The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions
|
May 10, 2010
Share
Roger Ebert Hates 3D - I don’t
— Posted by Rodney
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 8899 posts on The Movie Blog visit author's website | Contact the Author  Around the Web
ZergNet
|
|
Wonderful paintings! This is the kind of information that are meant to be shared across the net. Shame on Google for no longer positioning this put up upper! Come on over and discuss with my site . Thanks =)
3D always makes the picture dim.
Hi Rodney and Co, I'm a Film Director and often scroll the pages for interesting news, and I noticed a lot of debate on this subject, and I have a few facts to provide everyone with to help clarify your arguments regarding 3-D, and how much you lose when you watch it. Most of the cues required to provide humans with relative depth information are already present in traditional 2D films. For example, closer objects occlude further ones, distant objects are desaturated and hazy relative to near ones, and the brain subconsciously "knows" the distance of many objects when the height is known. In fact, only two of these depth cues are not already present in 2D films: stereopsis (or parallax) and the focus of the eyeball (accommodation). 3D film-making addresses accurate presentation of stereopsis but not of accommodation, and therefore is insufficient in providing a complete 3D illusion. Most headaches are a result of our brain trying to do so. From a technical standpoint, shooting on the required digital video does not offer a high enough quality image, since 3D cameras cannot be equipped with prime lenses, which when you work in the business, are essential for superior images. And to defend Mr. Ebert, I got this one from the ReadD 3-D website itself: "The main trouble with polarized 3D systems for movies is a loss of screen brightness. The polarizing screen in front of the projector blocks half of the outgoing light, causing an equivalent loss of brightness on the screen. Therefore, the viewer perceives an overall dimming by 50%." I'll let these facts speak for themselves, and don't think they require much elaboration to get my point across. But honestly people, shouldn't we be more concerned about the one thing contemporary movies lack that 3-D will never be able to provide? How about a story so good it doesn't matter if it's in 3-D, because it's drawn you right in and it feels like you're actually there. Give me a pair of glasses that do that and I'll be first in line. Until then, I'll gladly wait for "The Tree of Life" in all of its 2 dimensional glory.
I have seen Avatar in various 3D formats, as well as 2D. This is one movie I couldn't imagine seeing in 2D only. But, this is an exception! Generally, most 3D is dim and often blurry (I have perfect eyesight). I really find no merit in everything being 3D, or even most of a movie in 3D. It would be like taking the Wizard of Oz, and colorizing the entire movie. Then saying "But color is so much better". You lose the directors perspective, the story suffers, all in the name of "this is cool".
3-D can be a useful tool. I saw Tron in 3-D a couple of days ago and some of the movie was shot in 2-D and some in 3-D. It worked. But I do agree that for other movies, 3-D is a gimmick meant to increase box office intake. I will say though that walking out of Tron (which was my first 3-D movie btw), I had a headache that got worse overnight and wasn't better until the next night. I do wear contacts so maybe that has something to do with it but I'm also slightly prone to motion sickness and I think that might be more of my problem than anything else as my brother also wears contacts and was fine. This means I'm going to choose which movies I go see in 3-D very selectively in the future. Hopefully I'll have that choice for a few more years. I agree with those people that have said that 3-D is the future and it's one we're getting pushed into. You know how black and white used to be it? And now it's a technique employed by directors to highlight particular objects or scenes? That's where 2-D is headed. And it's inevitable considering our home theatre systems are keeping up with the technology. Did you know there's talk of a 3D channel? At the same time, because 2-D vs. 3-D will become a stylistic choice for directors, I think it'll be they who'll keep 2-D around longer than we expect (more so than audiences I mean) because there are some that still use 35 mm film cameras and produce hand-drawn animation who are revered by the film industry and make amazing movies (see Christopher Nolan and Hayao Miyazaki). I did find 3-D to be dimmer and the colors less bright. I thought it was just because I was essentially wearing sunglasses in a dark theatre where the only source of light is the screen. This did disappoint me and I'm sure there'll be a lot of movies negatively affected by this. What's the point of HD if the colors are dimmer in 3D? Give me HD any day. Or maybe they'll resort to artificially brightening the colors so that they appear normal in 3-D? Who knows? Lastly, you know Rodney, for someone who keeps saying every person has a right to their own opinion, I've read a lot of your replies to other people in which you not only disagree with them but try and shoot down their point. If you're really okay with people making up their own mind, UNLIKE Ebert, you should be satisfied that you've made your point in your article and then leave people alone to voice those opinions you supposedly respect so highly. And don't call them liars. Just because there's a small number of people statistically who are unable to go see movies in 3-D without getting ill, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and doesn't impact those people greatly. And did you ever consider that maybe the research you read was funded by a studio looking to make money off of 3-D? Lots of people wear glasses or corrective lens wear. So more might be affected then you think even if it's mildly so.
