Not everyone can follow the comedy giant Jerry Seinfeld on to a live stage.
Especially when he’s on form. And today, in a giant auditorium in Amsterdam,
he certainly has the audience in the proverbial palm. “What’s with the
bikes?” he says, launching into a smart routine about Dutch cycling culture
before an appreciative pan-European audience composed mainly of multiplex
managers and cinema owners.
They’re here for the annual Cine-Expo, a week-long schmooze-fest between
solicitous Hollywood studios and impressionable European exhibitors, and
they’re clearly lapping up Seinfeld’s shtick – basically a light-hearted
introduction to some exclusive footage from his new computer-animated comedy
Bee Movie (in which he plays a bee). The footage wows, Seinfeld rocks, and
he walks off the stage with a contented smile. Job done.
He is followed onstage, however, by a diminutive 56-year-old man with a shaven
head and slightly cadaverous appearance whose carefully chosen words hold
the entire audience in an even tighter grip. His name is Jeffrey Katzenberg,
he is the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, and he has come to announce both the
death and the rebirth of cinema as we know it. “I can honestly say to you
with every ounce of conviction in my being: I have seen the future of
movies, and this is it.”
Katzenberg is talking about 3-D. Yes, I know, it’s been knocking around since
the Fifties, mostly as a camp exercise in camera kitsch in movies such as Bwana
Devil or House of Wax, or later as novelty value in Jaws 3-D, or later
still in 3-D IMAX versions of “regular” blockbusters such as Superman
Returns.
But this time, says Katzenberg, it’s different. The new technology is so
flawless, so crisp, that it predicts and prefigures nothing less than a
complete transformation of the way that our movies are produced and
consumed. As significant as the invention of colour. As significant as
sound. He is so convinced, in fact, that he announces a fundamental change
in production policy: from 2009 all movies from DreamWorks Animation will be
made in 3-D.
“I mean, this is it!” he says afterwards in a backstage green room, still
pumped from his performance. “I couldn’t be any more confident or certain
about it! As the man says, I’ve put DreamWorks’s money where its mouth is!”
When Katzenberg speaks the industry listens. He has a gift for spotting
consumer trends and shaping audience appetites. He is the animation guru
who, in the Eighties, single-handedly resuscitated a dying Disney brand
(remember The Rescuers?) with a string of populist hits that included Aladdin
and The Lion King. He is the movie connoisseur who, as the chairman of
Disney studios, purchased and funded the edgy indie company Miramax and was
thus responsible for the profusion of hip post-Tarantino movies and upstart
production companies that defined Nineties cinema.
And he is the mogul who in 1994, together with Steven Spielberg and David
Geffen, created DreamWorks SKG, the first new Hollywood studio for more than
60 years, and one that now boasts Oscar-winning movies such as American
Beauty and Dreamgirls, as well as billion-dollar franchises such as the Shrek
series (personally produced by Katzenberg).
Everyone’s on board the 3-D Express, he says: James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis,
Spielberg, Lucas. He’s talked to them all. And, most remarkably, he has
talked to the other studio heads too. “I personally went and met with the
heads of every single studio and told them in advance of our announcement,
why we were doing it, and why it’s an opportunity. And I’m encouraging them
to do it too. I want to see the movie business migrate to 3-D. That is my
goal.”
He says that of course there will be a transitional period while cinemas
install 3-D projectors and audiences get used to the new 3-D protocols. And
yes, there are the dreaded glasses to wear, but here Katzenberg expects some
heavyweight help from the fashion industry. “Once they realise that glasses
are an essential part of a 3-D movie-going experience the glasses companies
will be the first to take charge,” he says, predicting a future of
personalised 3-D specs from the likes of Ray-Ban, Oakley et al.
“There’s no question about it,” he says. “Why? Because any time there’s an
entrepreneurial opportunity, someone’s going to step in and take it. If
there is going to be a significant regular movie-going experience of 3-D,
then the glasses industry will be the first ones to recognise that this is a
sensational opportunity, and they will charge in and make it happen.”
It is indeed pivotal for the success of the 3-D endeavour. One of the
stumbling blocks of previous technologies was the considerable side-effect
of dizziness, headaches and nausea among cinema-goers, all induced by
watching 3-D movies viewed through freebie cardboard glasses. Proponents of
the new 3D systems, however, claim that cutting-edge stereoscopic technology
combined with those custom-designed glasses will make nausea and headaches
as archaic as cardboard specs. Although, interestingly, no studies have been
carried out on the effects on the visual cortex of watching say, a nine-hour Lord
of the Rings mara-thon all in 3D.
