jeffrey katzenberg Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Twelve years ago, they said it couldn't be done. When James Cameron's Titanic got pushed back from a planned summer 1997 release date to the late fall, on top of multiple reports that the budget was the biggest ever, it was commonly thought that the film would never make its money back, that it would break the studios involved, and that Cameron's career was finished.

Cameron returned to the director's chair for Avatar, his long-awaited 3-D science fiction drama, due in December, and it looks like it will be a watershed movie. An upbeat article on 3-D in Time Magazine casually mentions that the budget has exceeded $300 million, which would make it the most expensive movie ever made. [* Time has now updated the article; see below.] No less an authority than Steven Spielberg "predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever," which sounds great, until you realize that very few 3-D live-action films have been made recently. Box Office Mojo lists Spy Kids 3D: Game Over as the top-grossing live-action 3-D release in the US ($111 million) with Journey to the Center of the Earth close behind ($107 million). Avatar will have to do much better to have a prayer of making back its budget.

The biggest concern is that fewer theaters than anticipated have been converted to digital. In the Time Magazine article, Jeffrey Katzenberg of Dreamworks Animation "predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week," just in time for the release of his studio's Monsters vs. Aliens on March 27.

What are your impressions of the new, improved 3-D? Did you see My Bloody Valentine or Coraline in 3-D? Will you seek out Monsters vs. Aliens in 3-D -- and pay a premium price -- or settle for 2-D? Will Avatar make or break 3-D?

* UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Eric for pointing out that Time has updated their article, which now adds at the end: "The original version of this story misstated the cost of the film Avatar as being in excess of $300 million. The correct figure is in excess of $200 million."

I guess we won't be seeing the first female President of the United States in 2009, but we could at least see the first female cinematographer nominated for an Academy Award (in the cinematography category, that is). In the 80 years of the Oscars there hasn't been one female nominee for Best Cinematography. Shocking, isn't it? But fortunately there's a chance for next year's ceremony: Mandy Walker, who shot Baz Luhrman's war epic Australia, could be a shoo-in for one of the five nomination slots if the film is Oscar-worthy in general.

The Oscar blog In Contention points out the possibility in a recent post celebrating Walker's reception Tuesday evening of the Kodak Vision Award at the Women in Film's Crystal + Lucy Awards (other honorees included Salma Hayek, Sherry Lansing, Ginnifer Goodwin, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Diane English and the ensemble of The Women). Clearly we only need to look at the trailer to see that Walker's work on the film is gorgeous and might have a shot. In Contention also notes Walker's previous achievements, such as her Independent Spirit Award nomination for Shattered Glass.

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.

The best family films aren't only for the kids; they look like a kiddie package but pack enough of an adult punch to make everyone happy. It looks like Monsters vs. Aliens might be just that. It is, and I quote from the new goodie extravaganza over at USA Today, "a throwback to those B-movie glory days of the '50s when Martians invaded our backyards and rubber monsters stalked the Earth."

This even includes specific references, such as the heroine Susan Murphy. She's a regular California girl who gets hit by a meteor and becomes 49' 11" tall (Attack of the 50-Foot Woman!), gets taken by the military, and renamed Ginormica. She's also being voiced by Reese Witherspoon. But that's not the only big name attached -- Rainn Wilson will handle the evil alien Gallaxhar, and Ginormica will be joined by Dr. Cockroach, Ph.D. voiced by Hugh Laurie, jelly-like B.O.B. handled by Seth Rogen, and the half-ape/half-fish Missing Link voiced by Will Arnett. Plus, there's Kiefer Sutherland as the aptly-named Gen. W.R. Monger and Stephen Colbert as the "plays it on steroids" president. (Some of them you can spot in the pic on the right, which you can see full-size at USA Today.)

