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

[MonkeyFunk]

This is the talkback thread for DreamWorks' Katzenberg: 2-D Films to Become "a Thing of the Past" (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=26015).

...I dunno, Jeff. I've only seen one stereoscopic 3D film so far (Beowulf), but I get the impression it's really best for special effects-heavy blockbusters. I'm not sure if, say, social realist cinema would benefit from people popping out the screen at you. Unless the process makes some big leaps forwards, it'd just be distracting.

[Mickialla]

:crying:

[Ed Liu]

It's the part where he seems to think that 3-D transitioning glasses will become fashion statements and items that all the cool kids have that he loses me. If it were FREE as part of my next prescription, sure, I'd take it, but I'm sure as shooting not going to pay extra for that "feature."

Plus, what MonkeyFunk said.

-- Ed

[Rick Jones]

The idea of someone saying 3D is the wave of the future seems so 1950's to me.

I like going to the IMAX and catching a 3D movie but wearing those glasses over my actual specs is a real hassle.

[Speedy Boris]

The idea of someone saying 3D is the wave of the future seems so 1950's to me. Truth. If 3D didn't catch on in the '50s, it sure isn't going to catch on now.

[Dr.Pepper]

I like going to the IMAX and catching a 3D movie but wearing those glasses over my actual specs is a real hassle.
Yeah I know, seriously. Like what people said eariler, they might be making more of them but I really doubt that 2D will go away.

[Racattack!Force]

:lol:...oh crap, he's serious ain't he. :eek: He must have forgot about Disney.

[Mandouga]

He either just wants to be the center of attention, just wants to appeal to those who are easily impressed by 3-D, thinking it's "cool" and/or is just "mudslinging" against 2-D animation. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he was doing this only as a publicity stunt to promote some upcoming movie of theirs. Whatever the case, he is clearly trying to promote a "2-D is dead" state of mind.

I completely agree. 2-D will never go away. His statement (and possibly his attitude) only shows what he knows about it.

[John Dorian]

I'll bet $500,000 dollars Jeffy Boy's head will spin once The Frog Princess opens up next year.

Any bets?

[chdr]

I think Katzenberg's talking about the stereoscopic 3D-glasses 3D, not CGI animation.

Either way, there is no way 3D is going to catch on. It's pointless and nobody is fooled by the use of pop-up 3D effects to disguise a bad film.

[Mist]

:lol:...oh crap, he's serious ain't he. :eek: He must have forgot about Disney.

Since when has Disney ever made a 2D film?

I seem to recall in 2005 that Pixar announced they were going to bring 2D back, but so far nothing 2D has been announced. Just CGI movie after CGI movie, along with CGI shows for Disney channel.

[Racattack!Force]

Since when has Disney ever made a 2D film?
...You do realize that most of Disney's animated productions are 2d, right. :sweat:

I seem to recall in 2005 that Pixar announced they were going to bring 2D back, but so far nothing 2D has been announced. Just CGI movie after CGI movie, along with CGI shows for Disney channel.
What CGI shows for Disney Channel? Name one. :shrug:

[HEATXZ]

Since when has Disney ever made a 2D film?
They are making The Princess and The Frog,i agree that 2D will never go away plus other countries(Japan,France,etc) are still making 2D movies

[RonDrakenfan17]

Ok this is making me angry, I don't like watching those stupid 3D films becuase the glasses annoy me. Which is why I wait for the film to come out on DVD if I really want to see it. I hope this isn't some new fade that there going to do, I'm going to complaine I swear I will :mad:

[Light Lucario]

Yeah, his statement is kind of weird to me. I also thought that he was talking about CGI animated films taking over 2-D films, but I guess that he's talking more about films being shot in 3D like that Beowulf film. I disagree with him. For starters, I seriously doubt that 2D films will be going away completely anytime soon. Has he even heard of Disney's The Princess and the Frog that's supposed to come out next year?

I also can't see other films being shot completely in 3D. Aren't those like really expensive to do and it would be hard to get most films done in that way? Besides that, seeing someone wearing 3D glasses as if they were a hip fashion trend reminds me of the cool sunglasses look of the 50s and 80s. In other words, that would also be weird to see and I don't hear many people actually like wearing 3D glasses in the first place. It probably wouldn't make too many people happy to see every movie with those glasses on in theathers.