Katzenberg expects that, ultimately, most cinemas will operate a “two-tier”
system where, for a premium, audiences will be able to experience the wonder
of the 3-D cinema-going experience while the rest can watch the cheapo 2-D
stuff on the next-door screen. The films themselves are not going to be
gimmicky either, he promises. It’s not about pointing sticks, fingers,
pokers and pencils towards the camera at every conceivable opportunity. “I’m
not interested in breaking the proscenium [the rectangular film frame within
which most of the action happens],” he says. “Any time you tweak people on
the nose and become overt about what you’re doing you break the bond that
exists between them and the movie.”
But the best thing of all is that 3-D movies are impossible to pirate. To the
naked eye, and the naked lens cap, they look blurred. “You cannot record a
3-D film off a movie screen,” Katzenberg says. “And so the idea that in one
stroke you could actually put a huge damper on piracy itself improves the
margins of our business by 20 per cent.”
Katzenberg continues in equally ebullient form, holding forth on the future of
the movie. The man estimated to be worth £400 million says that, thanks to
3-D, he feels optimistic about the business for the first time in years. He
says that he’s not worried about threats from the internet, or the alleged
damage that bad word-of-mouth among bloggers can do to his movies. “Less
than a tenth of 1 per cent of our business is done on the internet,” he says
dismissively.
He admits, though, that the rise of home cinema has been, despite great
revenue, a problem for moguls such as himself. “I’m trying to protect a
movie-going experience that has been, frankly, to some degree threatened by
home cinema,” he says. And he decries, at length, celebrity-fuelled
entertainment journalism. “Angelina Jolie’s life has become a prison,” he
says, before launching into a pap-bashing tirade.
But mostly he waxes lyrical about the dawn of a new movie age. He’s excited,
he’s motivated. He’s got the facts, he’s got the figures. And, crucially,
he’s got the commitment. And even if 3-D isn’t the natural evolution for
modern cinema you suspect that, with Katzenberg behind it, that’s how it
will go.
Let's all remember that animators must all prove they can perform pointless seasick swooping along 3 axes simultaneously. Whether showing us Iraq on a map, starting at Antarctica and rotating, spinning and zooming, or swooping over a radiator in Polar Express, seasickening an audience is key!
iain , bedford, uk
Decent 2d animation is just as good. But it's the story that keeps people interested i nwatching a film. All the pointless seasick swooping in the world couldn't save a stinker like Polar Express. When they run into trouble with the story, and bring out the pointless swooping, the game is over.
iain , bedford, uk
The difference is the technology is finally here. The headaches and dizziness were not from the cardboard glasses, but from bad, out of sync projection, and in MANY cases poor filming of the movie itself. I can see it becoming very popular however. (A) It can easily be pirated as stated above., and (B) with the advent of 1080p HD home TV sets I GUARANTEE you home 3D is not that far off. The reason it never worked before is a normal TV can't scan fast enough to show two images simultaneously therefore you get a flickering headache inducing image. Either way here's to 3D! I for one am glad the major players will producing quality work in 3D. Cameron doesn't do anything half way. Thats another main reason 3D has failed so many times before in the past, it HAS been a gimmick handled by amateurs. Hopefully no more.
william, franklin, North Carolina
3D seems like the future to me. They keep getting better. I wear glasses so I usually have to wear glasses OVER my glasses and I usually get headaches. So far Beowulf was really good, especially in RealD... the glasses they had were really good. I didn't get sick. I absolutely HATE the IMAX 3D glasses because they slip off my face as they're supposed to fit close to the eyes.
I CANNOT wait for James Cameron's next two films in 3D Avatar and Battle Angel. Especially the latter as I'm a huge fan of the manga from which it is based.
The only thing we need to watch out for is gimmicks. Beowulf was VERY guilty of using gimmicks. The whole thing was a "show-off" film. After 30 minutes they stopped "throwing stuff" at you because they knew the novelty would wear off. I did however like some of the indirect uses of 3D like looking from above, looking at foreground versus background and landscapes. For some reason the landscapes look VERY real in 3D. People and animals (in CG) still need work
Tina, Los Angeles, California, USA
Contrary to what the article states (that 3D movies "have been knocking around since the fifties"), public showings of them go back at least as far as the Paris Exposition of 1903 and if there is one thing we have learned about 3D in the century since then it is that members of the public will put up with the inconvenience of wearing the special glasses required to view them for a few times at best, after which the novelty wears off.
