Roger Ebert BLASTS 3D As A 'Juvenile Abomination'

So how does Roger Ebert really feel about 3D?

He shared his blunt, brief opinion of the new tech trend in a recent post on Twitter. (And it isn't pretty.)

Check out Ebert's tweet below--then tell us what you think of the 3D technology that's coming to TVs and movie theater screens.

Quick Poll

I think 3D movies...

Are AWESOME.

Are totally overrated.

Are such a gimmick.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

Comments

[research]

02:10 AM on 03/30/2010

It took me a couple viewings of Avatar to forget about the 3-d and special effects, and really get into the story, which is also great.

[Bruce Thompson]

11:53 PM on 05/12/2010

What? Avatar had a horrible story.

[Mauro Mazzerioli]

09:56 PM on 03/29/2010

I like movies not circuses! I like 3D as well, but the actual industry is just throwing everything on your face to show how big the effects of this 3D thing are... another muscle show up...

[DaneAZ]

01:39 PM on 03/29/2010

I have been reading and listening to dear Roger Ebert for most of my life and I have never disagreed with him - until now.

He IS right that 3D can be gimmicky if used JUST to boost the price.

But the new 3D is really good.
I saw UP in 3D and in regular 2D and to me the 3D really DID add to the experience in a great way.
Avatar 3D was beyond compare.
I have not yet seen Alice...

It's not something that should be tossed on any 'ol film - but on the right ones, I think it's fantastic.

[Bruce Thompson]

11:54 PM on 05/12/2010

Up in 3D was tripe though the story was incredible - almost made me cry that one. Though I agree Avatar in 3D was incredible! The story was Meh.

[EdCoughlin]

01:03 PM on 03/29/2010

He is 100% right here, especially the lame with glasses 3D we've had lately.

This is especially true in the case of "converted" 3D like Alice and Wonderland. When it's shot in 2D and then digitally converted to 3D it just looks gimmicky. Up was the same way. I fail to see how seeing a fern slightly closer to your face through uncomfortable glasses makes anything better or more interesting. The only thing I really get as an extra bonus from these movies is eye fatigue.

Avatar is the only movie that I've seen that really seems to do anything useful with 3D and even then, I think I'd have been happier seeing it in IMAX without 3D to avoid the stupid glasses.

3D will be fine when its value added. When you don't need an extra fee and glasses more power to them. As it is now it is indeed just a gimmick designed for children. Like we really need more add ons to the movie costs...I mean it's already over 10 bucks at most theatres, 3D puts it to 15. For the cost of 2 people going to the theatre in 3D I can rent 30 movies a few months later on DVD or see a live theatre show (in REAL 3D).

[farmilyman]

12:00 AM on 03/29/2010

It's not easy getting old when technology passes you by.

[Deftguy]

06:52 PM on 03/28/2010

3D today is no joke, and it is certainly being used much better than it was used in the 60'-80's. As others have said, 3D is just another filmmaking tool. As today cinematographers get better acquainted with the technology, the quality of the 3D will improve.

I remember just as I was getting out of film school, something called Digital Audio was just beginning. I remember so many folks said that digital audio was not going to improve theatrical audio overall, and the extra dynamic range was going to give people hearing loss issues. Well, here it is some seventeen years later, and digital audio has actually improved the theatrical experience. The first digital mixes where ping-pong affairs with channels being driven mercilessly close to digital zero. Over time we audio mixers learned to be more subtle and effective with our mixes. The same will happen with 3D.

I love the 3D films I have seen so far(visually speaking, not the quality of the content always), and I look forward in seeing who fimmakers explore this technology to its fullest.

[ZombyWoof]

06:16 PM on 03/28/2010

First in defense of earlier comments that I made:

This 3D is not your grandfather’s 3D, there is a huge difference. I could be wrong because I only saw it once, but I distinctly remember seeing several layers of depth in Avatar and not just 1 foreground,1 middle ground and 1 back ground.

Second, 3D is not a special effect like all that garbage in the Transformers movies. If it is a special effect then so is color and sound.

Third, like color and sound true auteurs will find creative ways to use 3D and not always in a throw everything up on the screen and see what happens attitude.

There is a scene Jaws in which the sheriff is sitting in his beach chair and someone yells “shark” the camera moves away from Roy Scheider while the lens zooms in to keep pace, the result is that his head maintains it’s size ratio on the screen while the background shrinks behind him until there is only a tight close up on his face. Imagine that scene starting out in 3D and ending up in 2D. or vice versa.