Never called anyone a liar, and never denied that there is a very small percentage of people who get disoriented in theaters. And the research that indicates how few people get disoriented or ill from 3d was conducted by eye doctors, who have nothing to gain by 3d technology. I respond and debate with commenters and never deny them their opinion. However when they express their opinion as facts I have just as much right to challenge the statement just as they have the right to express their opinion. Those who think their dislike of the technique is as widely reviled as they feel about it are just incorrect. It doesn't make them a liar, it makes them misinformed.
I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and without 3D and the 3D was just a distraction. 3D seems like very 1950's technology. It should be reserved for retro space flicks.
200% agree with you Rodney!!! Most People here don't understand 3D itself is not the problem. BAD Post conversion Crap 3D is!!!People are so narrow-minded they can not even make the difference. I loved Avatar and enjoyed experiencing the enhanced immersion it provided (and I wear glasses!). I just can't understand why so much people reject the whole process when it's obvious Piranha 3d did not play the same league as Avatar, Alice compared to Dragons too and so on...No, they're like "All of them s*cks because it's frickin' 3D!!!"(sic)
I agree with a lot of the commenters on the board, 3D is merely a channel that the film industry is using to save itself from financial demise. I've seen both Piranha 3D and Resident Evil:Afterlife over the past few weeks, and I can tell you that with the exception of a few scenes, there was absolutely no need for either of these films to be in 3D (and these are action films, I can't imagine how non-action films would fair). All 3D is going to do is continue to bring people into the theaters to see bad movies, which only means that MORE and MORE bad movies will continue to get made.
I think Ebert was being sarcastic when he said that we should hate 3-D too. I fall into the minority of 3-D giving me headaches (sometimes) so I don't go too them often. I will admit that I have been impressed with the 3-D versions of HTTYD and Avatar. However, there are so many movies using 3-D that I think people are going to get tired eventually. I have to disagree with Roger in saying that 3-D is not a gimmick at all. Also It's just a shame how some studios quickly tact on 3-D and don't care what it looks like (i.e. Last Airbender, Clash of the Titans).
Sadly he isn't being ironic. He even details as to why he thinks its a waste to even try. I do agree that SOME films use it purely for gimmick and adds no value to the film. But that can be said about any special effect applied to a film. And more studios are deliberately filming in 3d instead of converting. Much of the converting was probably the result of jumping on the bandwagon once the craze hit (It didnt REALLY take off until Avatar) but they wanted the marketing angle so they converted the film in post.
Hate to break it to you, but 3D is a gimmick just to get more people to see the movie it's a fad that hopefully won't last too much longer. Until glasses are no longer required, I won't be seeing a 3D mvie any time soon
Until holography is perfected, the glasses stay.
Hate to break it to you. Just because it CAN be a gimmick, doesn't mean it will always be. That's like saying animation is a gimmick.
I agree 50% with you and 50% with Roger Ebert. "Hollywood is all about money." "THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS." And you know, 3D is all about money! "No film NEEDS to be 3D, but some can have value by adding the effect." And "Some films just don’t need to be made into 3D." Because, "I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D." Thank you!
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.
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.
"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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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'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 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 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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.