Toon Zone Talkback - DreamWorks' Katzenberg: 2-D Films to Become "a Thing of the Past"

I'm still kind of confused on that myself but since he was talking about 3D glasses at the end, I think he was talking about films shot in 3D that require those special glasses to see them.
 
Well, Jeffrey Katzenberg also thinks Kung-Fu Panda warrants five sequels, so I wouldn't put too much stock in his predictions being based on anything actually happening in real life.
 
*Hits head on desk*

This man is starting to scare me, I think all that power has gone to his head. I bet if it does happen, it will only last a few movies before everyone gets bored by it.
 
It official, he is to animation movie business what Al Kahn is to anime business, some crazy dude that like to spout random nonsense, and that I choose to ignore completely.

We need some Krazy Quotable from Katzenberg... NOW!
 
I thought the TZ News article text made it clear that he was talking about the latter, but the article I linked to definitely indicates that he's talking about stuff in 3-D. It's one of the things he flogs constantly, but this is the most extreme I've ever seen him talking about it. It still seems to me that he's essentially trying to make his predictions about 3-D movies come true through sheer force of will, but there is a growing trend towards 3-D-capable projection systems, and CGI animation does lend itself to making 3-D movies pretty easily. Disney is being quieter about it, but remember that both Toy Story movies are getting the 3-D treatment in advance of Toy Story 3.

DreamWorks has already long thrown its lot in with CGI-animation, though. I'm pretty sure if I searched long enough, I'd find a comment by Katzenberg about how 2-D animation is dead because the audiences don't want it any more.

-- Ed
 
With the possible exception of holodeck technology as seen in Star Trek, which doesn't require special glasses and literally projects images in 3-dimensional space, this will never happen.
 
This is foolishness. My mom has one eye, so she can't see 3-D films under any circumstances. And there are hundreds of people just like her. Not to mention that I've heard 3-D get bashed repeatedly by critics and viewers alike. It's a gimmick, not an artform.
 
Dilbert20Cartoon.jpg
 
You know, I'm looking at this thread and I see Katzenberg saying:

"3-D is the wave of the future!"

And I hear other people going:

"Boo! It's a fad! It's niche! It's a gimmick! Boo, 3-D!"

And I wonder, am I the only one who's a centrist on this issue? Am I the only one who wants to see 3-D move beyond a fad without taking over the movie industry wholesale? Like, maybe one or two good 3-D movies every summer and a couple good 3-D movies around Christmastime at least with the rest being regular movies. It seems that there's some really anti-3-D sentiment in this thread, but I could be wrong.
 
I personally don't see 3D films being made outside of the blockbuster features and lately, practically all of those rely on CGI special effects to aid in the 3D illusion. It is simply something that cannot expand beyond animated films and those in the action or adventure category.

I have nothing against the process, but Katzenberg seems to be thinking that future filmakers will consider it essential that everything on screen has to look like it's able to rotate 360 degrees Matrix style and every rock and fire hydrant absolutely must be noticed in it's high definition glory. Highly detailed eyecandy is evidently the most important aspect of any film.
 
Welcome to the internet, where everyone is scared of change. :D

And I agree with you by the way. I personally think 3-D won't become the norm, but it would be nice to get a 3-D release of something you do have the option to see in 2-D every so often. Both could co-exist, as long as you have the choice.
 
It's not just you, I'm one of the few people on the internet who doesn't view CGI...groan...OK, this time I'll call it 3D...as the Great Satan. To me, it's just another way of presenting a story. Whether it's good or bad to me depends on the quality of the individual project itself, not how many dimensions it's in.
 
The whole red and blue or those other special glasses they have at the Disney and Universal parks, now that 3D for me is still niche market.
 
Actually I'm rather indifferent to 3-D. I have no problem with there being 3-D movies out for people who enjoy them. I just wouldn't want everything to be 3-D as it would be difficult for me.
 
I don't really mind CGI films either. I love a lot of 2D films as well, but both are just a form in which to present a story. What counts the most for me is a story and who well the characters are developed in a film, not if its in 2D or CGI. I do like the idea of both forms co-existing, rather than one dominating over another.
 
It's odd. the first few replies showed some confusion as to what kind of 3D Katzy was talking about. Then, as the thread went on, everybody agreed that he meant stereoscopic 3D. Now people have gone back to thinking he meant CGI.

Hmm.
 
Back
Top