But there's also a twist in this. Since the feature will be the first CG movie shot in 3-D, rather than converted to it, it has an extra $15 mil added to its budget, which will find its way out of fans' wallets. The tickets will cost more, although the price hasn't been determined. Jeffrey Katzenberg is hoping we'll all pay for "a premium experience." This sounds cool and all, but paying more for this movie sounds silly, esp. if it ends up killing at the box office. What do you think about this monetary twist?

There's lots of Shrek movies on the way. Shrek Works 9 to 5. Shrek and Leonard Part 6. Shrek and the Seven Deadly Sins. Shrek and the 8 Wonders of the World. Shrek Travels to the Nine Planets. However, before he can do all that, he's got to get out there, so get ready to see Shrek Goes Fourth. Get it? As Jeffrey Katzenberg told Moviehole: "Shrek goes out into the world, forth! A little play on words." Okay, so while number 4 is a reality straight from Katz himself, I made the others up. That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if we just continue to get these films -- even though the last didn't seem to get the reaction love of the first two, it still pulled in many hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, why stop? Mike Myers has no interest in slowing the speed of Shrek, and the entire cast is still signed on for both 4 and 5. So, Dreamworks is working on the next one, and it will come out in 2010 in 3D -- because everything from these guys will be in 3D starting in 2009. I like 3D and all, but I have to say that I'm not entirely excited about this idea considering how crappy it can be if you're not in a good seat. That, and they had to go and make the glasses look less spastic, which dashed my dreams of theaters and streets full of Dr. Jacobis. But anyway, Moviehole also asked Katzenburg about the possibility of a Bee Movie franchise. Katz says: "I don't have the the courage to ask him [Seinfeld] right now. [laughs]" I imagine that will depend on how the movie continues to do. After two weeks, it's raked in $104,572,318 worldwide, so it is still working its way up to its production budget of $150 mil.

I'm about a week behind, but I wanted to talk this week about something discussed at the ShowEast exhibition convention, which was held October 13 - 18 in Orlando. That something is onscreen advertising, which I'll get to in a second; first I wanted to just outline some of the other somethings that were addressed. For those who don't know, ShowEast is one of four annual events where studios and theatre owners meet -- along with others involved in the movie industry, such as food concessions companies -- in order to discuss trends and issues, while simultaneously (and it seems primarily) celebrating upcoming releases and big stars.

This year, ShowEast awards went to John Cusack ("Star of the Year"), Frank Darabont ("Kodak Award For Excellence in Filmmaking"), New Line Cinema theatrical distribution president David Tuckerman ("Show 'E' Award") and National Amusements' Shari Redstone ("Salah M. Hassanein Humanitarian Award"), among others. Typically the awards, particularly those given to talent like actors and directors, are handed out as thank you notes to people who made the money for exhibitors this year. Obviously, giving an award to Darabont before The Mist even hits theaters is a little weird. And despite the surprise box office for Cusack's 1408, his award is also for not-yet-released movies Grace is Gone and Martian Child. As for Tuckerman's award: I don't get it. New Line hasn't been having the best year, and yesterday I heard through the grapevine that The Golden Compass is a mess. Then again, the grapevine has been wrong before ...

Some people who know me might think I'm lying when I say this, the truth is, I really don't like conflict all that much (I guess that's why I ended up following my childhood dream of writing for a living, instead of the law school path I contemplated for a while -- whew, dodged a bullet there). I guess that's why this whole business with the ongoing battle between the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) makes me tense. I really just want someone to handle the conflict the way I do when my kids fight with each other ... just sit them all down, listen to both sides, and then work out a resolution that everyone can live with. And if that doesn't work, duct-tape their hands together and make them stay fastened to each other until they work it out (Kidding about the duct-tape, heh -- I would never do that to my kids! Handcuffs are much less likely to cause permanent damage).

But before we delve into the heavier fare, just for fun and levity, let's take a look back at one of my all-time favorite short films, Jason Reitman's Consent -- only this time, as you're watching it, imagine that the girl is the WGA and the guy is the AMPTP. It makes the whole writer's strike thing much more palatable if you play this short in your head every time you read anything about it that starts to make your brain bleed.


