Spielberg Blamed for Digital 3-D "Train Wreck"
Filed under: Action, Animation, Disney, Paramount, Exhibition, Dreamworks, Steven Spielberg
There's currently a crisis in the theater industry and apparently it's all Steven Spielberg's fault. According to Variety coverage of Sunday's National Association of Broadcasters Show's Digitial Cinema Summit, the filmmaker was named as a constant obstacle in the transition to digital cinema.
Spielberg's insistence against releasing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull digitally was overruled last month when Paramount announced that it would indeed open the summer blockbuster on some digital screens, but the fact that it won't be a full digital release, coupled with the fact that Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film, is a problematic issue for an industry having difficulties installing a necessary amount of digital projectors by 2009.
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theatre Owners spoke at the summit, warning of a "potential train wreck" next year when all those monumental 3-D releases we've been hearing about (James Cameron's Avatar; DreamWorks' Monsters vs. Aliens; Pixar's upgraded rereleases of Toy Story and Toy Story 2) are met with an inadequate amount of 3-D-equipped screens. For more than a year now, both Hollywood and NATO have been in agreement that by 2009 there will need to be anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 screens with 3-D capability in order to handle the full-digital-3-D releases, beginning with the March 27 opening of Monsters vs. Aliens. Unfortunately, since this time last year, the reality has been a mere doubling from around 500 screens to slightly more than 1,000.The main issue is that while studios and theater owners are in agreement about the need for so many digital projectors (which then also need to be equipped with digital 3-D add-ons), the two parties still can't agree on the deals that will put such substantial upgrades in place. Fithian said that if these deals aren't finalized in the next month or two, there won't be enough time for the transition to occur before the 3-D movies start coming out (Fithian claims there are currently 10 3-D films scheduled for 2009).
Obviously the studios will be in as much trouble as the theater owners, so making quick arrangements would seem to be a major priority. Yet they still can't seem to agree on fair Virtual Print Fees, which have to do with how much studios will contribute to the theaters' costs in upgrading to the digital projectors. Fithian also noted the need for more of Hollywood's elite to be on board with the transition, which is where Spielberg's name came in, mainly because his DreamWorks partner, Jeffrey Katzenberg, is "one of the great priests of digital cinema."
So, what I'm wondering is, if Spielberg is directing the first Tintin movie, and the whole trilogy is expected to be shot digitally and shown in 3-D, shouldn't the man "get it" already?









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-14-2008 @ 2:27PM
Jason Seaver said...
Hey, Spielberg's just trying to do his part - releasing Indiana Jones on film frees up other screens to show stuff that "needs" to be digital.
I can't say I really blame Spielberg for being reluctant to embrace digital projection; as good as it's gotten, it's still not quite as good as film is when it's at its best, and I doubt Spielberg frequently sees film at less than its best.
The other thing I'm wondering about is why NATO is complaining here. This is the first time in recent memory that I can remember the theaters really having the studios over a barrel: Shouldn't they be able to negotiate better fees for those 3-D movies with such limited supply, or extract more funds to upgrade their equipment?
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 2:32PM
james said...
Just because he doesn't want to make Indy Digitally does not mean that the beard doesn't get Digital. I think quite the opposite, as a business man he totally is in line with digital distribution. As a director however he has said over and over that he loves the way film looks and that digital acquisition does not give him the same feeling. I think that blaming Spielberg alone is asinine. Tons of movies are made with film and then converted to digital. Zemeckis is a Spielberg protege' and IMO he's a little to ahead of the curve (btw Monster House ruled in 3D). It sounds like to me that theater owners are scared to pay for it themselves and want Hollywood to foot the bill and pick Hollywood's most visible face as the reason things aren't where they want them. The conversion to 3D will eventually happen but you will always have those that prefer 35mm 2D film. Once 3D TV's become ubiquitous theater's will have to do something else to be competitive.
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 2:38PM
Mr. R said...
One look at The Godfather movies and you know exactly why film is still way better than digital, I don't blame the man, there is something missing still and he has a right to defend it.
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 2:39PM
JimeneX said...
So the studios and theater owners will probably save some money by switching to digital right? Percent of that sum that they will pass on to the theater goer: 0%
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 3:12PM
eugene said...
