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 »

Final Chapter

The movies that are going to be written about in Brittany Murphy's obituaries are Just Married, 8 Mile, Clueless, and maybe Sin City. But the one most sadly relevant is a movie that few people saw, The Dead Girl. Each chapter of the movie shows how a different woman is affected by the discovery of a woman's body in a field, until the last chapter doubles back and shows us her haunting final days. Go »

Redundancy

Can we add "information overload" to the list of phrases retired from the language due to clichéd overuse? It is apparently now used to describe anything remotely intense. Go »

Firsties

It's been one year today since Kelly and I got married, but that feels strange to say, since it's been nineteen years today since our first date back in high school. I don't mind that it took us so long to get to this "first" anniversary; I'm just glad that we got here at last. We spent the day out feeding flamingos at a local animal sanctuary and eating at some favorite restaurants before I go back on diet tomorrow. Go »

Flak Album

Lately I've been enjoying Aimee Mann's I'm with Stupid. Oh, how I wish she'd saved that title for a duets album. Go »

Ten Things I Learned While Kelly's Parents Pat & Russ Spent a Week Visiting Us

• Florida reminds me of Dave Barry's quip that vacationing in Britain is great because you meet people from entirely different states. We stopped a woman to take our picture; she was visiting from New Jersey and her daughter beside her was from California. The only local we met warned us what bridge not to jump off for swimming because the water is shark-infested. Go »

So Long, NCSA Primer

Someone asked me for help learning HTML today. I turned to my trusted traditional source, the good old primer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, but alas, it has finally been removed after all these years. This was one of the major how-to guides in the early years of the web, and it's the very guide that I used to teach myself HTML one weekend in 1996, from which this very site you're reading has since evolved. Go »