Maybe they just need to fire all the lawyers and get a nice, granola-crunchy mediator in there ... perhaps the Center for Non-Violent Communication could jump into the fray and send Marshall Rosenberg to teach them all some positive communication skills and how to use consensus. That's not likely to happen, though, in a business where contracts have fine print for the fine print, so in the meantime, the rest of us (who pretty much just want to enjoy our movies and whatever television programs we've gotten hooked on this season) are left to ponder the meaning of residuals, and new media payouts, and keep up with the seemingly endless flow of gossip that's ever so much more interesting than the actual negotiations probably are.

If you, like me, are finding it a challenge to keep up with it all, you might find this round-up of news, gossip and opinions from people who know much more than I ever will about the business side of Hollywood helpful in getting up to speed on the whole AMPTP vs. WGA kerfuffle.

Lots o' links after the jump ...

Folks weren't leaping over one another to take in the latest Shrek entry (although I kind of dug it), but that certainly won't stop Dreamworks Animation SKG from shoveling out at least two more films. We already know that plans for a Shrek 4 are in the works (set to be released in 2010), but will that mark the end of our lovable green ogre? Studio chief Jeffrey Katzenberg announced at the Allen & Co. media conference that work on a fifth and final chapter will begin after the fourth is released. Rich Sullivan, a Dreamworks Animation spokesman, added: "The story itself has five chapters. Based on the success of the first three films, at the very least, the next one, Shrek 4, is warranted."

This is all rather interesting, as Katzenberg (according to a story in The Hollywood Reporter this past May) always envisioned Shrek as a four-part package, with the fourth (and final?) film telling an origin story. So where did this mysterious fifth film come from? In the month and a half since Shrek the Third hit theaters, has Katzenberg changed his mind? Did he confuse the numbers? Because Sullivan said the story has five chapters, not four. Now I'm confused. I could understand not ending the series with an "origin story," because that would just be weird. Instead, they'll probably use the origin thing to set up a fifth and final film. But "does Shrek need an origin story," asked our own Scott Weinberg back when that story first hit the net. "He's a freakin' ogre. Is there some fascinating back-story about how he came to live in a swamp?" I sure hope so! If you were in charge, where would you take the Shrek franchise from here? Should they stop at three, or are you willing to give them another chance with four ... and five?

After a bad year at the box office, which resulted in a major financial blow, DreamWorks Animation is anxiously awaiting the release of Shrek the Third. The sequel will be out in a month and it is sure to put the studio back in the black, though I have to point out how appropriate the movie would have been in the new 3-D format. Aside from 3-D being so hot right now, it would have been great for the film to be released as Shrek 3-D (when I was a kid it seemed all franchises went to part three just for that gimmick.) Now the studio must wait and put out the planned fourth installment of the green ogre as Shrek 4, in 3-D. And we can be sure it will actually be in the format because as of 2009 all of DreamWorks Animation's features will be in 3-D.

If a 3-D Shrek title sounds familiar, you may remember the short film shown at Universal Studios and then released on DVD a few years back (even before Shrek 2 came out.) The IMDb actually labels the thing as Shrek 4-D, but I'm pretty sure the video is titled Shrek 3-D. Of course, it was made before the current Real D 3-D technology was being utilized (it still used the red and blue glasses.) Actually, if you follow all the trends closely, you may even remember that the first Shrek was supposed to be shown on IMAX in digital 3-D (again, the old kind.)

Mad Cow Disease -- which changed its name from Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) when it got famous in the late 1990's -- is a fatal neurodegenerative disease in cattle, spread by the host consuming animal by-products infected by this protein mutation. The disease is zoonotic -- meaning it can be transmitted to humans (and vice versa) -- so this forced cannibalism resulted in the deaths of over 150 Europeans through 2004 who had consumed tainted beef. While only five BSE-infected cattle were identified in the U.S. through 2005 (due to their largely soy diet), the panic was enough to cause widespread bans on U.S. beef.