[AdamYJ]

I love, love, LOVE 3-D movies! It's one of my all-time favorite movie gimmicks. I also think it would be cool if my glasses could transition into 3-D glasses, just so I don't have to wear the paper or plastic 3-D glasses over my glasses.

However, I seriously doubt that it will become the absolute norm for the movies. I could see them being done a lot more because the Digital 3-D process makes it easier, but not the norm.

[Taco Wiz]

...You do realize that most of Disney's animated productions are 2d, right. :sweat:


What CGI shows for Disney Channel? Name one. :shrug:
He's probably thinking of Higglytown Heros and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, which weren't made by Pixar. The animation in those shows are horrible. Pixar would never do such a thing.

[warnerbroman]

are not the Pooh show in CGI too and

[Hordesman]

From what I gather, enhancements like 3D engagements make up an increasing chunk of a movie's gross- presumably because regular filmgoers will pony up a couple more bucks for more impressive experiences- whether it's the premium El Capitan theatre tickets or 3D or Imax or the all-premium $30 theatre being built.

And then there's the 20-minute version of Polar Express... in 4-D. http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2008/07/the_polar_expre.html

[Blackstar]

Just so we're clear, are we talking about CGI animated films or films shot in 3D which require those special red and blue glasses in order to see them?

[Light Lucario]

Just so we're clear, are we talking about CGI animated films or films shot in 3D which require those special red and blue glasses in order to see them?

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.

[J. B. Warner]

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.

[ToOn~g@l]

*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.

[Daxdiv]

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!

[Ed Liu]

Just so we're clear, are we talking about CGI animated films or films shot in 3D which require those special red and blue glasses in order to see them?

I thought the TZ News article text (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=26015) 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 (http://news.toonzone.net/search.php?searchID=10884), 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 (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=22871), 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

[Baltofan]

I agree, 2-D might be past.

[SirLemming]

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.

[Racattack!Force]

I agree, 2-D might be past.
Shut your piehole! :yawn: Sorry, but traditional shall always survive.

[AerostarMonk]

I don't have any problem wearing the glasses. They don't use the red/blue method anymore as far as I've seen. And I know there's work being done for unaided 3D viewing. It's mainly being done in the telecommunications sector, but I don't see why it couldn't eventually end up in the entertainment industry after it's completely perfected.

I know that most likely 3D won't catch on, but I do believe it deserves it. If they would just stop using it as a cheap gimmick is all. Not that I don't like gimmicky 3D movies.

[Silverstar]

I agree, 2-D might be past.

No, it isn't. Even if 3D catches on (though I don't see that happening unless the technology REALLY improves over what it was in 50's), it's not going to replace 2D, any more than CGI will. Traditional 2D animation isn't going anywhere.

[AerostarMonk]

Trust me, current 3D technology blows away the stuff they put out in the '50s and '80s. The process is entirely different and more efficient.

[kewlmyc]

I can tell from the responses that some people in this thread didn't bother reading the article, because he's talking about 3D movies vs. regular 2D movies, not CGI vs. Hand-drawn animation.

Anyway, I doubt 3D is going to become mainstream. They still haven't been able to bring 3D movies to DVD and still retain the same quality of 3D as the theater version. Plus, 3D movies can be a strain on the eyes. Could you imagine seeing the Harry Potter 7 in 3D. Massive headache.:sweat:

[GWOtaku]

Okay, he might be right or he could be wrong, but there is nothing cool or fashionable about 3D glasses. Not to mention that what few movies that have made a big deal out of 3D so far have been mostly lightweight fare, like Shark Boy and Lava Girl and what have you.

Skilled production and cinematography will always trump a gimmick, which is all 3D is right now. Of course, this is Dreamworks, which can't seem to stop making talking animal movies, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that he believes in this other gimmick so much.

[aalong64]

You know, the more I hear about Katzenburg, the more I get the feeling he's nuts. First he calls for... what was it, two more Shrek sequels and five Kung Fu Panda movies, and now he claims that nobody will want to watch movies that aren't done in 3D? How is he still in charge?

Really, why exactly is he the head honcho at Dreamworks? Did he have any great accomplishments before he got the job, or what?

[Joe]

Also, the fact that such high-end 3-D processes are incredibly expensive is an gigantic roadblock for a majority of filmmakers to overcome. It should be noted that most films are not blockbusters and thus do not cost over $100 million to produce.

