Roger Ebert Hates 3D - I don’t
Posted by Rodneyon 10. 05. 2010in Favorites, Features, Headlines, News Chat
Roger Ebert has long been considered a respected staple in the film critic industry, but recently when he posted an article called “Why I Hate 3D, And Why You Should Too” I took a closer look at the 3D trend, and while I don’t always agree with Ebert (and I find I disagree a lot more lately) I found this article bore closer inspection and I would chime in with my feelings on the subject.
I am referencing his reasons from the Newsweek article, and will address his approach to each from my own standpoint.
1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.
I agree that not everything NEEDS to be in 3D, but I couldn’t disagree more that its a waste of a Dimension. This blanket statement dismisses appropriate use of the effect while focusing on an inappropriate use of the effect. He claims that our minds adapt for the illusions on the screen to make it 3D in our perception, which is true. But his application of this argument suggests that we never should have developed realistic CG character renderings, as claymation and muppets were fine and our minds will adapt what we see into the fantasy they want to display.
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?
Now this I couldn’t disagree with more. 3D is a weapon that needs to be aimed right, so his argument that the best moments in cinematic history would not benefit from 3D is narrow thinking. What about the best moments in visual effects? Would they be better in 3D? Very possibly the answer would be yes, while steering this question to ask if Casablanca should be in 3D is just limiting the topic to suit your argument.
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.
There are few isolated moments where this applies. I noticed it in Alice in Wonderland where some artifacts were “too close” to the screen and it disoriented, however I have yet to experience something that suggests that all depths of field be in sharp focus. Even those “too close” moments the foreground was out of focus as well as the deep background.
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.
If you fall into this demographic of people who have conditions that do not adapt well to the technology… go see it in 2D. See. Not an issue.
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Never noticed this at all. While he has scientific quotes and terminology to back it up, this has never been my experience with the new technology of 3D films. This is grasping.
6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
Again, this has little to do with my movie going experience. That theaters have to upgrade their technology to keep up with the current trends is irrelevant to why 3D is something to hate. They already have inflated prices at the theater that we have been sucking it up while moaning the whole time. I am sure improvement and maintenance costs are included in their ticket prices, and we will pay them anyways.
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D.
And going to the theater is extortion for wanting to see it on the big screen in a theater setting. The $20 Bluray and my very impressive home theater system is still a more cost effective way of viewing a film, but we still race out to see the movie for the experience knowing it will cost me $15 a head to get in. We pay for that experience, so why is it unreasonable to not surcharge for a different experience, especially when it costs them more to present it (Glasses, projectors etc). And again… if you don’t agree with the surcharge, see it in 2D. Done.
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
This is the ONLY point I can fully agree with on his list. Some films just don’t need to be made into 3D. That being said, not all films are. Visual effects films and animation draw in part on their visuals as part of the appeal, and to apply this technique to dramas or any film that would not benefit from stunning visuals are not improved by adding 3D.
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.
And this last excuse he gives to hate 3D is also a non-issue for me. All the improvements to Home Theater technology have been to keep up with the Theater experience. Yes, Theaters adapt to thrive in a changing marketplace. All businesses do. It inspires what we don’t have at home and is the basis of our greedy economy. Always leave them wanting more. Its just the source of our evolution of technology.
One day, like the classic arcades that ate up allowances and quarters by the dozen our technology at home improves. And maybe one day there will not be a theater to go to, and movies will be made available to watch in the comfort of our own homes with reasonable priced snacks at the ready. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, as theaters are always trying to stay a step ahead.
Overall
My opinion on 3D is that it is NOT a gimmick. It is a technique. Just like animation and special effects improve the experience of a film’s consuming belivability. I feel this is just another tool in the filmmaker’s box that can add to the film. I do however agree to some extent that the effect is sometimes being abused. Some films are being converted to 3D FOR gimmick, and that abuses the technique. They used CG to make the new Freddy Krueger look a bit more gruesome, but when it came down to it the film would not have benefitted by a 3D conversion.
The bigger statement challenged here is that Ebert says “Why I hate 3D and Why you should too” and to address that, I dont agree with many of the reasons that he hates 3D, and I find many of them to be vague grasping that seems beneath such a respected member of the movie industry media.
