Originally Posted By Admin This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID511610.asp" target="_blank">7/24/07 Rhett Wickham: 2 Bee or Not 3-D? That is</a>
Originally Posted By emotional ideas Well that's just fine. Providing that each and every viewer has stereoscopic vision. Does this mean that kids and adults with vision problems that prevents them from viewing 3d imagry (my son being one of them) will now be cut out of the picture? There is technology for digital cinema on the way where the 3d effect is embedded in the signal; watch the film in 2d or pay a premium for the 3d expreience.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Great article, Rhett! Maybe if 3-D is the future of cinema (story? performances? who cares about story and performances???), Sensurroundâ„¢ can have another go at it, too!
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Well, and what happens to all these 3D only films once they appear at home? They will have to work out something so that the experience can be had there too. Even now with films released in 3D, they are not presented so on DVD. I'll admit that this generation of 3D is not as gimmicky as the 1950's version, but still, the story is the thing that makes the film, not the effects. I saw Polar Express in 3D, and it made the film much more enjoyable to me, but that didn't improve the story at all, it was still a terrible movie (in my opinion).
Originally Posted By basil fan I saw Meet the Robinsons in both 2- and 3-D. I enjoyed the film both times and can honestly say that the 3-D didn't make it any more enjoyable for me. It was just interesting to see and that's all. Happily, I didn't want to see The Bee Movie anyway. Mouse Tales <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/mice.html</a>
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror As always, Rhett... Well done. Katzenberg has to be one of the most unbridled and overcompensated egos in Hollywood History. 3D IS definitely worth the benefits inherent in avoiding piracy, but it's no more a savior of cinema than television was its executioner.
Originally Posted By maniac_disney Katzenberg vision is so solid! I still remember his old "visions of future" like "The Prince of Egypt will show us the future of animation". Or even better "Spirit and Sinbad will be the future of animation...bless the TRADIGITAL animated features". Lol
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'd be happy seeing 16mm black and white movies if they'd just stop showing us commercials. When the wife and I went to Harry Potter, I noticed how much things had changed. We used to go to the movies to see them without commercials. But now that we have TIVO at home, the only time we see commercials is when we go to the movie theater.
Originally Posted By ctdsnark So Dreamworks' animated movies are going to be in 3-D,huh?To this,I say---"So the heck WHAT??!!??" Here's an idea,Jeff---try improving the QUALITY of your animated features before even CONSIDERING any technical improvements!As far as I'm concerned,Shrek and all the other CGI claptrap you've released makes you a distant second---no,third---no,FOURTH to Disney/Pixar!There's some old showbiz quote about {human waste} wrapped in gold is still {human waste}{Regrettably,I can't remember it}.Disney's decision to release Meet The Robinsons in 3-D did NOT make me want to see it{Disney's non-Pixar CGI features are---well,they're not that good},and I would NOT want to see Rataouille,which I loved,in that format,either---It's already a good film,and I don't need that sort of visual distraction.I WANTED to see Nightmare Before Xmas 3-D{Too-distant theaters made that impossible},because it's a well-made film,and I was curious to see if 3-D would enhance the high quality stop-motion animation. Get your priorities straight,Katzenberg!
Originally Posted By juicer I just heard in the San Francisco Cron. that Disney and Sony is leasing some huge former airforce hangers at the old Hamilton Airforce Field (now a huge multi use housing and commercial developement) about 15 miles north of the Golden Gate Bridge in the city of Novato - Only for 3D projects!
Originally Posted By Jim Interesting article. I wasn't aware Katzenberg had said this. I saw MTR in 3D for the gimmick. Honestly, I wouldn't do it again. It was fun once, but I felt like it took away something from the viewing experience.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators The space you're talking about is the Image Movers Digital Studio the motion capture studio that they've invested in setting up with Robert Zemeckis. The press release from IMD states that teh studio is devoted exclusively to Zemeckis' motion capture projects, including the Jim Carey "A Christmas Carol" the first production on their slate. Quote - "His latest film, "Beowulf", due out in November 2007, will illustrate how much further the process has developed and bring to theatres a movie unlike anything that has been seen before." ...heaven help us.
Originally Posted By jvanostenbridge Thanks for the great article, Rhett. Hmmm. When Feature Animation did away with its traditional hand-drawn practice, both the animators and the audience said, "it's the story not the medium." When the Pixar purchase brought John Lasseter into WDFA, he pretty much said the same thing. There seems to be plenty of evidence that all of us agree, so Jeffrey Katzenberg absolutely must know something that the rest of us don't. Right? I expect that what all the studio executives are after is finding ways of making the movie-going experience more immersive, more of an event, and something that you will want to experience in the theater time and again. I suppose as the technology in our living rooms gets closer to the capability of Hollywood screening rooms, movie moguls are struggling to identify precisely what that experience will include and what the new boundaries of it might be. When you consider that this is largely a condition created by Hollywood's collective desire to embellish their revenue streams by releasing theatrical films on DVD and through other channels (cable, internet, etc.), I think it's fair to expect statements with a little more depth than, "we know what's next and it's 3D". As an audience we are just a bit too smart to take that bait. So, since all of us get the bit about doing a great job telling a great story regardless of the medium, how would you change the movie-going experience in a way that made you want to come back time and again?