3-D imaging (not the use of CGI itself) has yet to prove itself more than a carnival attraction, imo. It's really just the same device used in the 50s to get theaters a marketing edge over home viewing and to spike up attendance. It's a neat little visual trick, but doesn't really make the movie under that shiny coat of paint any better.

[Light Lucario]

So Jeffrey Katzenberg is the same person who said that Kung Fu Panda is going to have like five sequels? I thought that was someone else. I was already skeptic with how creatiable he could be just because Dreamworks seems be making CGI talking animal movies for long time and haven't really improved in their quality of said CGI movies. Now with his previous statements in mind, I definitely think that he's wrong with 3D movies taking over and the fashion trend of 3D glasses. Since he's a part of the movie business, I would think that he would know how expensive it is to shoot movies in 3D. I still don't understand how on earth he could think 3D glasses could become a fashion trend though.

[Mugen]

You know, the more I hear about Katzenburg, the more I get the feeling he's nuts. First he calls for... what was it, two more Shrek sequels and five Kung Fu Panda movies, and now he claims that nobody will want to watch movies that aren't done in 3D? How is he still in charge?

Really, why exactly is he the head honcho at Dreamworks? Did he have any great accomplishments before he got the job, or what?

You can read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg

[DarthGonzo]

3-D animation should be confined to Disney theme parks where it belongs. It's niche. It'll never catch on to the extent where it becomes mainstream.

Sorry Katzenberg.

[aalong64]

You can read for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg
Ah, so he has done a fair bit of good stuff... Just not so much in the past few years.

[AdamYJ]

3-D animation should be confined to Disney theme parks where it belongs. It's niche. It'll never catch on to the extent where it becomes mainstream.

Hey now! Just because it will never become the norm doesn't mean it should be confined to places where 3-D fans can't get to them easily. I love 3-D and like being able to watch them at my local theater. I can't remember the last time I've been to a Disney theme park. I say they still should have 3-D movies coming out in regular theaters, but not expect to have a 12 screen multiplex showing 12 different 3-D movies.

It shouldn't be all or nearly nothing, but people like Katzenberg should be able to accept that 3-D movies are just going to be a relatively small part of the overall movie scene.

[veemonjosh]

I swear, if all movies do go 3D (I highly doubt it, but let's just say theoretically), I'll never go to the theaters again. Sure, it's great for people who like 3D movies and enjoyable for most other people, but the fact that I have glasses prevents me from enjoying the full experience and just makes it a pain.

Also, wtf, 3D glasses being stylish? They make you look much more ridiculous than "cool".

This guy is like Al Khan mixed with Timbox.

[AdamYJ]

but the fact that I have glasses prevents me from enjoying the full experience and just makes it a pain.

Have you tried just wearing the 3-D glasses over your regular glasses? It works pretty well for me.

[veemonjosh]

Have you tried just wearing the 3-D glasses over your regular glasses? It works pretty well for me.

That's exactly what I always do, and it's an incredible pain to get the 3D to work correctly.

[AdamYJ]

That's exactly what I always do, and it's an incredible pain to get the 3D to work correctly.

What do you mean it's a pain to get it to work correctly? You shouldn't have to do any work on your end. Just look through the glasses (or both, in this case) and the 3-D should just happen. If it doesn't work, it could be that it's just a badly done effect in the first place. If it frequently doesn't work, I think may have to do with your specific vision capabilities. Maybe an eye problem not common to the rest of the glasses-wearing community.

[veemonjosh]

What do you mean it's a pain to get it to work correctly? You shouldn't have to do any work on your end. Just look through the glasses (or both, in this case) and the 3-D should just happen. If it doesn't work, it could be that it's just a badly done effect in the first place. If it frequently doesn't work, I think may have to do with your specific vision capabilities. Maybe an eye problem not common to the rest of the glasses-wearing community.

Well, most effects do work while wearing it, but the way usual 3D glasses are (flimsy cardboard), they just simply don't work as well as they should with the way my glasses are (or most glasses, from what I've heard of other people on this subject).

And if they're the solid plastic kind, they're usually too big to fit in front of my glasses and end up falling off.

[AdamYJ]

Well, most effects do work while wearing it, but the way usual 3D glasses are (flimsy cardboard), they just simply don't work as well as they should with the way my glasses are (or most glasses, from what I've heard of other people on this subject).

