I'm no fan of 3-D. I have lazy eye, which makes my right eye blurry and my left eye sharp. During a normal movie, I usually sit up front to be absorbed in the picture so that it doesn't matter, or if I sit in the back, I can concentrate to correct my vision. But 3-D doesn't work for me. The images come floating out from the screen with 50% opacity, since I only see them with one eye. They look superimposed on the solid background like transparent holograms.

That's why I dread the future predicted by Jeffrey Katzenberg, Robert Zemeckis, and James Cameron, who say that all films will soon be 3-D. They're doing their part to bring about that future by only making their own films that way. I can take or leave the films of Katzenberg and Zemeckis, but Cameron is something else, a man who makes entertainments like nobody else and whose work I will not want to skip. Still, as much as I dread it, I doubt that their future will come to pass, since there are so many "wave of the future" ideas that never come to pass. Just a few years ago, all films were going to be shot against bluescreen with CGI sets, and that turned out great.

All this is why I read with interest Roger Ebert's interview of Katzenberg, who is gearing up for release of his 3-D magnum opus Monsters vs Aliens this spring. Katzenberg comes off like the hilariously out-of-touch movie executive that he is, talking about how "story matters" and "quality makes the difference" in a movie about a gelatinous blob fighting a robotic hamster from space. Pixar has demonstrated the importance of putting story and character first in an animated production, but Katzenberg's Dreamworks Animation keeps churning out craptacular toons year after year that fail to learn that lesson. Maybe Monsters vs Aliens will be the Gone with the Wind of talking CGI animals, but I doubt it. Katzenberg's description of the film, especially the emphasis on what he thinks is important (character name puns, Will Arnett in the voice cast), indicates that this will be yet another forgettable piece of garbage from the Dreamworks Animation crap factory.

And that's what makes him sound even crazier with his "end is near" prophecies about 3-D taking over: He's convinced that quality will lead the charge and make 3-D adoption inevitable, but he wouldn't know a quality film if it bit his box office returns in the ass. He's tone-deaf for what makes a movie good. Against this backdrop, all of his other predictions start to sound crazier: People can't watch 3-D movies at home because they can't make their living rooms dark! People are going to buy widely-available prescription 3-D glasses that they walk around wearing in their daily lives! Wow, Jeffrey, it's like you have your finger on the pulse of America. The more I read of this fool's ravings, the more I breathe easier about a 3-D future that will clearly never come, at least not the way this idiot says it will.


Two Replies to Jeffrey Katzenberg is a Crazy Person

Scott Hardie | December 26, 2008
For the record, if the future really is all 3-D, then I hope Katzenberg is right about prescription glasses becoming available, even if only by specialty order. It might finally solve the vision problems that prevent me from seeing a 3-D film properly.

Amy Austin | December 31, 2008
I had not heard such things about these filmmakers... crazy indeed.


Logical Operator

The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »

Doppelgänger

I saw myself at the grocery. Tall, fat, shaved head, black collared shirt, black slacks, black leather shoes. I caught up to myself and muttered "I like the look" with a wink, and myself smiled, then myself's girlfriend saw us together and laughed. Go »

Like That Smash Mouth Song

Dramatic photo of a shuttle docking with the International Space Station, set against the sun: (link) Thanks, Aaron W. Go »

Real Predictions, from a Guy Who Takes This Too Seriously

Some of my Oscar contest predictions are solely based on my odds of "winning" the contest. I'm curious to find out if what film I really think will win in certain categories comes out on top. Best Picture: Babel Best Original Screenplay: Babel Best Original Score: Babel Best Film Editing: Blood Diamond Best Costume Design: Marie Antoinette Here's looking forward to a good show tonight. Go »

Difficult Should Be a Walk in the Park

They say that a bone marrow biopsy is the most painful kind of biopsy that you can get, but I found one that's worse: Starting a bone marrow biopsy, stopping partway through because the power went out, lying there for thirty minutes until the lights come back on, then resetting and starting all over again from the beginning. Zero stars, would not recommend. I'm hobbling around today. Go »

Garfunkel and Oates

Kelly and I had a good time last night taking out two old friends for their birthdays to see Garfunkel and Oates in Tampa. I'm only familiar with the duo's songs, so it was refreshing that only maybe a third of the show consisted of music. The rest was stand up comedy, storytelling, audience interaction, and a weird extended commercial for their sponsor Monster Energy Drink, tall boys of which were being handed out for free, because that's just what my heart needs at ten o'clock at night. Go »

Lars and the Ripoff

I'm sure that Lars and the Real Girl is a good movie and that Ryan Gosling is Oscar-worthy, yadda yadda. But will the bloggers out there spreading the word please stop acting like it's such an original premise to have an adult treat a life-size doll like a real person? In the past few years alone, I've watched indie movies May and Love Object cover the same ground, with Dummy skirting closeby, and those are only a few examples; plenty more exist through the years. Go »