Furthermore. I would never tell you that you have to hate it too. While some have formed the opinion against the use of 3D, you still have the choice to see it in traditional presentations. No one is MAKING you see it. If you live somewhere remote where they don’t give you the option, its not an attack on you personally. Its just poor circumstances.
The strongest offense I get from all of Ebert’s rambling here is that he wants you to hate it too, and as much as I like to share my opinion, I don’t get to tell you yours. That’s not his call.
Ebert can sit on his front porch and tell you whippersnappers to stay off his lawn.
This post was written by :
Rodney who has written 7865 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
Rodney, I tend to disagree with you almost all the time. However this is the rare time I agree 100% with you and many things you’ve said are points I myself have brought up when debating with people about 3D.
Didnt Ebert give Avatar 4 stars? He also liked the 3D The last Ice age movie.
I think when he says hate he means most of the time. I would say I hate the gimmick. Any movie that puts 3D in title would be a gimmick. Also movies converted afterwards. But if the filmmakers want to take to time to enhance the experience with quality 3D then i dont have a problem with it.
About paying more for glasses, should we have to pay more if we keep them?
That’s pretty much my ONLY complaint about the current 3D craze. If you keep the glasses and bring them back with you when you go to see the next 3D movie, then you shouldn’t have to pay the extra glasses fee again. But that’s just my own personal preference. And it’s nothing that ever stops me from doing going back for the next 3D movie, lol
Too late now I suppose, but go see “Up” or “Coraline” twice. See it in 3D and then see it again in 2D. Then tell me there’s no degradation in color or luminosity. Ebert is 100% correct (or actually 30% if you wanna get technical) on this point.
Recent remarks by Scorsese, Spielberg, et. al. (“Precious” should’ve been made in 3D) makes me weep for the future of theater going. I still have a century’s worth of DVDs at home (in glorious 2D), so I’ll stick with those as soon as I can’t go to a theater and see a movie without having to wear glasses and watch an already shitty production made even shittier with blurry pans, luminosity degradation and stuff flying at me.
SOOOO tired of the 3D trend. It’s needless and distracting.
I have seen Up in both. No difference at all.
But yes, those films like Precious hardly need any conversion to 3D. There is just no need at all for that.
If you don’t like 3D, then just see the movies in 2D. I don’t see what the problem with that is at all. Let those of us who do like 3D go and enjoy it.
Eventually all films will be in 3-D, and 2-D will become a thing of the past. It’s already begun.
See the problems raises when theaters only show the movie in 3D with no options to watch it in 2D. I had to drive 45mins away only beacause one theater was actually playing “Alice in Wonderland” in 2D. That’s just annoying as it seems then are forcing you to choose to watch it in 3D. I have a feeling more Theaters will follow suit. Tickets aren’t getting cheaper!
3-D is a gimmick that only visually enhances the movie experience. It doesn’t make Dracula scarier, it doesn’t make Waterboy funnier, it doesn’t make Old Yeller sadder, it doesn’t make Slingblade more dramatic and it certainly doesn’t make Avatar’s story better. I’m not against 3-D but it simply doesn’t make movies better, it only adds to the ticket price and makes our wallets lighter. The 3-D experience is something I would expect to see at an amusement park like King’s Island or Disney. I only hope that the trend doesn’t become the norm and is used for an extremely small majority of films. I don’t recall sitting in the theater when I was 10 going, “man this Star Wars movie would be awesome if it was in 3-D!” If a movie relies on 3-D to get people in to it then it’s failed to tell it’s story since 3-D can only visually enhance the images on the screen. It’s like saying Waterworld would have been awesome and better received if there would have been some way the film makers could have had hoses squirting water at the crowd every time water was splashed in the movie. Then people would have forgot how it sucked and would now think it was amazing because of a gimmick.
Not saying any of those movies NEED to be converted to 3D either.
And no movie RELIES on 3D to get people to go. People go to see a movie because they want to see that movie. If they have the opportunity to see it in 3D and they think that would add something to the effects.. that is also their choice.
