Katzenberg analyses 3d slump

[Nwerke]

Not exactly news, but I didn't turn it up in a search. Apologies if already posted:

Jeffrey Katzenberg on the 'Heartbreaking' Decline of 3D (Exclusive Q&A) - The Hollywood Reporter

This is both sad and encouraging. As a 3d fan I'm scornful of post-conversions and PO'd by bundled hardware bluray exclusives meaning some of my favourite films can't be had in 3D for home, even though I've finally lashed out on a 3D TV. (I have literally NO content for it yet!)

If Katzenberg's analysis is correct then perhaps the industry will finally take notice before long. A lot of us like 3D, we just don't like ****ty 3D (or ****ty exclusives). And high prices. He's clearly right to speak in terms of people feeling cheated by bad 3D, but is he wrong to deny price point is an issue when the quality is good? I think yes, the vibe seems to be that the price point is a HUGE issue even for films shot natively in 3D.

Can Hollywood recognise the writing on the wall and change its practices?

 

[Jet Beetle]

3D is just a fad - 3D televisions will be looked back it like all of those other clip on inventions they suckered people into buying with "this is the future" as a tagline. The technology to truly enjoy this simply isn't there yet and when it is - look toward Japan to be bringing it in about 5 to 10 years. We attended a show at Sony in Tokyo and they showed a holographic television that was leaps and light years ahead of anything I've ever seen and this was 3 years ago. They're working on it - but this isn't it.
I like Katzenberg, but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be saying anything if Kung Fu Panda 2 had done better. 3D appealed to a lot of studios because the movie became much harder to bootleg - they look at it more like a watermark than the next step in storytelling.

 

[Nwerke]

Disagree. Last year, HTTYD won big in 3D. This year, KFP2 flopped in 3D. What changed in the meantime? Postconversions of Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland, about which few had anything good to say. A lot of people don't look further than "3D", and they're the ones being lost by postconversions and high prices.

As for TV, I can't see them dropping it. Right now we're still paying a premium on sets, to some degree, but it's a standard feature of anything that's seriously worth having anyway.

 

[Jet Beetle]

If people are turning their back on theatrical 3D, it shows people will not pay extra for the gimmick. Television will follow. I'd SAY 3D has maybe 4 years left before it's reduced back to a novelty.

Most of my friends could care less if they see something in 3D or 2D - price has nothing to do with it when it comes to the decision. There's really nothing all that dazzling yet - not to say they wouldn't have figured out how to shoot a 3D movie sooner or later, just not now.

 

[ShadowX81]

Disagree. Last year, HTTYD won big in 3D. This year, KFP2 flopped in 3D. What changed in the meantime?

What changed is the movie they converted. Most films don't gain a thing by being in 3d, and the gimmick has been around long enough that its "wow" factor is gone. Those that compare 3D in films to the invention of color and sound in films make me laugh. There is no real benefit to be gained thematically by a few things popping out at you.

As for TV, I can't see them dropping it. Right now we're still paying a premium on sets, to some degree, but it's a standard feature of anything that's seriously worth having anyway.

You may think 3D tvs are worth having, but most of the rest of America does not. They just aren't selling that well. Part of the reason is like you said, they are expensive. Another reason is that the 3D effect really sucks on small screens. Not to mention the fact that no one likes losing the ability to do other things while watching tv. They don't like the idea of having to put on special $100 glasses every time they want tv on in the background.

Which is another thing. $100 glasses for every person that wants to watch. What is going to happen for things such as superbowl parties? Large families? Movies shown in classrooms? No one is going to carry these things around on the off chance they may have to watch a movie that day.

 

[Nwerke]

I don't respond well to films where the 3D is used as a gimmick. Where it's used to enhance the environment and the drama in the same way as the musical score is, that's where it scores big for me. And only a few films have done that really well so far. That's not a gimmick, that's a really beautiful addition to the storytelling experience. I trust more directors will take up those reins.

What are your criteria for a small screen? Anything less than cinema sized, or the smaller range of TVs? My screen is 46" - is that small by your reckoning? If so then let me assure you the 3D effect doesn't suck, in fact it's jaw-droppingly beautiful.

As for putting on glasses, why would that stop you from doing other things? Though I don't see why you would wish to sit down to watch a movie and then randomly 'do other things'.

I do compare this to colour and sound. We may make you laugh, but you inspire pity in us.

 

[ShadowX81]

Youve never had the tv on in the background when you are doing work? Maybe have the news on while you are reading? Falling asleep to a movie? Using your laptop to browse while the tv is on? Im doing the latter right now.
Forcing people to wear glasses essentially means you must dedicate your full attention to watching and nothing else. Alot of people (myself included) dont like that.

Plus you still havent adressed the practicality for large groups of people wanting to watch together.

We may make you laugh, but you inspire pity in us.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Nwerke]

Who is forced to put on glasses? Why would you wear the 3D glasses to do any of that? Just do those things as usual. You don't think the TV runs in 3D mode all the time, or something? You put the glasses on when you've got some 3D content to watch, obviously.

It means you go right ahead and laugh at me for thinking 3D is attractive and significant, and in return, for not being able to enjoy something that I think is so nice, I'll pity you.

