, seat vibration, etc. is going to go anywhere without the movie itself being good. That's the difference with the latest generation of 3D movies. It has nothing to do with the projection being "DIGITAL" or any of that horse shit. The difference is we actually now have some 3D movies being released that are worth paying money to watch.

I didn't think Avatar was a truly great movie, but I'd rather watch it than Friday the 13th Part III. That crappy slasher flick was arguably the best of the dozen or so 3D flicks made in the 1980s. I think you would have to go back to the 1950s to find 3D movies of good dramatic quality. Recent releases like Up, Monsters vs. Aliens and How To Train Your Dragon have scored well with both audiences and critics.

Thank God someone like Jeffrey Katzenberg had the balls to finally step up and speak about this totally dreadful 2D/3D conversion bullshit. Kudos to him for that.

All that 2D/3D conversion nonsense just needs to totally stop. It's a scam invented by sales people looking to save a buck doing something on the cheap (or what they think is doing something on the cheap). Throw out a shitty product, emblazon it with "3D" and "DIGITAL" buzzword hype and then expect to rake in the bucks. It's nauseating.

quote: Variety
But in public, Warner execs have defended the movie and argued that its strong box office performance proved that moviegoers are satisfied.

That's exactly the sort of P.R. tactic those sales-oriented bean counters would take. They infer the audience knows better and likes the shitty product that doesn't work as advertised anyway. The audience members paid to see the movie, so that lets us off the hook! Zero integrity. May those executives fall victim to a bout of 'roid rage at the hands of Brock Lesnar.

Many of us have a certain level of expertise with what we do in our jobs. The average person would have the same knowledge only by being in the same line of work. If I do a crappy job and create a product I myself wouldn't buy why should I expect anyone else to buy it? The money counters who love the idea of 2D/3D conversions obviously have different standards for themselves and their customers.

Warner Bros. has made a few disturbing moves in recent years. The 2D/3D conversion stuff (seen earlier with their Superman Returns) is the most high profile thing right now. Warner Home Video is spear-heading the shit quality "rental" oriented Blu-ray. The HD-DVD format has been dead for 2 years, but WHV is still encoding movies on Blu-ray with HD-DVD bandwidth levels. Warner Home Video had to be shamed into using lossless audio on most of their releases; without the outcry they would still be using ordinary lossy Dolby Digital on most titles. Warner Bros. has even resorted to compressing some of their digital cinema movie files to more severe levels than that of other studios.

Despite the kind words Jeffrey Katzenberg has for certain Warner Bros. executives, it is very clear Warner Bros. has a consistent philosophy in place where quality is deliberately compromised. And whenever the job is done right then there's a big marketing to do about it. Studios like Sony and Paramount do a far better job with their Blu-ray discs and are arguably more dependable on 3D.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-09-2010, 09:50 PM:

Bobby,

Quality 3-D films like KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, HONDO, MEET SADIE THOMPSON were not shit. THe only problem was the fact that they had played a good percentage of engagement in 2-D because 3-D was already fading away at that time. Although HOUSE OF WAX had a lot of 3-D gimmicks, I also do not consider that movie shit either. I will however agree with you about all the 3-D movies made during the seventies with the exception of Andy Warhol's FRANKENSTIEN directed by Paul Morrissay. It was not a great movie but a very interesting variation of the classic tale of the monster by Mary Shelley.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 04-09-2010, 10:45 PM:

Oh boy ... here we meet at the familar crossroads again: first, it was colorization of b/w films, now 3D conversions of 2D movies ..

...and where did the first one end up at..? And I can see this second one follow in the same path real quickly.

"Hollyrock": if you're gonna make 3D movies, do them the right way, or not at all..don't halfass the projects.!

-Monte

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-09-2010, 11:03 PM:

People don't go to the movies to see 3D...they go to see good stories with good characters.

I did a lot of research on the 50's 3D era, and 3D died then because, when the big 3D push hit, most of the films were terrible.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 04-10-2010, 06:24 AM:

In a greater sense, film is the literature of our times; just as Shakespeare and Dickens were of their times. Quality is required to stand the test of time.

Remember that most films, like most novels, sink to the bottom almost immediately. This will be the fate of all "junk." Louis

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-10-2010, 09:03 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
People don't go to the movies to see 3D...they go to see good stories with good characters.