You rant like someone is MAKING you pay more, and MAKING you go. Just like spoof movies, as stupid as they were people kept going so they kept making them. If 3D lacked any real value to the film, and had no broad appeal, they woudlnt have people opting more often than not to go see it in 3D. Spoof movies are quickly becoming less popular because people are tired of them. Vote with your dollar.
If is terrible and had no value, then no one would go. I’d dodge the movie that sprayed water on me. And most people would. Then they would stop making water spraying movies because its not worth it.
This is a technique that adds value and effect to the movie. Not a gimmick. If you don’t believe it does, then don’t see it in 3D.
And yes. Star Wars would be cool in 3D. And you still don’t have to watch it if/when they make it 3D.
I’ll respectfully agree to disagree.
3-D is a gimmick or tool like adding smells, squirting water and blowing air in a movie at an amusement park. By your own words, 3-D’s value is an “added effect” and to this will never be able to be shown correctly outside of a large screen theater meaning it would be worthless to see a movie that was made to see in 3-D on a home entertainment system because is was meant to be seen in 3-D at the theater like Avatar was. There is no disputing this, Avatar was meant to be seen in 3-D on the big screen. Most people go on more about the 3-D in Avatar than the actual story, characters, and dialogue. Gimmick is a cheap term which should probably be replaced with a better word…
Well my buddy who just bought a 3D TV would disagree. Using the bluray edition of Avatar on his 3dTV without even having a 3d version of the movie, and he said it was amazing in 3d. The tv can make anything 3d to varying results, which he said Avatar was brilliant in… and it wasn’t even released in 3d on disc yet.
I read Ebert article a few weeks ago and I just hated the reasoning he used. What does Casablanca have to do with 3D, nothing. Ebert is using the past to argue about the future. Not all movies are going to be in 3D. Some movies will be destroy if it is in 3D, Drama for example. Animated movie are great in 3D. Ebert is terrify of new technology.
I disagree with both Rodney and Ebert, because you are both using absolutes.
When done well, i.e. Avatar, 3-D adds to the experience of the movie.
When 3-D is tacked on in post to charge higher prices for “event” pictures, i.e. Clash of the Titans, it detracts from the movie and is a gimmick to steal money for something that adds little to the film.
For the most part, I like 3-D, but unfortunately you are starting to see more and more movies using the post-production retro-fit done by outsourced technicians, with minimal artistic input by the film’s creators, to charge higher prices and bump the opening weekend box office. Which is slowly causing people to get fed up with 3-D.
As far as the color issue, it is noticeably dimmer TO ME in 3-D, but I truly don’t mind a slightly dimmer picture for the immersion factor when 3-D is well done.
When did I use absolutes?
Only a Sith uses absolutes.
I caught the Revenge of the Sith Marathon on Spike last night too…
I read a little bit more into your defense than was there, upon re-reading, your stance was much more open than I took it upon initial reading, my apologies.
Good one!
“If you fall into this demographic of people who have conditions that do not adapt well to the technology… go see it in 2D. See. Not an issue.”
This is very, very short-term thinking. If 3-D continues to take off, movies that come in 3-D will be difficult to find in 2-D. Why? It costs more to have both of them. From the studio side, that’s more versions of the movie you have to push out there, and when it comes to producing something, more variants = more expensive (for both versions). There is always an economy in scale.
From the cinema side, they have to make significant investments for 3D, so they’re going to want to use it whenever possible — especially when the 2-D versions threaten to become the ugly stepsisters of 3-D, when everyone flocks to see the movie in the third dimension. Even if movie-goers revolt, cinemas (and studios) will continue to push the 3-D because they’ve already made that much more money and know they can charge more for the 3-D. So, even if costumers didn’t want to see movies in 3-D, eventually studios will stop giving the audience the option… which will probably happen as soon as cinemas have enough 3-D theaters to meet the demand, because that’s the point in which they’d lose money by offering 2-D when they could push everyone into (the more expensive) 3-D theaters.
“No one is MAKING you see it. If you live somewhere remote where they don’t give you the option, its not an attack on you personally. Its just poor circumstances.”
I live in NYC and I went to see UP in Time Square, and 2D was not an option.
Then dont go to times square. You make it sound like its the only theater in Manhattan.
