Jeffrey Katzenberg: Still the Harold Hill of 3-D

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Ever since I weighed in a week ago on Jeffrey Katzenberg’s grand pronouncement that someday soon all movies will be in 3-D (whether we want them to be or not), I’ve been deluged with an incredible array of impassioned and intelligent commentary on the subject from people far more learned on the subject than myself. But where is Jeffrey? He hasn’t returned my calls for years, but that shouldn’t stop him from writing a response to my critique.

As it turns out, he actually did write a response that his people sent along to my editors late last week. But alas, the response came with a series of non-negotiable demands, notably that The Times must run his response on the front page of the Calendar section, above the fold--i.e., in the same prominent position that my column originally ran. Although my editors assured him that no one, no matter how much of a Hollywood big shot, had ever dictated that their letter be run on the front page--in other words, not even Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey’s old partner Steven Spielberg or the late Charlton Heston, who set the modern record for most letters-to-the-editor by a famous actor--Jeffrey took his marbles and went home.

I’m not allowed to run the letter or quote directly from it, but I will say it was awfully cute, in a sitcomish way--sort of like most of the dialogue in ‘Shrek 3,’ with Jeffrey joking that he doesn’t have either Harold Hill’s charisma or thick head of hair. He said he’d be willing to accept his inner Harold Hill if I’d admit that I was a Luddite when it came to technological change. I’d be eager to debate Jeffrey on the subject any time he wants, but until then, I’m happy to encourage more of my readers to weigh in with their own thoughts on the subject. On Friday, I gave time to Jim Miller, a big 3-D proponent who made an articulate defense of the new medium.

Today, I’m going to turn the mike over Rob Hummel, president of the Digital Cinema division of DALSA, a leading manufacturer of digital imaging components and Machine Vision cameras. Rob has a long resume, having overseen the restoration of ‘Gone With the Wind’ and ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ served as a senior technology executive at Warners and head of animation technology at DreamWorks. He’s not so sure the 3-D boomlet will lead to great movies.

But keep reading--I’ll let him speak for himself:

‘It’s hard enough to do a movie where you can make the story work,’ Rob told me. ‘But if you do a movie in 3-D, then you’re adding a large new set of technical concerns that weren’t there before. Your eyes can’t keep up with all the rapidly changing depth cues. It makes it especially harder to do fast-cutting. I know Jim Cameron disagrees with me. He says he isn’t having to cut ‘Avatar’ any differently, but I think it adds another layer of difficulty to the filmmaking process.

‘You have to remember that this is still a visual medium. But in 2-D, you’re dealing with composing your shot. In 3-D, you have to worry about where every object falls in the visual plane. The big problem is that you can’t see the depth cues beyond about 15 feet, so you’re really having to use a gimmick to create all these depth cues that your brain doesn’t see in real life. I mean, go outside--if you look at the night sky, you don’t see the stars in 3-D. And 3-D isn’t real life. It doesn’t look like reality. It mimics reality, but it doesn’t look at all like reality.

‘People are always looking for the magic bullet that will make successful movies, that will generate more box office. But that comes from great storytelling. If ‘The Dark Knight’ had come out in 3-D, I bet everyone would say that it was a huge hit because it was in 3-D. But it was a success because Chris Nolan told a compelling story. My background is in visual technology, but story trumps technology and everything else every day of the week.’