 

[Nwerke]

As for groups, original glasses for my Samsung are not cheap, to be sure. But since I got the TV itself for $900 off the RRP, I think my budget could stretch to a few more pairs.

If not, there's always eBay. $18 a pair out of Hong Kong.

Hardly going to bankrupt me.

 

[Sigma-LS]

You know I just thought it was kind of cool to mention. My new video card I got last week said "3D TV compatible."

Neat to see them incorporating that for newer desktops anyhow. I do use a 32" LCD TV as my primary monitor so I can see where something like that could appeal to the people making a brand-spanking-new rig.

 

[Jet Beetle]

It means you go right ahead and laugh at me for thinking 3D is attractive and significant, and in return, for not being able to enjoy something that I think is so nice, I'll pity you.

I don't think either of us is laughing at you - we're just pointing out the cons and facts to the technology.

If you'd been with me in Japan 3 years ago and saw what I saw, 3D would seem like a kaleidoscope to you. No glasses needed. The unit was wall hung with a flat screen supporting projector on a table in front of it. It literally looked like layers of objects - or as my son said at the time "It reminds me of a pop up book". It was breathtaking.

3D was brought back to be abused - people knew it ws a way to fool people into going in to see a bad movie - so the application of the effect got cheaper and cheaper. I personally never liked it

 

[Nwerke]

Perhaps you're not, Jet Beetle. I was referring to:

Those that compare 3D in films to the invention of color and sound in films make me laugh.

Autostereoscopy has been around for a while and is even on the market in a limited way. However, as you say, it resembles a pop-up book - critics tend to generally regard that as a FLAW. :lol. It's also typically got a very poor viewing angle versus LED/LCD and Plasma active-shutter systems. There are also passive-glasses systems which don't need batteries, however these aren't true 1080p as alternate scan lines are used instead of the shutter effect and high refresh rates.

Trust me, my Samsung's image is breathtaking. And the glasses are no more bothersome than the ones you get at a cinema. A couple of years ago, I'd have expected to pay $1200 more than I did, and not get 3D into the bargain. I'm a happy customer right now. I can't recommend one of these sets enough.

It's just the content that is the issue right now. Too many exclusives and postconversions, too few good movies in well-done native 3d.

Even then I'd have picked something up by now if I wasn't bedridden.

 

[Rotwang]

A lot of people made the mistake to think that 3D automatically meant money in the bank, bums on seats and that people would come in droves to see the new magical lantern trick.

Didn't happen and I guess a lot of them will blame it on the audience once again. "We got it wrong, it's that fickle public that didn't like movie X and stayed away from movie Y, though we did everything right !!!"

 

[robstyle]

The problem with 3D is the same problem with massive explosions and Michael Bay panning shots, its not used correctly. 3D should enhance the film, not be the focus. It should shine when needed and sit in the background allowing the focus to be on the story itself. Its not worth the double ticket price to see it in a theater when the film is ****. Its a gimmick that comes and goes. This time its an in between technology just as JB pointed out. Remember Tivo or any other add on units for tv being obsolete now or even tube tv's going flat screen and now everything is lcd/plasma/led. Apples and oranges but the same idea. Home 3D will end up, if its to be supported on a grand scale, as an in set technology no glasses needed. It will just be an enhancement of depth perception and then the next gimmick will show up on the market...

 

[micdavis]

I used to set up those Sony shows and they drove me nuts, I'd see all this cool stuff, half would never see the light of day.

 

[Nwerke]

This. ^

The problems with autostereoscopic sets and even passive-glasses sets DO confine them to being a gimmick, for now at least, IMHO. If something like Artoo's projector comes along one day, great, no doubt things will change radically.

For now, I've gone with the best tech for which there's a good combination of availaibility, screen size, support and price point.

 

[Kerr Avon]

Question then..

A year or so ago I went to Universal Studios in Florida and saw the T23D movie again. As far as I can tell, the 3D in it is STILL superior to what I see in Regal movie theatres. The freaking hover drones seem to be in front of you, the T1,000,000 spears come right out at you. Why is something made decades ago still superior to stuff coming out today?

 

[Nwerke]

Never seen it and I know little of these "Regal movie theatres" of which you speak.

The movies I've seen in 3D in the new theatrical processes have been vastly superior to, say, Spacehunter: Adventures In the Forbidden Zone, or Parasite, or Treasure of the Four Crowns, however. :lol

 

[Larry Young]

TiVo is obsolete?

 

[robstyle]

You dont need Tivo, can do it on a home computer, digital cable box and even some DVD players have playback and recording. I may be wrong but cant you do the same with an Xbox?

POTC4 in 3D was terrible same with the horrible Alice in Wonderland movie. Much is out of focus to sell the 3D effect. The 3D T2 thing at Universal is still very impressive but its using 3D as a gimmick as well. Things are flying at you and such. Use it as a tool!

Ive posted this before as its a great example of what I mean as a tool as opposed to a gimmick. The Modern Warfare series my friends did. This is an example of the 3D im talking about for the future of TV. Although its not a "movie", its showing the 3D effect I expect from TV within the next 5 years.
Modern Warfare: Frozen Crossing Alpha (Frozen Battle Scene)