And if they're the solid plastic kind, they're usually too big to fit in front of my glasses and end up falling off.

I've never really had a problem with it. Wearing both pairs of glasses is a little uncomfortable, but not that big of a deal.

[Light Lucario]

I've never really had a problem with it. Wearing both pairs of glasses is a little uncomfortable, but not that big of a deal.

If wearing both pair of glasses prevents people from actually seeing the movie in 3D, or are just super annoying to keep on to begin with, then I would think that it would be a big deal. Of course, I don't think I've watched a movie in 3D before. Some cartoons back in the day of Nick, but I honestly don't think that I've gone to see a movie in 3D in theaters before so take that as you will.

[AerostarMonk]

What movie theatres are you guys going to that still use cardboard glasses? For the past two years the only glasses I've ever encountered had sturdy plastic frames.

[veemonjosh]

What movie theatres are you guys going to that still use cardboard glasses? For the past two years the only glasses I've ever encountered had sturdy plastic frames.

Well, I've only gone to see one 3D movie in theaters within the past two years (the IMAX re-release of Nightmare Before Christmas), and yeah, they had plastic frames.

My point is that, IMO, it would simply be easier if there were some alternate option where you could just get a clip-on pair to put on your glasses. It'd be so much less of a hassle.

[AdamYJ]

If wearing both pair of glasses prevents people from actually seeing the movie in 3D, or are just super annoying to keep on to begin with, then I would think that it would be a big deal.

It never prevented me from seeing it or was super annoying. Just a little annoying.

Of course, I don't think I've watched a movie in 3D before. Some cartoons back in the day of Nick, but I honestly don't think that I've gone to see a movie in 3D in theaters before so take that as you will.

Let's see. I saw Journey to the Center of the Earth, Meet the Robinsons and the third Spy Kids movie in 3-D (the first two were pretty good, can't say much about the third one). I also saw Stargate done in 3-D years ago and various Imax productions. I also own various 3-D comics and have 3-D glasses from various TV promotions. At this point, I've started to collect the glasses.

I'm sure I'm missing a few other 3-D productions I've seen.

I wish I could have seen Creature from the Black Lagoon in 3-D because it was being shown at a local sci-fi film festival. Unfortunately, I found out about it too late. :sad:

[SimpsonGuy100]

I think what Katzenberg is saying is rubbish! Because let's look at it this way: you remember how big a buzz DVD got? Remember how amazing clear the picture is compared to VHS? Well that is nearing towards a decade now and the importance of DVD is still there, but not so much a big deal as it used to now we all got used to the quality of the picture and the overall stuff that made DVD so amazing back then but the norm now.

Now let's say that 2D filmmaking does lessen and lessen with most movies being digital 3D, suddenly the ooh's and ahh's won't excite us so much anymore as we've totally gotten used to the 3D effects and we'd be then yearning for more to amaze us. Like us with DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs now, I guess! Plus, also what about the people who go to cinemas and don't want to 3D effects because it either terrifies them or maybe they have health complications that getting overwhelmed by these 3D effects may trigger some seriously harmful effects? Think about it very carefully now.

Digital 3D is mostly some funky fad that movie studios love to excercise in, it'll pass eventually unless James Cameron's "Avatar" becomes so overrated as the second coming of movie genius that it forces at least some Digital 3D movies to still be made, though it won't be the majority in the movie industy any time soon. :)

[BrendaBat]

3-D is a fun gimmick for adventure films (like Dark Knight and Journey to the Center of the Earth) and kiddie movies (like Spy Kids and Meet the Robinsons) but it would never catch on for more mainstream stuff. I mean, could you imagine watching a romantic comedy or a period movie like Elizabeth in 3-D? :p

And that comment about 3-D glasses becoming a fashion trend shows that Katzenberg knows NOTHING about fashion. Even if the glasses were cool looking and functional, no one is going to spend so much time at the movies that they'll need to wear them everyday.

[Ed Liu]

At it again (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=27267).

Apparently, we're going to be watching 3-D everywhere in "5 to 7 years." People like my wife, who has a lazy eye and can't see 3-D in any meaningful way regardless of the technology, are just going to be out of luck, I guess.

[Daxdiv]

Well that confirms for me that he is talking about the 3D with Glasses rather than 3D animation. 5-7 years, well then looks like you better follow your words and try to use it in your movies then.