I bring it up because its the biggest theater in nyc. they had 3 or 4 screens to play the movie on and they chose to play them all in 3D. smaller theaters will become more and more likely to to chose the 3d format over they 2D if they only have a few screens. if the larger ones that have the screens for both are only choosing to play movies in 3d where will we be able to see the 2d versions at?
also what happens when the studios decide that it is more profitable to only realseh movies (at least certain movies)in 3d because the money gained by the extra ticket price is greater than the money lost by people who stay home?
Are you out of your mind? The complaint isn’t because the movie is in 3D. The complaint is because of the trend the theaters are following of “JUST” showing the movie in 3D to make more money and not giving movie goers the option of 2D. I live in North NJ and I had to drive 45mins away because NO THEATER (I have a lot of theater in the area) around me was giving the option of 2D for “Alice in Wonderland”. So it’s not just as easy as ” Go to another theater”. While I liked Avatar and UP in 3D their are some films that I’m not willing to pay more to watch in “Fake 3D” and i would like to have the option of 2D when need be. Then again it’s the theaters choice. I will just have to watch less movies I guess.
One more comment — sorry to double post.
“The $20 Bluray and my very impressive home theater system is still a more cost effective way of viewing a film.”
Unless your “very impressive home theater system” was free, and you’re only buying half as many Bluray DVDs as the movies you see, and you aren’t buying Blurays to movies you already saw at the theater, this is a false statement. A “very impressive home theater system,” would cost thousands of dollars, not including comfortable furniture to watch the movies on, which would be additional thousands. If you actually bought the systems and bought nice furniture to go along with it, you’re probably spending as much or more on that system than an average movie-goer’s *lifetime* of movies at the movie theater.
My $3000 Home theater setup and purchasing movies is cheaper. Plus I get more value out of my system than just movies. I can play games, watch daily programing and it serves as a monitor for streaming Hulu. So lets only assume a portion of the cost is directly related to movie watching.
Take that, and the fact that I have 2 kids and a (hot)wife and its about 80-90 every time I go to the movies. Compare that to the $20-$30 disc, that I can view multiple times at no additional cost?
If I never went to the theater at all, I would be saving money. Food at home, no travel expenses, on disc can be viewed comfortably by up to 8 people in my living room.
that works for you but we all arent the same. i will rarly watch a movie twice. and when its not worth seeing in theaters its not worth seeing at home, so i dont buy dvds or bluray. no wife(hot or not) or kids.
When I came out of Kick-Ass I was blown away. Great characters, story, comedy and action. But do you know what else was so great about Kick-Ass? It was NOT in 3D. To me this movie beat the crap out of every 3D movie I’ve seen [Yes, that's includes Avatar].
I pretty much agree with Ebert on most of his points. There’s nothing wrong with 3D as an option but to make it the next common standard in film making is very drastic. This latest 3D trend just started and I’m sick of it already. I think it’s scary when movies [and blockbusters] aren’t allowed to be just movies. No. Movies need to become rollercoaster rides so the audiences get more stimulation while looking at the screen. This is gonna save cinema?
I don’t hate 3D. I like good 3D movies but I don’t want to see everything in 3D. When I watched Avatar on DVD I liked it more. 2D kicks ass. But that’s just me. Heh.
You cant compare Kickass to Avatar anyways. Completely different movies, different genre, different everything.
Ask a dozen people which of the two was “better” and there is no guarantee of the results. Its too subjective to a whole pile of variables.
And as I said above, no film NEEDS to be 3D, but some can have value by adding the effect.
sounds like another useless rant to me. Fact is its to each is to own. Hey some peopledont like DL films which is w/e because most people have dl something before…alll i know is ypu cant judge a movie to see if the 3d is worht paying for unless you actuall pay for it in the first place so all the chit chat after that is useless.
ebert is just acting like very other eletist jerk that has his hands in the mix…..fact is ebert bases his whole career of an opinion…which every one has there own…seems kinda redundant if u ask me.
I don’t like this whole 3D craze but it feels like we’re getting pushed into it. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before something I might really like is only available in 3D (probably a video game).
Point 4 you say that you just have to go to the 2D version of the movie. Some of the movies dont have 2D, they only come out in 3D. And if they want to put 3D in all the movies for the next 4 years, it will be a big problem.