Digital may be better in that it archives better and it looks the same the thousandth screen as it did on the first... but in terms of resolution and color depth, film wipes the floor with digital.
Reply
4-17-2008 @ 4:19AM
peterbuldge said...
"Digital may be better in that it archives better"
If you're talking about longterm archiving, analog media is easily the safest bet... unless the library of congress are complete idiots.
a decade ago the music and film industries jumped right into the digital revolution without really understanding or caring what they were were getting into. Not only does Spielberg think that film looks better than digital but he also probably wants his films to still be around in 50 years.
I imagine him not wanting to release Indiana full digital is more a statement to his peers' lack of foresight than anything else.
4-14-2008 @ 4:09PM
LiqwidZero said...
Indiana Jones doesn't need to be digital. All of the movies look fantastic up-converted on DVD, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will look awesome as well.
It's like the studios are all dads who are all new to certain technologies, but want it because it's new. And after they make the mistake of dumping the previous directive (film), they find out that their new directive sucks (though, not entirely) (digital).
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 5:20PM
zencat said...
Like LP recordings, there is a certain magic to film that is lost in digital. I don't care that Spielberg isn't a digital advocate. He's old school, and he's right. And...he's Spielberg! He can do what he likes.
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 5:35PM
Brian said...
unless cinemark completey sucks but the theater that uses dlp looks 1000 times better than cinemark that still uses film
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 5:49PM
s said...
If film has a better "look" to it, and Spielberg says that, then I am only going to buy non-digital/film products and tickets.
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 7:27PM
Frank Carey said...
I just saw "Nim's Island" in digital and I am convinced that this is the direction that all theaters should go in. The clarity was beyond phenomenal and I can't say enough about the total lack of scratches. Steven: get on the digital bandwagon for heaven's sake!
Reply
4-14-2008 @ 7:53PM
paul said...
I "get" Steven Spielberg.
Reply
4-15-2008 @ 12:03AM
Stan Winsome said...
That's some chutzpah that a random theater owner- who has absolutely zilch to do with art- thinks Spielberg doesn't "get it." He gets it just fine, and disagrees with it- so there. Half of the digital features released over the past few years look like hell and that's because the developing technology is still in its infancy.
Even Lucas ate a bite of the bullet. His movies SW 2 & 3 were shot in 1080p on prototype Sony Cinealta cameras, quite inferior to the company's current models. Film's minimum resolution is a superior 2K and many films are posted and now shot in 4K and even 5K. So that means the SW prequels will forever have much less resolution than the less than decade old digital cinema world has as of right now- their crappy scripts notwithstanding. Indy IV can be easily scanned off 35mm up to 8K- thus having far greater potential resolution and image quality than any current or on the horizon digital camera.
Again- Spielberg gets it just fine. Nice to see there's at least one filmmaker left in the Hollywood with some integrity...
Reply
4-17-2008 @ 4:00AM
peterbuldge said...
"Spielberg still doesn't "get" the fact that digital is superior to film"
this is just clueless
Reply
4-28-2008 @ 11:22AM
Arian said...
Steven's problem is not Digital Cinema. Steven's problem is Digital Cinema's Cinemascope. 2K Digital Cinema gives 2048x858 at 2.39:1 movies. This resolution looks fine on a home cinema, but it is by faaaaar away from 35mm's Cinemascope "resolution". Steven Spielberg is right not to release his movie Digitally. I hope digital movie consortium to get the message. Digital Cinema is the killer of Cinemascope. And if you kill Cinemascope, why someone to go to theater to see a movie when he can see it at near 2K on his 1080p HDTV?
Reply
5-10-2008 @ 4:09PM
solitare777 said...
Listen Mr. Christopher Campbell (btw, I had to scroll to the top for your name because I never heard of it before) when you have as many hit movies and awards as Steven Spielberg does, then maybe the world should let you speak. Until then, saw it off mate. Personally, I was just checking movie times so I could take my nine-year-old 40 miles down the highway to see Indiana Jones. I saw your post and I thought, gee he must have ordered chinese take-out for lunch, got a blank fortune and then decided to write an article.
Reply