I did a lot of research on the 50's 3D era, and 3D died then because, when the big 3D push hit, most of the films were terrible.

I have found that good stories play very well on my tv set. With only a few exceptions, 3D gets me to the cinema these days, and yes, I've seen a couple of crappy movies just because they WERE in 3D!

And regarding the 3D from the 1950s, here's a great, well-researched essay strongly suggesting that it was the imperfect projection medium (especially in relation to the new kid on the block, CinemaScope) which caused 3D to fade away. I've read elsewhere that the 3D movies were no better or worse than a general sampling of the movies from that time. It was the medium which wasn't quite ready.

CinemaScope offered a spectacle with fewer headaches (for projectionists and audiences). As 3D expert Lenny Lipton says in this informal interview , back then, 3D wasn't a "product," and couldn't always promise a repeatable, reliable 3D presentation. Theaters were eager to dispense with all those problems in favor of CinemaScope, which still gave people a visual experience they couldn't see on tv.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2010, 12:16 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Quality 3-D films like KISS ME KATE, DIAL M FOR MURDER, HONDO, MEET SADIE THOMPSON were not shit.

Those were movies made in the 1950s. Not the 1980s. When I referred to 3D movies being shit, I was talking about the 1980s generation of 3D movies and said, "I think you would have to go back to the 1950s to find 3D movies of good dramatic quality."

Nevertheless, there were other 3D movies made in the 1950s that were bad. I'm sure that helped continue to the downfall of that generation of 3D use.

Basically whenever any sort of "gimmick" is used in a movie release if the movie bombs then the gimmick gets blamed for the movie's failure. The studios don't stop to consider the script, acting performances, etc. might have been the culprit.

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 04-10-2010, 12:35 PM:

As a corallary (sp) to Bobby's thesis - How many films really benefit from 3D?

Just to take this year's Academy Award nominees. The Hurt Locker may have been cool in 3D, but it wasn't necessary. An Education would have been pointless, and more likely distracting.

Unlike color and sound, gimmicks that became standards, 3D in the last 50 years, hasn't added anything to the overall quality of motion pictures. Is there a good movie that you would only watch in 3D? If so, what did 3D add that makes it unwatchable otherwise? Can you think of any good movies that would be better in 3D? Outside of Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Horror what's the point of 3D

90 percent of everything is crap. Some of it is just in 3D. In the long run, quality will overcome gimmicks. In the short run, there's lots of money to be made on gimmicks.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2010, 12:50 PM:

When it's done right, and used on the right kind of movie (more of a crowd pleasing amusement park ride sort of film) 3D can be a very useful addition. I liked the use of 3D on Beowulf. Monsters vs. Aliens is probably better seen in 3D for some of the obvious 3D sight gags placed into the movie (they look a little strange only in 2D).

Some other types of movies can actually be hurt by 3D. I agree 3D would probably be distracting if used on a serious drama; the character performances should be the main focal point there. 3D can hurt certain IMAX presentations in that the 3D effect arguably removes the bigger than life size scale you gain with IMAX. The 3D effect masks out the scale of the big screen and merely makes things look life size.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 04-10-2010, 02:36 PM:

You did not say the 80's, Bobby You said "the past"

-Claude

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 04-10-2010, 03:24 PM:

quote: JK article
We have been waiting now for 10 years for the rollout of digital cinema, literally one decade. For years and years and years, it's gone nowhere. Talk about the savings of that to Hollywood, it's billions. Once you've reached a full digital platform, you've (eliminated the cost of) prints.

Buried amongst all the 3D hype-o-rama that JK has been espousing is this little gem of a quote that sums it all up.

JK couldn't care if films are made in 2D, 3D, 69D or by monkeys with crayons- THIS is his main bitch with the system, and he at least has this right.

It's all about the $.

On the one hand he complains that the quality of 3D conversions will kill the 3D bubble, then on the other actively promotes a system where the EXHIBITOR foots the bill for no real $ gain for him/her.

quote: JK article
the raging debate here has been the inability of Hollywood to convince exhibition, because there's really nothing in it for exhibition. It doesn't change the economics of their business. They can't charge more for a digital experience.

Ahh, there it is.