3D is alright every once in awhile, but now that studios are smelling money it’s going too far. I don’t need every movie to be 3D, and I certainly don’t want that technology in my home. I don’t like watching movies with goggles on, especially in my living room.
I’ll just focus on this comment you made Rodney,,,
“The strongest offense I get from all of Ebert’s rambling here is that he wants you to hate it too, and as much as I like to share my opinion, I don’t get to tell you yours. That’s not his call.”
I believe that Ebert is sending out a warning to the next generation. Unless you’ve been sleeping on the edge of 3D in cinema Rodney, lord Katzenberg and Disney want ALL films to be in 3D within the next 10 years. And that statement was made over 3 years ago.
The more people support 3D films, the faster the technology will supply this vision.
Watching 3D, films today, will secure a total 3D conversion in the future.
I think that’s the stress I hear with Ebert. I don’t think he’s a crotchety old fool.
If I may add reason no 11, RealD and the new 3D technology, take subliminal delivery to a entire new level of mind manipulation.
I find myself in a middle ground because there are elements of Ebert’s argument which I completely agree with, yet others which I wonder where he is going with it. But you pretty much summed up how I feel about 3D in the first part of your overall statement. It’s not a gimmick, but a tool which needs to be used properly and not abused, as appears to be the case with some films going through conversions just to try and attract more bums on seats.
One thing which you said that I hope never happens is “And maybe one day there will not be a theater to go to, and movies will be made available to watch in the comfort of our own homes”. Whilst I believe the quality of home cinema will probably surpass the quality of the cinema experience, for me going to the cinema as a child, watching those images projected up on to the big screen fuelled my fascination with the movies. I would hate for say in 50, 75 or even 100 years time for all cinemas to have disappeared and for young children to never experience the magic of watching a movie on the big screen.
3D blows plain and simple. It has its place in a small grouping of movies like fantasy and Disney but not everything needs to be in 3D. It doesn’t bring anything new to the film except for a visual. Even when it does bring new visual stuff I never find it to be that interesting (Avatar excluded). In reality, this is all James Cameron’s fault. He’ll rake in a shit load of money he doesn’t need for people to buy the correct technology. 3D is as useless as an asshole on my elbow. I agree with Ebert. Think about it, do you really want to wear those glasses everytime you see a movie? It’s annoying. Plus, the price of movie tickets will go up even more if this trend really catches on thus limiting the amount of places where you can see it in 2D.
The last thing I remember watching in 3D was when I was about 10. it was a short animation, but I thought *and still do* it was amazing. I just don’t like when they have effects in the movie that are specifically for 3D, and then I go and buy it in 2D form. Since the effects are meant to be seen in 3D but I am watching it in 2D i see a horrible cheesy looking CG effect like a glove passing someones face and lingering in the foreground for to long.
I don’t know how old you are so I don’t know what 3d was like when you were 10. But 3d has got a lot better in the past few years. It still may not be for you, but you can’t say you know that until you have seen the present day 3d. Hopefully in good quality like Avatar.
My opinion, when it comes to movies filmed in 3d, is its cool but it gets old. I’ve had my dose of 3d for now and would like to keep the option of seeing movies in 2d without going out of my way. 3d conversion should never be done.
watched alice in wonderland in 3D yesterday *my local cinema likes to keep movies for weeks on end :P *
statement still stands
and I’m 18… spongebob rules!
Ebert has lost his critical eye in recent years. From this ridiculous article to getting involved an a ridiculous online battle about whether or not video games should be considered art, Ebert is showing his age. I guess we could cut him some slack due to all his medical issues, but his mind is still sharp. For a critic I used to have a lot of respect for, I find most of his reviews and articles laughable these days.
3D is an enjoyable experience…for movies that benefit from 3D. Of course not all movies should be in 3D. Don’t tell me what I should hate, you aging, out-of-touch critic.