Clearly, however, the attraction of 3D as far as the movie industry is concerned is its faith that they cannot be pirated by taping copies off the screen with a concealed video camera, since to the naked eye the image is blurred.
However, if the would-be pirateer slaps an inexpensive Polaroid filter on his camera lens (thus eliminating one of the two images required to achieve the stereoscopic effect), he or she will end up with a viewable image, albeit "flat" rather than in 3D.
Bruce Martin, Toronto, Canada
i was goin -
ha hah haahahaa yeah right....
till i read -
"But the best thing of all is that 3-D movies are impossible to pirate"
chria, liverpool,
The re-new fad of 3D will fade away faster than Katzenbug's own "Sinbad," Cimmeron," and "Road to El Dorado" did from the theaters.
Katzenburg did NOT "single-handedly resuscitated a dying Disney brand." He was one of many people to help do so, and he didn't write or direct the studios big animation comback. John Musker and Ron Clements did.
That's because 3D is behind the times. It's the past, not the future. Digital projectors can project faster than film, with images more vivid and dimensional than current 3D. New films being shot digitally will take this into consideration. This will make the new 3D fad obsolete in less than a year. It looks better than 3D, and there are no bulky glasses involved.
Scott, Chicago, USA
I think it's a marvelous idea! Yay!!!
Penelope, Lakeview, Alabama
@ Simon,
Wouldn't you need to have a camera with two lenses for that to work? One to receive the, say, "red" tint and one to receive the "blue". That's how the effect is recorded in the first instance I think, so that it can simulate the perspective effect of having two eyes offset from each other's focal point. It works for us because our eyes(or brain) rebalances the distance of the plates. You'd then need a camera manufacturer to make one of these with a justified reason, which there isn't one. Or is there?
Lewis, Twickenham, United Kingdom
Not impossible to pirate.
Just add a polarizing lens filter, and you have a perfect 2D recording.
Turn the polarizing lens filter 90 degrees, record again, and you have the recording for the other eye.
Go home, fire up your pirated version of After Effects and make an anaglyph movie, encode, upload.
Jack Frost, Los Angeles, CA
As someone who has lost the use of my right eye I am less than enthusiastic personally about 3D. I also need prescription glasses. So is Katzenberg suggesting that "personalized 3-D specs from the likes of Ray-Ban, Oakley et al." be bought for all members of the family prior to seeing the "3D experience" adding additional cost to an already outrageous family expense only to enter the wonderful current unpoliced theater experience of noisy cell-phones and rude patrons. I remember when audiences only made noise during the show when they laughed and screamed. Good luck Jeff on bringing back the golden days of cinema experience.
I loved going to the movies. There are truly great moments that can not be duplicated at home. The opening of 2001 in a darkened theater with the bass building of Also Sprach Zarathustra in surround sound behind you, the collective gasp of the audience when Redford is revealed to not be dead in the Sting, after the break in Dr. Zhivago with Strelnikov's train.
Buddybaba, Hamden, CT
OK. It's not my business, but Katzzzzenberg, 2015... And so on... 4D...5D... Money, money, my sweet song.
Puiu, LA,
Considering how consumer electronics usually ape motion picture industry trends (surround sound, high definition, wide screen), if new generation 3D theater technology is a success then it will be only a matter of time before it arrives in you living room. Once that happens piracy will follow, naturally. Manufacturers will fall all over themselves bringing consumer 3D video cameras to market. And if anyone reading this thinks that a consumer 3D camera isn't a viable prduct, I suggest you Google "Stereo Realist". If you build it, they will come. And pirate.
Jeff Fuller, New York, USA
3D movies impossible to pirate - really? I would have thought that all that was required was to stick one lens from a set of 3D glasses over the camera lens, and voila - a perfecty acceptable 2D recording. I'd be happy to bet money that the "anti-piracy" aspect is what is attracting the movie companies, and yet again, it is utterly ineffectual in reality. When will the media companies learn?
Simon, Cambridge,
Some years ago at a lecture at the BFI the speaker pointed out that 3D movie crazes come about once every 20 years (late 1930s, 50/60s, 1980s) so I guess it is about time for the next "3D craze". However the reason the speaker gave for the 20 year gaps was that "it took 20 years for the public to forget how awful 3D movies are". Maybe Jeffrey Katzenberg should think about that before he makes his first big financial mistake. (Although I hope not, I love 'gimmicks' and I particularly love the 3D gimmick)
Paul Ecchi, Croydon, Surrey