Just replace the words "3D" with the words "Digital rollout" and reread the article.

The spectre of Gordon Gekko is alive and well in "Hollyrock" (copyright Monte Fullmer).

Bobby's right. If a film is shit in 2D it will be shittier in the extra dimension...and patrons will feel extra pissed that they payed extra for the reaming. THAT will kill the 3D goose and the studios will loose out twice in that..

[*]their beloved digital rollout is stalling big time.

[*]and their "experience surcharge" will eventually force patrons away and to their favourite torrent

I agree that its a crossroad situation but a part of me kinda likes watching the studio execs squirm just a little.

P.S No mention of the Technicolor 3D system either. Funny, that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-10-2010, 05:10 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
You did not say the 80's, Bobby You said "the past"

Claude, I also wrote this:

quote: Bobby Henderson was the last to post
I think you would have to go back to the 1950s to find 3D movies of good dramatic quality

I think that said it pretty clearly.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-10-2010, 09:18 PM:

Theatrical 3D is already dead to me. After seeing the IMAX 3D version of The Polar Express (not too shabby) and then the dreadful, gimmick-laden IMAX, partial-3D version of Superman Returns, I was finished. I specifically avoided the surcharged version of Up and enjoyed the perfectly acceptable 2D version. I saw Avatar in 3D and decided that the movie didn't need to be in 3D and, bottom line, I didn't need to waste my money on a surcharge for a totally unnecessary "enhancement."

Yes, I'm done already.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 04-10-2010, 09:25 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Nevertheless, there were other 3D movies made in the 1950s that were bad.

Yeah...most of them (*and there were a lot in 1953-54, around 50 or so). And the movies that WERE good, such as Kiss Me Kate and Hondo, were just as good in 2-D.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-11-2010, 12:34 AM:

They are still making lots and lots of bad 3D movies in the 00's and the 10's (or whatever this decade is called). Most of 'em are computer animated crap. Seen one, you've seen most. I honestly can't keep track of all the different computer animation movies that aren't Pixar.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-11-2010, 06:39 AM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I did a lot of research on the 50's 3D era, and 3D died then because, when the big 3D push hit, most of the films were terrible.

3D died in the 50s for a number of reasons.

1) Dual strip 3D required a bit more attention on the part of the projectionists to "get it right". For example if the film broke, the projectionist either had to add slug to make up for the lost frames on one of the prints or cut the corresponding frames from the other eye print. It wasn't THAT hard, but like anything else that's new, there's a natural adjustment period where everyone has to get used to doing what they're doing. It only lasted a year.

2) Distribution costs were a little higher- now you had to ship TWO prints instead of one... at least to the 3D capable theaters.

3) CinemaScope appeared. That was pretty much the nail in the coffin. It was easy. Ship one print, put the lens in, open the masking and forget it. And while some movie goers hated wearing glasses for 3D, almost everyone seemed to enjoy the bigger screens (except Hitchcock, but he didn't like 3D either).

I think Bobby is right about 3D dying in the 80s because the movies sucked. Hollywood tried a bunch of sequels in 3D trying to capitalize on the success of the previous installments of the movies.

First of all, #3 of anything is risky. Especially when #2 wasn't all that great. But Hollywood never seems to remember that lesson. The biggies from the 80s were all #3 sequels... Amityville, Friday the 13th, & Jaws. And let's face it. They all sucked. There was really no "Avatar" event-type movie. There was that "Space Hunter" movie or whatever it was, but even that didn't really have much going for it. So, yeah I think that's what happened in the 80s.

And don't forget that Universal also kicked around anaglyphic prints of Creature and It Came from Outer Space in the 70s. And we all know how much everyone loves wearing anaglyphic glasses. They love it so much that they magically "remember" wearing them in the 50s too.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-11-2010, 11:25 AM:

Well, as bad as they all are... and I disliked Avatar... they do sell tickets. 3 to 4 times the 2-D grosses here in You-Taw. The other thing is that many 3-D systems are easily paid for in the first month of operation so the expenditure is a no brainer... surely pay back isn't going to be any longer then 6 months for the smallest of locations. I do think and hope that we'll see less 3-D in the next few years as the newness wears off but because the equipment exists in quantity we are going to see them probably for at least the next 10 years.

Mark