My beef with 3-D is that when the animated films use it and it’s geared for kids like my son, THEN WHY THE “F” DONT THEY HAVE SMALLER SIZED GLASSES THAT DONT SLIP OFF THE SMALLER HEAD VIEWERS.THE KIDS ARE THE ONES THAT DRAG US TO PAY FOR THESE MOVIES.
other than that if I want to pony up the cash on a flick I think would benefit from it then yeah, I watch it.
it also helps to know the movie was shot in 3-D (avatar) and not just converted, that’s my indicator that 2-D is sufficient
Well I fucking hate 3D with a passion. If it becomes the standard for cinemas I will just stop going altogether and wait for the home video releases.
I’m sorry, I have to go with Ebert on this one. I see it as a huge waste of time. I have no interest in 3D movies and as commenter ^^ says, if this is the way it’s going with all movies I can go find some thing better to do with my time.
I agree with Ebert on most points.
Especially that it DOES look dim, maybe it depends on the theater, but I saw How to train your Dragon in both 2D and 3D and 2D was miles better, the 3D was REALLY obscure in some scenes, again maybe it has to do with the theater and maybe misuse of the technology, but it was really distracting.
I just think 3D enhances very few movie experiences, I’ve seen many 3D movies and I’d say only Avatar and My Bloody Valentine 3D (lame I know, but I though the movie was hilarious and especially with the 3D) used 3D to correctly enhance my viewing experience.
Oh I should also add Beowulf to that list, the 3D was good in that one.
i’m sure 3d will be the only alternative in the not so far future. see, producers don’t mind about quality as long as it makes money. they’d develop sh*t-smelling technology for movies if they knew people would pay for it.
^^ LOL
I haven’t watched a lot of 3D movies, but I recently watched Alice in 3D and I found it a bit dark and hard for me to see clearly and I felt it really wasn’t needed for this movie. I think for certain movies this technology would be terrific, but in others it would just be distracting. I hope the option for 2D stays a constant.
I remember having an argument a fair few years ago, on whether the Wii was a gimmick, or the future. I said it was completely a gimmick, but that this didn’t have to be a bad thing. Nonetheless, people seemed to feel the need to defend their gimmick, even tho’ a gimmick is not neccessarily a bad thing. Fast forward a few years, and the Wii has sold a ridiculous amound, made crazy money, and is owned, and loved, by kids everywhere. But it is still a gimmick, and has few genuinely brilliant games.
3D is a gimmick. It cost more, there is clear colour loss, and you have to wear annoying, crappy glasses. But it is fun. I loved seeing Avatar in 3D. I would love to see some more genuine 3D films. What I don’t want, is for every major popcorn movie to get a limited 2D release, and have fake3D forced on me. That’s my gripe.
3D is a gimmick. It can be fun. But while I fear hollywood trying to force it on me, it is not worth being militantly pro or against it.
nobody was forcing you to watch Avatar over and over again. I didn’t buy it on DVD, because it just doesn’t offer the same experience.
And no, the Wii is not a gimmik. It is innovating the way people interact with virtual surroundings, and making it a more intuitive experience in as much as touchscreens do.
From your point of view everything but the sourcecode might be reffered to as gimmicks. Why not reading a book instead of watching movies? Who need’s actors? If you got a good narrator, the content and emotions will get to you even though written between the lines.
No, 3D is definitely not a gimmick in as much as actors or CGI are not gimmicks.
It is a tool,that’s used to make visions come alive.
I love 3D, it is the biologically natural way to perceive your surroundings.
No question technology still should be improved, but it’s heading the right way.
I think you’re making a mistake when you say “…it is the biologically natural way to perceive your surroundings”.
In real life objects are located at different distances from your eyes. The left eye sees a slightly different image than your right eye. When these images are passed to the brain an adjustment is made to combine the two images into one. But here is the thing: In real life the lenses of the eyes automatically adjust for different distances, just like the lens of a camera must be focused to get a sharp picture. In a movie theater this is not the case because your eyes are always the same distance from the screen. The 3D you are perceiving on the screen is not natural. The brain is being fooled into depth perception when there really isn’t any. This produces a conflict in the brain. The lenses in the eyes are sending the message that there is no variation in depth of field while the brain thinks there is. This may be what is giving some people headaches and why it becomes a strain after a while to watch a 3D movie.
