Roger Ebert: '3D Is A Waste Of A Perfectly Good Dimension'

newsweek.com:

Roger Ebert writes: 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches.

Read the whole story: newsweek.com

Comments

[Miataboy]

09:52 PM on 05/13/2010

My problem with 3D is that I'm legally blind in one eye. That renders the glasses useless and just make for a blurry screen image. As long as the films are also released in 2D, the fans will at least have a choice.

[MAJK]

05:20 AM on 05/13/2010

Watching Capitan EO in 3-D is an experience I hope everyone gets to enjoy.

[BG Owen]

09:14 PM on 05/12/2010

That picture of RE is scary as hell. Hope I never see him in 3D!

[RockyMissouri]

10:56 AM on 05/13/2010

Shame on you---! You need to acquire some manners.! Or some maturity!

[BrickSykes]

06:48 PM on 05/15/2010

Probably a normal simpleton....

[lthuedk 1]

07:17 PM on 05/12/2010

It wasn't just the refresh rate that annoyed, but the 3-D glasses alone. Some may not feel bothered at all by the eye/brain mechanics, but for me, the experience brought on a headache and nausea.

The movie is far better in 2-d, at 1080p, anyway.

[StevenWells]

04:21 PM on 05/12/2010

Of course, 3D isn't appropriate for every film, and Ebert knows perfectly well the absurdity of its theoretical application to ones such as "Casablanca" and "Fargo." For me, however, it did elevate "Avatar" - an otherwise only fair movie, save for the CG advancements - from what would otherwise have been an unremarkable viewing experience.

The 3D effects were consistent and the best I've ever seen. The image quality was outstanding, and I experienced no headaches, nor the "darkening" to which Ebert referred. The trick, as I learned from 3D viewings of early examples such as "House Of Wax" and "Kiss Me Kate," is to sit closer to the screen than you normally would. This would generally have the effect of degrading the image somewhat, but "Avatar" withstood even that.

There's also hardly a 3D "stampede," as Ebert suggests; it's still clearly a novelty, just as it was in 1953. What remains to be seen is whether it will endure as such, or become - as before - a passing fad.

[twiggoat]

03:51 AM on 06/16/2010

Yeah you got it. Avatar gave me a headache.........in 2D

[BannedFromCommenting]

03:41 PM on 05/12/2010

This article is over 2 weeks old... but either way, I agree. Avatar just gave me a headache in 3-D. Alice in Wonderland? Why? Nothing in it needed 3-D. Clash of the Titans? Filmed in 2-D with 3-D added later which you cannot do w/o it looking lik shat!

[Eris23]

03:07 PM on 05/12/2010

This story is yet another example of why people should avoid Twitter. I pretty much agree with Ebert across the board here, and certainly did not when he was merely "twitting" that it was a juvenile abomination. The movie regarding the cave paintings sounds quite interesting.

[mero909]

02:17 PM on 05/12/2010

I usually find myself in disagreement with Ebert, but for today, I agree with him. As the quote goes, "If you can't make the movie good, make it in 3D."

[justadood]

01:59 PM on 05/12/2010

The way 3D is presently utilized, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Ebert. It hasn't yet progress from being a 'gimmick' to being an essential part of the story the Director is bringing to the screen.

the closest to the latter I've seen so far has been 'Avatar'....there weren't any (that I recall) 'in your face' moments, where things appeared to jump off the screen at you---there was just the added depth to the scene and the backgrounds, that (for me at least) drew me further into the story.

Contrast that to 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Journey to the Center of the Earth (2009', where there were plenty of 'in your face' moments to ruin the presentation of the story---like "Look at my whiz-bang effect!! Cool, huh?"

[alieninvader]

01:42 PM on 05/12/2010

Some of the 3D movies are fun, but I think there is so much pressure to make a 3D movie right now that studios are even less likely to invest in quality scripts.

For all the people comparing 3D to color, it's a false equivalency. Color is real. 3D is not. The more accurate comparison would be 3D to colorization.

[KillerWolf777]

01:56 PM on 05/12/2010

The 3D that gives 3D a bad name is the digital conversion crap, like you seen in Clash of the Titans, Alice in Wonderland, films like that. Cameron used special Cameras and shot Avatar in 3D to get around that. Unfortunately, studios still don't see the difference yet, but audiences do. Are they listening? Most likely not....

[jsgaetano]

01:36 PM on 05/12/2010

I don't know if I'd say anything 3d does is essential... but having said that, I still enjoy the ones I've seen. But we could also make the statement that color in movies aren't essential either.

Both "Up" and "Avatar" were pretty impressive in 3D, and I'll see movies in 3D in the future as well.

[KillerWolf777]

01:06 PM on 05/12/2010

When done right (Avatar, upcoming Tron: Legacy) it does add more visual pop to the movie, and it gives theaters something people cannot see at home (yet). I don't understand why some of these Film Critics rag on it so much, it's not used on every film, but they act like it'
s ruining the experience for them. You don't want to see a film in 3D, pay to see it in 2D, or wait for video. Otherwise, let the market of movie goers decide.

[jsgaetano]

01:38 PM on 05/12/2010

Pretty much all the criticisms about 3d were said about color movies as well.

No, it doesn't add anything "essential" to the film, but it's a nice capability just the same.

[ReverseUniversal]

12:39 PM on 05/12/2010

Most of the comments on this article mock Ebert for being wrong, and then immediately follow that up by saying something that is in agreement with Ebert. Perhaps you should try reading the article and not just the headline?

He says Avatar was good in 3D because it was made that way from the ground up, but the rest of the current 3D market has been an afterthought marketing ploy to reel in extra surcharges on ticket sales so that you can wear clunky glasses and get a headache and still not have a movie experience that was in any way better than 2D.

If you read what he says, you realize he's right. There has been one good 3D movie, so why are we doling out 5-7 EXTRA dollars for crap we'd enjoy just as much if it were in 2D?

[NWBrunette]

11:58 AM on 05/12/2010

Of course he's right. Anyone with more than a pea for a brain know that from the get go. Is it cute and mildly interesting and new fangled and gee whiz? Sure. Is it a silly fad and marketing ploy that has nothing to do with making a decent film? Absolutely.

[formlessness]

11:47 AM on 05/12/2010

I'm pretty sure a critic is just a gimmick too. The difference is I like 3D.