Imagine a room in which only one object is in 3D or only a small part of the screen, imagine delirium as seen through the eyes of a character in which the 3D zooms in and out all over.

The point is, never mind the hacks, do not underestimate what an artist will do with a new tool.

[ibisko]

03:56 PM on 03/28/2010

3D is just a tool.
on the tool continuum.
if used appropriately, like in nature, science, etc themes , it will be beneficial and exciting.(planetarium)
misused it will be detrimental. (jane austen)

what's of interest is that the same goes for imaging.
first we had 2d xray.
then sonograms, thermography.
then digital.
then 3 d imaging.
then functional , or metabolic imagining.
all met with resistance from the purists.

[chuck prebys]

12:32 AM on 03/28/2010

I agree with him.
As a product of the 80's when 3D was making a resurgence I was excited to seeAlice in Wonderland on Imax and in 3D.
Tix were only $12 in Vegas so I thought it worth the price.

What you DON'T get with 3D is the detail in the rest of the shot.
At times the effect is exciting but the 3D version is MUCH less focus-detailed as the regular version.

For that alone I will be shying away from 3D movies.

You trade away the sublime details of the film for what the 3D wants to present to you.

[ZombyWoof]

05:49 PM on 03/28/2010

With continued usage of the current 3d technologies film makers will refine their techniques mush as they did with color and sound with selective editing and mixing. There may be moments in fututre film where the 3d will faze in an out for effect.

Think the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's List or the way sound is manipulated in a crowd scene so that you can hear the dialog the director intends for you to hear or when everything falls silent when the guy sees the beautiful girl.

3d will not remain static it will rise to an art form in those who choose to mae it so.

[EdCoughlin]

01:05 PM on 03/29/2010

The statement "Tix were only 12 dollars" is exactly what's wrong with 3D and movies in general. I would be much happier paying half that and skipping that extra dimension most movies barely do anything with.

Maybe instead of spending 200 million to make it 3D they could spend 2 million and hire someone who can write worth a damn to work on these movies. Now THAT would be revolutionary.

[TrueBud]

12:17 AM on 03/28/2010

Well, not all pithy comments are going to carry the weight of scholarly work. And not all opinions of one person will I agree with. But whether or not you think 3D is an "abomination", he is at the very least correct in that it is an excuse to gouge you for more cash. If the price for a ticket was the same, 3D would be fine; but as it stands it is a gimmick to simply stick a vacuum nozzle deeper into your wallet. I'm curious to know if studios and theaters insisted on higher prices for talkies or color when those innovations emerged, and also how long before that leveled out and a premium price was no longer charged.

[GalinMcMahon]

06:24 PM on 03/27/2010

Yes, and boo to color and talkies.

[EdCoughlin]

01:09 PM on 03/29/2010

There is a huge difference between color/sound and 3D. Color is central to our world and how we see it, sound is absolutely necessary to facilitate in movie communication.

Alternately 3D does very little to help anything, I would even say it doesn't really enrich the experience. Your mind can already tell what's far and close in a shot without 3D pushing things into your face, you don't really need the assist especially with those glasses.

You can't figure out what color a grey dress in black and white is (could be yellow, orange or something else) without color, it adds. You can't figure out what an off screen character is yelling without sound (maybe you can read lips with on screen characters), so it adds.

3D, as far as I can tell from the half dozen movies I've seen that use it, primarily just adds another 3 dollars to an already overpriced movie theatre experience.

[KDark]

06:16 PM on 03/27/2010

God, stop using this picture of Ebert!

[chris h0929]

04:21 PM on 03/27/2010

Never agreed with his critiques anyways,....

[maxfax]

03:51 PM on 03/27/2010

And now 3D tv, the next Edsel.

[jackbutler5555]

03:05 PM on 03/27/2010

I enjoy movies with good acting, writing, directing etc. It has to be a good story. You know, the standard stuff people say about film.

But IMAX and 3D today is not about film as it is normally discussed. It's about visual experiences. A movie like Avatar, seen in 3d and IMAX, is entirely a different experience than great cinema. It falls short in dialogue, plot, etc.

Nevertheless is is a landmark movie because of the visual effects it has created. Years from now, it will be regarded as a quaint landmark. But, by that time, film will have integrated its visual advances with plot, acting etc.

Orson Welles breakthrough in Citizen Kane was able to integrate traditional movie making at the time with some technical innovations. Folks here would have preferred that David Cameron was able to do that. But that's not one of his strengths.