I can’t watch movies in 3D. I wear glasses. When i try to watch a 3D movie i get severe headaches or worse. The last time i watched a movie in 3D i just about passed out, the guy sitting next to me grabbed my arm before i hit the floor. If i take my glasses off i can’t see anything. When i tried to wear them with the glasses well… Now you know what happens. I just wish that a moviegoer could choose between 3D or 2D when they get to the theater. I am not the only one i know who has this problem. All of my friends and family who wears glasses have to miss out on some of there favorite movies because they are 3D now. I was looking forward to watching The Last Airbender. I have been waiting two years to see it but i just found out that it is going to be in 3D at my local theater. That really SUCKS because i will have to miss it along with all of my friends and family who i was going to take to see it.
Statistically very few people suffer any serious affects, the most common of that small group that will feel anything at all is mild disorientation. There have been no reported cases of anyone outright passing out from it.
That you suggest that everyone in your family and friends group that wear glasses all have as severe discomfort is an extreme assumption and simply doesn’t add up to scientific facts.
Its unfortunate that you cannot see it, but statistically one out of a million people that is that extreme reaction (real or exaggerated) is an acceptable loss, and the theaters are not going to change their mind over such a small group of people affective negatively by the treatment.
I don’t care about your statistics. All i know is that everyone of my friends that wears glasses refuses to go to 3d movies because of the side effects. No one is going to pay 10.50 to see a movie that will give them a headache while watching it. I have seen people actually get up and walk out of the theater because of headaches and refuse to reenter it. Who took your survey, anyway? Did any of them wear glasses? Oh, and i don’t appreciate you calling me a lair. My opinion should count, as well. I spent four years in college studying radio/TV and research. Over half of all surveys can’t be counted because of incomplete or false information. You should let the people that actually have an opinion on this topic take that survey instead of some kid that found it by accident while surfing the web.
Statistically you and everyone know you with glasses can’t all possibly have the same extreme of effects that you report.
Call you a liar? If it quacks like a duck, then I have to call it a duck.
These statistics come from actual surveys from people who have seen it. That you attempt to blindly dismiss scientific information gathering techniques and then insist that I start a whole NEW survey that will serve your point of view is just plain ignorance.
So instead of falling back on little things like facts, I should gather up around me people that support YOUR opinion (not fact) and base reality around it instead? Because that would be the half of surveys that can be trusted instead of these which because they disagree with you and this imaginary be-speckled army of nay-sayers.
You present nothing but opinion which is yours to own. But don’t be surprised when people have evidence to the contrary and try to discredit it because you don’t agree.
You are a contradiction of your own argument and you are free to NOT go to these movies if you don’t want to. But this attempt to make everyone agree with you is a failure.
My opinion, when it comes to movies filmed in 3d, is its cool but it gets old. I’ve had my dose of 3d for now and would like to keep the option of seeing movies in 2d without going out of my way. 3d conversion should never be done.
I found a website on the internet where eye doctors are complaining about the long term effects 3d movies have on moviegoers. Some have reported already seeing a decline in their patients eyesight.
I found a website that says aliens are responsible for Stonehenge and the pyramids.
Its a good thing everything on the internet is the truth.
Sadly there is a little thing called evidence that disagrees with a select number of doctors implying that 3D films are hurting people’s vision while the American Association of Optometrists says current 3D film technology has no potential for long term effects on vision.
The same association says that people who work outdoors are more likely to have vision problems than people who work on computers. But clearly people with perfect vision are at risk of throwing it all away because they go to 3D films.
And even more important that in a post above you discredit ANY scientific information gathering as credible and trust opinion based on your own limited sampling instead, then try to argue that you found scientific proof 3D hurts your eyes.
If the effect of 3D films was as harmful and dramatically negative experience to a grand majority of the viewers as you want to think it is people would not be lining up in the millions to view these films.
Sorry. Not buying it. You contradict yourself before you even finish.
I don’t think we will have to worry about 3D for long. They tried it 60 years ago (in the 1950′s) and it didn’t last then, and it won’t last now. The public simply sees it as a distraction which doesn’t enhance the movie. By the way, when I went to see Avatar, I got so dizzy I had to leave the theater after 35 minutes! Guess I didn’t miss much, but I paid the higher price for nothing. I suppose James Cameron felt he had to do something big and inovative after Titanic. But this blue people nonsense doesn’t cut it. He should go back and view Casablanca to remind him of what makes a good movie. And throw 3D in the garbage.