Originally Posted By actingforanimators That's an excellent question, Jim, and I hope a lot of people will reply. For my money, I have three things that do or would keep me coming back to a theatre to see a theatrical release of a film: 1. An audience. I like seeing a film with other people, not just a hand full of folks in my living room 2. The theatre experience, not merely a large screen, but a truly BIG theatre sized screen. Film is not made to be video, and the experience is simply not the same no matter how big the screen in a home theatre. 3. Price. I think the cost of films is too high and should come down by 25%, and I think they can. I do think that home video has played a big role in decreasing ticket sales, and the ever-narrowing proximity of theatrcial release to home-video release is absurd. Back when Iger was CFO under Eisner, he hinted at something that I think would make a very big difference - being able to get the DVD immediately upon release, available at kiosks only in theatres and only to ticket-buyers. His plan wasn't very detailed, and I'm not savvy enough to know if real-time burns can manage the encription it would require, but I imagine it might look like this: DVD version, no bonus features, no chapter selection, just a basic DVD download of truly good quality, mind you, available ONLY to ticket buyers. A swipe card is given rather than a ticket. The card is swiped once for entrance, then you swipe it a second time after you've screened the film, the card is encoded as "having seen" (if you will) and you then swipe it a third and final time at a kiosk in the lobby that burns you a copy of the film and delivers it to you for a fee of $12 the first week of run $14 the second week of run $18 the third week of run $20 the fourth and final week it's available to theatre goers, after which time it does not appear on DVD/VHS for a minimum of 12 months, at which time the minimum price (even at discount venues) would be $24, but would have any extras, bonus footage, etc. I'm sure this theory has a million holes in it, but I'd certainly do my best to get there for opening weekend if I could get a good DVD for under $15 after seeing whether or not I like the film.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "The space you're talking about is the Image Movers Digital Studio the motion capture studio that they've invested in setting up with Robert Zemeckis. The press release from IMD states that teh studio is devoted exclusively to Zemeckis' motion capture projects, including the Jim Carey "A Christmas Carol" the first production on their slate. Quote - "His latest film, "Beowulf", due out in November 2007, will illustrate how much further the process has developed and bring to theatres a movie unlike anything that has been seen before." ...heaven help us. " What I don't get is why bother? Really, from the looks of Beowulf, why couldn't that have been done with actors? The thing I've always loved about animation is that it expressed something different. If I wanted realistic people, I'd watch a live-action movie. I don't understand what the point of motion-capture is, because you're basically watching an actor. I can understand it's use for non-human characters like Golem in Lord of the Rings, but so far it's being used on a lot of human characters. That's just dumb to me. These days, you can easily mesh actors with CGI sets, it's done all the time. I think that's why I like Pixar's humans so much, because they are stylized and you KNOW they are animated. I just really hate this motion-capture stuff...
Originally Posted By basil fan I think motion capture and CGI in general are great for special effects in live-action films. That's where they shine. I don't like them in animated movies. Basil of Baker Street--His Limits <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/basil/limits.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ basil/limits.html</a>
Originally Posted By jvanostenbridge Rhett, Thanks for responding to my question. It’s been a while, so I think I will give it a stab myself. I couldn’t agree more that an audience and the larger than life screen are two elements that are clearly part of the movie theater experience. Concerning the price of a ticket, I would have to say that there needs to be a stronger guarantee that the value of the experience is equivalent to the cost. A film made with big-name talent but with a made-for-tv quality screenplay isn’t worth the time or money. If you look back at the history of theatrical storytelling, it really hasn’t changed all that much in 2500 years from its origins in Greek Theater. Sure, elements of the medium and manner of delivery have changed, but the core principles are still the same. Reflection of and resonance with the human condition is still reigns supreme. So, after doing a bit of soul searching on this, I am gravitating back to consistent delivery of high-quality storytelling as the measure of a great movie-going experience. If Jeffrey Katzenberg, among others, is looking for a transformational and innovative solution to offer options for immersive, dimensional storytelling, I would recommend that he set aside some time to return to Disneyland once again. Walt Disney figured out that dimensional storytelling required something more than a static theater more than 50 years ago. 10 years ago Bran Ferren, then Executive VP for Creative Technology & R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering, spoke at the Association for Computing Machinery Conference (ACM 97). The title of his presentation at this event which focused on the next 50 years of computing was “The Future of Storytellingâ€. The main point of his presentation was that the combination of storytelling and network computing delivered via the combined talents of storytellers and engineers would offer the next frontier in this tradecraft. I believe we’ve seen the beginnings of that predominantly from the video game industry, but there is much more to cover beyond adrenaline-pumping shoot-‘em-up games. That said, this manner of storytelling breaks down the walls of the theater and invites you into either a physical or virtual space as a participant, not just an observer. What we are seeing today from WDI’s Living Character Initiative with free-roaming animatronics could be considered an extension of this same approach as well. So what options are we left with if the movie-going experience needs to remain in a theater with each of us occupying a seat? You guessed it: Quality. From my perspective, if effects and projection options such as 3D are to be used, they must be applied in service of telling a great story in a great way. It seems clear to me that the future of your local multiplex cinema depends more on that than anything else. Jim
