During my visit to Dreamworks Animation Studios earlier today, the company’s CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg explained to our small group that moviegoers of the future will own their own personal 3D glasses, which he referred to as “movie glasses”.
“People today know if they go out in the sun they need sunglasses, like in tennis you need a tennis racquet. You’re gonna go to the beach, you’re gonna need a bathing suit. If you’re going to the movies, you’ll have movie glasses,” Katzenberg said. “We’ve been collaborating with the largest eye glass company in the world about an eye glass that they will hopefully have by next year, which is a transitional lens… Now you have a glass that will actually transition for you indoor to outdoor. Now this would transition from sunglasses to movie glasses. So your movie glasses will be your sunglasses.”
Now I must admit, at first I thought he had to be kidding. It almost sounded like Doc Brown talking about his latest harebrained invention. But the more I thought about the idea, the more I began to understand Katzenberg’s perspective.
Imagine for a minute that Katzenberg’s 3D dream will become a reality… That the future movie going experience is going to be in 3D. Imagine that a huge chunk of studio movies will produce and project their films in 3D. YDo you think that moviegoers of that potential future would see a benefit of owning a pair of sunglasses that could transition into “movie glasses”. I’m interested to hear what you think?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
What do I think?
I think this guy’s an idiot. An insanely rich idiot, but an idiot. 3D is a gimmick. Saying future movies will be 3D is one ignorant step from saying they’ll be 4D, like Honey I Blew Up the Dog at Epcot Center. It’s a gimmick.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
NO.
MOVIE CONTACTS. MOVIE EYES. MOVIE LOBE IMPLANTS.
MOVIE BRAINS. MOVIE LIGATURES. MOVIE SPINES.
AND MOVIE BODI…
MOVIE MOVIES. WE’LL OWN MOVIE MOVIES.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Same here. Its a gimmick and flat out annoying. I’d invest more in a full length big budget IMAX film. It looks better and I’d like to think the moving going experience is like looking outside a window. With 3-D the experience is like the window you once looked at was shattered by a floating baseball.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Did I mention the movie’s plot suffers with 3-D?
I wonder why?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Everything in the future will be chrome!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
@Indiefilm
Yes, lets just hope the future has great movies… as defined by plot dimension.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I think that’s just as plausible as flying cars were 50 years ago
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
One one hand I see it (minus the transitional lenses, how would that even work?) - but all they need to do to revitalize the movies is honestly make LESS, but BETTER. Although I’m 16, I’ve heard of the old movie theatres (as in, every theatre at the time, maybe the 60s or 70s) had pretty huge screens in them. Now, in our multiplex-mania we’ve made all the screens + speakers smaller, making Imax the only way forward. used to be you could project a 70mm movie like Lawrence and you’d actually get the effect of that
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I totally see this being viable. There’s already been talk of this happening at the overseas movie marketing conferences I’ve been to. Also, different styling would work inside normal theatres as well. Imagine how many more tickets they might have sold if the 3D glasses for U23D were like Bono’s… or night vission goggle looking glasses for war films etc…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
i can’t believe shit like this is being tolerated in the industry.
katzenburg is a fucking prick too, the guy can’t tell a good movie from a profitable one.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
This whole idea of a 3-D revolution is ridiculous… I go to movie to see a movie; if I wanted a cheap thrill ride, I’d go to a Universal Studios amusement park. If this is something the industry really wants to go through with, it needs to be something special… maybe only 2-3 of these movies a year; make it an event, an experience, and occasional. I fear, with news like this story, studios want to turn 3-D into a standard. Dumb.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:04 am
I actually like the idea, but I feel as though this kind of technology would be ridiculously overpriced by whoever sells it. I also think that it should all be sort of finalized, like Kevin Smith said on the /FilmCast, before they go ahead and implement it into theaters. For example, making a standard set of glasses and not 20 different versions, brands, etc.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 am
The 3d experience in movies has become less annoying first for this thing to become a hit. Right now it reminds me of the 90’s and the blow up of 3d effects (which we still feel the ripples of today) when EVERYBODY had to use it at any cost. Only a few did it right. But the market was littered with poor and obscenely terrible effects.
But can see some real benefits of the 3d glasses - to me the landscape (distant range) don’t really have an effect with glasses and the close up (close range) are simply too weird to sustain the suspension of disbelief. But where I really like this technology is in the mid ranges - where we e.g. are in a room framing characters in full body, I get a real sense of presence unlike anything else I’ve seen on screen. Could it be an idea to be more selective in what to pop out in 3d?
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:45 am
Somehow it sounds inevitable. Certain types of movies are going to gain so much thrill (think summer blockbusters) when they’re shot in super high definition and have incredibly vivid 3d (which it sounds like these will) it’d be insane not to watch the movie without them and miss half the spectacle. Cameras willl be adjusted so even the most basic films will have 3 dimensions just to add visual depth. A nice little touch that will make the experience more real. They’ll figure out a way to make all the classics 3d with special computer technology and before we know it every movie is gonna be in 3D and we wont know how we lived with out it. It could definitely revitalize the movie going business because nobody will be able to recreate the 3d perfection at home… I really see this going into the future big time even if it becomes its own type of subgenre or specialty film. It will thrive big time.
James Cameron’s AVATAR is being shot in 3D for a reason… i think Cameron is really going to blow our minds with the possibilities of 3D because I’m sure he’ll want it to be in 3D in every theatre. Like Beowulf, and in 18 more months (when the film is being released) the 3D technology will be in most theaters. Journey to the Center of the earth, no matter how horrible the film was, it’s just the beginning… I’m getting my glasses now while they’re cheap.