Wasn't aware that Chicken Little 3D was a success, knew about HM BoBW, but CL?

[Wonderwall]

And that comment about 3-D glasses becoming a fashion trend shows that Katzenberg knows NOTHING about fashion. Even if the glasses were cool looking and functional, no one is going to spend so much time at the movies that they'll need to wear them everyday.

Cmon man, we can all look as cool as Biff's friend in Back to the Future:D. But yea..if that didn't become big in the 50s theres no chance now.

[Old Guy]

if that didn't become big in the 50s theres no chance now.

That's always been my argument. Plus, 3-D only works with certain types of movies. I don't really need, say, watch The Godfather in 3D.

[OtakuX]

I like 3D sometimes, but depending on how it's made, red/blue 3D doesn't work for me, because I'm colorblind. I've seen things that DID work, like Freddies Dead, but sometimes, it just doesn't, as my eyes won't see the colors of the glasses and the colors on the screen the same.

[Pomegranate]

With the possibility of Bolt underperforming, Katzenberg should really rethink his whole stance on the whole 3D with glasses aspect.

[el blacklobo]

*reads artical*

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[Ricia]

At it again (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=27267).

Apparently, we're going to be watching 3-D everywhere in "5 to 7 years." People like my wife, who has a lazy eye and can't see 3-D in any meaningful way regardless of the technology, are just going to be out of luck, I guess.

See this is my issue, 3-D is just a baffling annoyance for me. It just doesn't register for me. I'm not worried though cause like everybody before me has said this is crazy. I do feel a little left out of the whole IMAX 3-D experience though.

[Radical Raven]

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.

[Joe]

all films, regardless of budgets or type, will be made in 3-D


http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w272/Mr_Luffy/Dilbert20Cartoon.jpg

[AdamYJ]

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.

[Joe]

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.

[Old Guy]

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.

Don't worry, Adam. I agree with you.

[DarthGonzo]

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.

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.

[Silverstar]

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.

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.

[Daxdiv]

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.

[Ricia]

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.

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.

[Light Lucario]

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.

[R-Taco]

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.

Actually, the title is talking about 3-D movies, as in with the funky glasses.

[MonkeyFunk]

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.

[DarthGonzo]

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.

That's because no one reads things all the way through.

[AdamYJ]

Personally, when I think 3-D I think of the glasses. When I think of the animation option, I think CGI (largely for special effects, like in Jurassic Park) or "computer animated" (in the case of stuff like Toy Story).

In terms of 3-D, yeah I like it. Then again, I've never had problems with it.

As for computer animation vs traditional animation vs stop-motion, etc. I see that kind of like sculpture. You can make a sculpture in bronze or clay or stone or plaster or wood or whatever, but what matters is that the medium fits the piece that you're making.

[Radical Raven]

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.

Yes, I am very biased against 3D. And I'm willing to admit that. I don't think I'll ever view it as anything more than a theme-park gimminck, something to keep kids from getting bored. I understand that the practice has it's fans, but I'm not among them.

However, I love CGI animation. Just wanted to make sure no one got confused...

[Ed Liu]

Jeffrey Katzenberg Digs into the Future of 3-D Movies and "Monsters vs. Aliens" (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=27639)

This is probably the first time I've ever seen Katzenberg actually talk about the real benefits of 3-D that didn't just make it sound like a cool gee-whiz-bang cool toy to play with (as in the film techniques that are possible in 3-D and the not-coincidental punch it will have to video pirates who record movies in theaters).

I still think he's wrong that it will be the wave of the future, though. For starters, the problem of 3-D in home video is bigger than he seems to think it will be, although if it really does take off in the movie theaters, then home video will have to follow somehow out of consumer demand. I also don't think that successful 3-D will somehow be the end of 2-D. Silent movies are gone, but movies are still made without sound and in black-and-white, even though sound and color are available and predominate.

-- Ed

[simpspin]

The only 3D movie experience I truly want is if they made a theatre/Star Trek Holodeck attraction. Otherwise, no.

[Mouse_Pad]

My eyes turn out slightly, so I don't have "normal" depth perception. 3D movies are totally worthless to me. I'd never spend money to see one.

[Flying Dutchman]

Does this mean you have to wear 3D-glasses in the movie theater?
I've seen a few 3D-shorts in a theater and I find wearing those glasses irritating. They're even more irritating if you wear glasses yourself, like my girl friend