Katzenberg Gets Journalistic Spanking By LA Times


Jeffrey Katzenberg may be the Moses trying to lead the industry to the Promised 3D Digital Land, but judging by this article from the LA Times (Jeffrey Katzenberg in 3-D: Hollywood is rolling its eyes), his leadership may be in question.  Patrick Goldstein, the articles author, takes Katzenberg to task for a number of recent events, ranging from the DreamWorks-Disney deal to the issue surrounding the closure of the the hospital and long-term care facility at its Woodland Hills retirement home, for which Katzenberg was the chief fundraiser.

But the article hangs the biggest question mark over the DreamWorks Animation’s head honcho’s strategy when it comes to Digital 3D and the studio’s imminent release:

Katzenberg’s biggest P.T. Barnum stunt of all — spending a reported $9 million to wow Super Bowl viewers with a 3-D ad for DreamWorks’ upcoming “Monsters vs. Aliens” 3-D film — was a fiasco, creating a backlash against Katzenberg’s own very public 3-D crusade. The blogosphere was full of mockery of the stunt. As SpoutBlog put it in a recent post: “Katzenberg may have done irreversible damage” by attempting to advertise “Monsters vs. Aliens” “by way of an anaglyphic 3D Super Bowl commercial necessitating outdated red/blue glasses.” To say that the ad missed its target audience would be an understatement. When Cinematical did a poll asking for reaction to the ad, the biggest segment of voters — 41% — checked the box saying: “I never picked up the glasses to begin with.”

The reaction was so bad that the chief executive of RealD Cinema, the company that does the projection technology used on a number of 3-D films, including “Monsters vs. Aliens,” had to issue a statement distancing his company from the Super Bowl ad, saying: “It’s important to recognize that today’s RealD in theaters is a quantum leap better than what they saw on TV.”

Those who have seen Katzenberg’s messianic zeal in person at numerous trade shows, conferences, awards and events might be tempted to agree with Goldstein (huffed that Big K didn’t return his phone calls):

What really strikes me as strange is that Katzenberg is unable to resist the urge to engage in hyperbole, even when it seems to undercut a quieter, more logical argument. Bragging to the New York Times about DreamWorks’ recent box-office successes, he boasted: “This company is a flower that is just begining to blossom,” prompting the reporter to add, “Cut to Hollywood rolling its eyes.” When Katzenberg was in tandem with Spielberg and David Geffen, he had to check his most outlandish impulses, for fear of embarrassing his older and wealthier partners. But now Katzenberg seems a prisoner to his own worst instincts, unable to stop himself from overselling 3-D or sniping at Pixar, the company that has cornered the market on the artistic validation that Katzenberg so desperately seeks for DreamWorks.

Ouch, ouch! But ultimately Monsters vs. Aliens will be a hit film and 3D will enhance it, not because Katzenberg has hyped it up, but because it is good entertainment.  Kids will most likely flock to it and parents will find enough grown up entertainment in it to accompany their offspring to the multiplex.

The bigger question is who will assume the 3D evangelist mantle (crown? relay baton?) once the “Monsters vs. Aliens” is released and Katzenberg doesn’t have to worry about another 3D film until next year? Step up John Lasseter and Pixar, whose Up and Toy Story 3D (and 1 & 2 re-rendered for stereoscopics) will offer a very different approach to 3D.  And then there is Mr Cameron’s little art-house film at the end of the year.  Stereoscopics is a faith of many prophets.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Related Posts

  Sphere It
  • Indeed, re: the Madoff connection to Katzenberg, but the foundation says that none of their money was 'invested there.' I used to live out there as well, and know several people whose parents were being taken care of there after long careers in the biz. It will really be odd if the industry lets it go down, as it was a talking point of pride.

    You could be right about the 'nothing else going on' aspect of the Katzenberg IBC interview. But I must say that I had no interest in going until I was dragged along by quite a number of very selective heavyweights who wanted to see how well it came off. I'm certainly enough of a technology trainspotter to be interested, but I had seen enough 3D that day and that year to know that there are too many hurdles for the technology to do right by my aging eyes. And, there is certainly a lot better things to do in Amsterdam after sitting in seminars all day.

    As I said, I don't begrudge the hype that Mr. K has to indulge in since he has to move not only eyeballs to the theater, but he has to move exhibitors to buy all that expensive equipment. The people who saw bad 3D on TV will imagine how much better it will look on the big screen.

    And won't it be fun when he starts hyping TV 3D when Monsters is ready to be released on BluRay?
  • "Irreversible Damage" !!! Look who's calling the hyperbole kettle black. Patrick Goldstein is an engaging writer, but he makes clear technology mistakes in every article I've read of his which speaks of 3D.

    Not that I want to be in the position of defending the much-hyped 3D or those who hype it. But for as many flaws as we noticed in the live intercontinental 3D transmission of Mr. Katzenberg’s interview at IBC, it packed the room. And like you say, Monsters will too.

    Subtle works for a of things, but getting enough commitments for 3D screens isn't going to come by being laid back.

    Meanwhile, the real tragedy seems to be the events at the Motion Picture & Television Fund long-term care facility and hospital - very confusing story and thanks for pointing it out.
  • If I'm not mistaken, it was Katzenberg's foundation that was raising money and providing funding to the Motion Picture & Television facility in Woodland Hills (which is walking distance from where I now live).

    Unfortunately, Katzenberg's foundation had invested all of their money with a certain investment adviser named Bernard Madoff. I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that the foundation now finds itself in financial woes given Madoff's recent arrest for financial fraud.

    As for Katzenberg's IBC interview. . . was there even anything else going on at the time? I find that even the most trivial panel discussions seem to get an audience these days if the participants have the slightest bit of notoriety. It's almost as if the audience is waiting for those on stage to either say something important, or more are hoping they are present when so-and-so big shot executive makes a huge flub. It's kind of like watching an auto race waiting for a huge accident to occur.
blog comments powered by Disqus