By the way I’m shitting my pants in anticipation for AVATAR. release a damn photo or clip or something! please!
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 am
I’m down. I get how they will change, Kind of like transition lenses that polarize in light these will also polarize in the dark. Honestly I think its pretty neat. I can see one problem with the idea and that is how many people actually wear glasses in this day and age? I had glasses with transition lenses and they work really well really fast, but now that I have contacts and sick sunglasses by Oakley, I wonder how many pairs of glasses people will need. Well just because I am wealthy and love movies I may pick up a pair. It all comes down to how far we will go for our infatuation with movies.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Atleast this will lead to less movie piracy which studios can look forward to.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 am
@FL um, not really. People are happy to download Crappy CAM versions of the dark night, I’m pretty sure that the lack of 3d is not going to stop them.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 am
Well we’ll just have to wait and see guys.
3-D looks kind of promising but we can’t actually say if its going to be good or bad anyways….i guess its just a matter of time!
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 am
worst idea ever.
waste of $$$$$$
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 am
Gimick.
Try getting a 2 or 3 or 4 year to sit through a movie with those glasses on his or her face. (I’m sure some can, but most won’t.)
Jonesy
http://www.OnTheBigScreen.net
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
RIght now they give out FREE glasses at 3D shows. I’ve had a pair for over a year, just put them in your pocket when you’re heading to see a 3D movie, problem solved!
I know that the studio is trying to save money, but hardly anyone is going to buy these expensive adjusting sunglasses, so the studio will always have to provide some for free. Why would anyone pay for “movie glasses” if they didn’t have to? Is someone planning to spend THAT MUCH time watching 3D movies in a theatre? Will 3D even get THAT big? I mean, I’m looking forward to Avatar, but c’mon…
The more I think about Katzenberg’s statement, the more I think he’s an idiot. This is just a pipe dream.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 am
I wish I were in 3D…
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 am
I am one of the people that cannot see in 3D so of course my reaction is going to be that its a waste of money and energy. I do back that up though with the fact that to date 3D has not made any movie out there better than it would have been without it, so whats really the point.
I see this as a way to combat the digital media craze. The closer we get to being able to skip the theaters to see the latest movie and instead watch it in our homes the more the theaters need some kind of gimmick to draw you to them.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:45 am
Ugh, I agree with what a lot of other people have been saying. Pure gimmick, nothing else.
I’m certainly not crazy about the idea of more films being shot in 3D. I’ve always viewed that as just sort of a kiddy-gimmick, and I honestly think I’d be more put off from seeing a movie if it was only available in that format. It just doesn’t appeal to me, personally.
Less 3D, more IMAX, please.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think it would only work for the blockbuster summer season. Come November, when it’s all Oscar-buzz material stuff, no one will want to see 3-D flicks. I mean, think of last year: The threequels might have been cool in 3-D (it might have made them suck less–I certainly felt that way with Beowulf), but who would have wanted to see No Country for Old Men or Juno in 3-D?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
LAME. Terrible idea.
With the high prices of movie tickets, the cost (fuel & parking) to get to the theater, and the increase in downloading movies before they are released on DVD I think this is a waste of time and efforts and is NOT FORWARD THINKING.
The medium and the theater going experience is changing, focus your efforts there, not in dreams and ideas of the past.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 am
you people that hate on 3D are just confused and close minded to the possibilities and experience that could be had. imagine someday watching a film from inside the movie from any angle. this will be possible in the near future.
3D or stereo imaging is the future of visual entertainment. the Uncanny Valley will be non-existence. CG will become so realistic with the use of 3D the use of real live actors might become obsolete.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
I think most of the people above have said what needs to be said. It’s a lame idea. I look forward to a time when I will feel that I am actually in the movie with the characters, and not ducking from some flying piece of something or moving from a hand coming out at me. But, even then, the plot would need to warrant the pull into the movie. 3D is just some new rehash fad like it was in the past. It takes away from the movie sometimes and especially the plot. 3D does not tempt me to go see a movie. I would never own a pair of these “glasses.”
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
I just went to see Journey to the center of the earth on Sunday with my family and i was blown away by how bad it was. the Movie was made in 3-D and it had every hacky 3-D gimmick in the film from yo-yo’s to water splatter at the crowd. it was basically a feature long version of the presentations you see at the film parks ala universal studious and dinsey.
the glasses were not comfortable and to top it off it made the entire film under exposed ( or maybe it was the theater keeping the bulbs in the projector powered down a bit to save money)
this should not be the future of films , this hacky 3-D crap. lets focus on better plot.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:10 am
CG will become so realistic with the use of 3D the use of real live actors might become obsolete.
——
that just made me vomit in my mouth
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
I hate 3d i fucking hate 3d. I have only one real eye i dont want to be ripped off with some gimick. Unless they can make it work for people like me with out the glasses.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
I think, no.
People are people, so why can’t they see, you and I just wanna go to a good movie.
Screw the glasses, except as a novelty once a year to watch dinosaurs run around the room.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Every corner store has a rack of cheap a$$ sunglasses. Just put a rack of movie glasses next to the popcorn and forget about the whole transition to sunglasses thing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I don’t even believe in the future!
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
+
These glasses sound great. I’d wear them everywhere and live in a 3D world!
+
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
He’s just trying to get everyone to wear glasses b/c he has to.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
awwww can’t we just put a deposit on the glasses and get our money back after a movie? i mean, if they actually would go through with this ploy.