my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Katzenberg is steamed that there aren't more 3-D cinemas Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 04-30-2008 10:56 PM                        What a putz this guy.  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 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?  |  IP: Logged Michael Wilkinson The Entertainment King of Colusa and Beyond Posts: 89 From: Colusa, CA USA Registered: Apr 2004 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan M. Crist Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 531 From: Hershey, PA, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 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".  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 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!  |  IP: Logged Bill Enos Film God Posts: 2081 From: Richmond, Virginia, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 퍼항시, 경상푹도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 05-02-2008 01:09 AM                     quote: Bobby Henderson For one thing, the movies weren't very good. *COUGH* Meet the Robinsons *COUGH*  |  IP: Logged Paul Van Dusen Film Handler Posts: 82 From: Roanoke, VA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 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.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 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!  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.