“blue people nonsense”?? From someone who didn’t even watch half the film?
Sorry, you have no right to an opinion on a film you walked out on.
And 3D has had more shots than just briefly in the 50s. They did it in the 60s, 70s 80s and 90s too. This is the first technological leap for 3D and thousands of theaters are changing their projectors to accommodate it.
Its not just going to disappear like a fad.
Dear Rodney,
I feel obligated to break the news to you: In America we all have the right to an opinion.
But actually you made my point for me. 3D has been tried repeatedly and every time they tried it, it fizzled. It will fizzle again, for the simple reason that the people don’t want it. They want to see movies with substance, feeling, great acting and dialogue, not distracting gimmicks.
Dear Kernershort… I never said you couldn’t have an opinion. And you can wave your flag all you want. Everyone in the world has the right to an opinion, which I have never denied (try reading the site more)
And for a “fad” that people don’t want, people are paying MORE to see, and given the option more people are chosing 3D (statistical polls done at theaters offering both see more people in 3D theaters) If people didn’t want it, they wouldn’t go see it.
And they wouldn’t be buying 3d enabled televisions to have it in their homes, nor would they be planning more movies than ever using the technique.
Hollywood is all about money. That is it. Money. If people didn’t want it, it wouldn’t pay. And they woudln’t do it.
You want to know why there are still stupid spoof movies and Twilight films and even a third Transformers while “everyone doesn’t want it”? Because people will go to these movies. They want it.
You have a right to an opinion, but what you are stating is only YOUR opinion, it is not fact, nor is it the current trend or industry speculation. 3D films have always been the mainstay of IMAX theaters independent titles, theme park attractions, and even films. This is just the highest concentration of the effect so far, because people want it.
I didn’t say YOU had to like it, or that YOU have to go see a movie in 3D because I don’t hate it. But don’t assume that because its how you feel, that is the current trend and market analysis on the subject.
The current trend and “market analysis” on the subject is that people are going to see it because they have been led to believe that this time it’s different (and maybe better). It isn’t. It’s the same as it ever was. It might even be worse. A number of people have already reported that it made them sick. In fact, during the scene shot from inside a helicopter flying through the jungle, weaving left and right, up and down, I got so dizzy that I had to leave the movie theater, go home and lie down for the rest for the day! That is not a good sign. I’m just lucky I was able to drive home without having an accident. But I have seen my last 3D movie (well, 35 minutes of it). My considered assessment is that once people get over the novelty of it, 3D will fade as fast as the morning fog in San Francisco. God knows what they will do with all those extra movie projectors? But there is one good thing: At least now you agree that I’m entitled to an opinion.
Really? Because you are psychic and know whats in the heads of every one of these people headed to the theater?
It is different, and it is better. The technology has advanced far beyond what the traditional red/blue 3d did, and this new method FACTUALLY reduces eyestrain and disorientation.
They have done surveys and polls and research on this. Statistically one in a million might get sick. But the worst is often momentary discomfort and that only happens in very few movie goers.
And I NEVER said that you were not entitled to an opinion. NOT ONCE.
But your opinion is not fact and does not represent the entire movie going audience. You are in a very small minority of people hating on 3D, they just also happen to be the most vocal. While the very isolated few are here complaining about 3D there are a million times more buying tickets to 3D films.
Not out of fad, or gimmick. But because they WANT to see a movie in 3D. There are far more people in favour of it with certain genres, and that is why Hollywood is continuing to create films this way.
As long as audiences are going to these movies, they will keep making them.
“And I NEVER said that you were not entitled to an opinion. NOT ONCE.”
“Sorry, you have no right to an opinion on a film you walked out on.” From your post on July 15th, 9:10pm.
Correct. You are not entitled to an opinion ON A FILM YOU WALKED OUT ON.
You cannot have an opinion on something you dont know about. An opinion voiced on something you have no context of is just ignorance, not an opinion.
You can judge your 3D experience because you experienced it, but in the context of the statement I made, you were judging the film as a whole when you did not experience the film as a whole.