Francis Ford Coppola: 3D Is Just A Way 'To Make You Pay More Money'

Roger Ebert has been one of the most outspoken critics of 3D movies yet, blasting it as "a waste of a perfectly good dimension" and "juvenile abomination"

Now Oscar-winning director Francis Ford Coppola has chimed with his own critique of 3D, a technology he describes as "tiresome" and little more than a way "to make you pay more money for a ticket."

Despite having made 3D films himself (like the 1986 Captain Eo, starring Michael Jackson), Coppola isn't convinced by the new medium.

"I don't see why a movie is better in 3D," he told Electronic House. "I would rather make a movie in regular 2D and move to larger format for some big scenes much like Abel Gance did with 'Napoleon.'"

"I feel that until you can watch 3D without glasses, it's the same thing we know," he said. "I personally do not want to watch a movie with glasses."

Coppola's comments echoed Ebert's sharp-tongued analysis of 3D movies.

In a recent editorial in Newsweek, Ebert blasted 3D for "[adding] nothing essential to the moviegoing experience."

"For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches," he wrote. "Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. [...] It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose."

Read the full interview with Francis Ford Coppola on Electronic House, or read more about Ebert's critique of 3D.

Comments

[clashdot]

07:43 PM on 05/16/2010

I HAVE NOTICED THAT ALL THE OLD PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE 3D WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THEY ARE OLD AND CAN NOT ACCEPT THAT 3D IS THE FUTURE AND CAN NOT BE STOPPED.WORLD CUP 2010 IN 3D IS GONNA B SICK!!!THIS ONES 4 U CARL SAGAN

[savroD]

06:26 PM on 05/16/2010

And you can take that to the bank!

[Cheesedog]

01:06 AM on 05/16/2010

All I know is that Avatar sucks. I bailed after 1/2 an hour. 3D or not, you need engaging characters, a freaking PLOT, and something besides special-effect eye candy to interest the viewer.
This viewer anyway.

[lockDown]

12:06 AM on 05/16/2010

Without 3D, for the most part, downloading for $0 vs. paying $13 to go to the theater becomes a harder argument.

[CLamb]

05:14 PM on 05/15/2010

By promoting public demand for 3D films distributors can influence theater owners to install digital projectors. For many years film distributors have been wanting theaters to install digital projectors instead of film projectors. The cost to the distributors for electronically distributing a film is much less than the cost of making a physical print of a film and shipping one or more prints to each theater. What makes this uneconomic is that while the saving for electronic distribution goes to the distributors the cost for switching from a film projector to a digital one is borne by the theater owners! Seeing as how digital projectors cost 10 times as much as film projectors the theater owners haven't been going for it. Now along come 3D films. The only practical way to project 3D films is with electronic projectors. While it is theoretically possible to do it with a film projectors it is not practical.

[gypsylcd]

07:53 AM on 05/15/2010

Avatar is the only movie we've seen in 3d. It was ok. Nothing more, nothing less. Would I pay that kind of money again? Are you nutz? Would I buy a tv with 3d capability? See previous question.

[Whitley2009]

07:03 PM on 05/14/2010

Francis, I worked like a slave in your workshop. I sent you outlines of my screenplay to your vineyard. I'll give you all distribution rights. I drink your claret, Francis. Francis.......................

[EllieSadie]

02:35 PM on 05/14/2010

Would love to see Somthing About Mary in 3-D. JK. I think 3D is silly.

[Kevbo68]

09:03 AM on 05/14/2010

I must admit Sophie's Choice in 3-D was pretty amazing.

[anthonytaurus]

06:32 AM on 05/14/2010

I've been saying the same thing for some time. The "first" movie I saw in 3D was Alice in Wonderland. I refused to see 3D movies before that because I felt it was a gimmick. After watching Alice, the gimmick was confirmed. It's the same 3D from so long ago when the glasses were cheap paper and red and blue plastic lenses. I really decided to give it a chance because I felt it's been such a long time since the red and blue 3D that maybe it's been updated. But, no. Nothing has been updated. It's the same cheap 3D it has always been, just a different delivery system. I am completely unimpressed.

[Lucy1886]

11:59 PM on 05/13/2010

I've seen many things in 3 D which I really enjoyed. I saw Oklahoma, My Fair Lady, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf and even Cats, when I visited the theater district in New York. I think that plays are much better in 3 D than in 2 D.

I saw "House of Wax" when I was really young. That was a movie. The guy next to me actually ducked when he thought a chair was coming at him and he banged his head. Then he swore that the chair hit him. Avatar in 3D was cute...sort of fun...but you were always aware that you were watching a technological trick, which of course takes you "out of the story". Kind of like with Tom Cruise and it's always like: "Hey, there's Tom Cruise" in this movie.

But I do like plays in 3D.

I hope these comments have been illuminating.

[zorro869]

10:34 PM on 05/13/2010

3d is a joke. The same joke they've been trying to peddle since filmmaking was first invented. It didn't work then, it won't work now. Francis and Ebert are spot on. It's crap. It's a gimmick. It does NOTHING to make a better story. Hollywood should really be putting more time and energy in to making a story that audiences won't vomit over. Of course they won't, because in the short term it's an excuse to charge more. Soon people will tire of it, if they haven't already. I have NEVER seen a movie that really benefited from being 3d. It's a LOT harder to shoot a 3-d film, a total pain in the you know what for the camera department. Soon you won't even see 3-d films anymore. What a total waste of technology.

[SuburbanMalcontent]

08:45 PM on 05/13/2010

I personally have resisted seeing any of these new 3D movies yet. I fear dropping $50 for me and my wife to go to a movie with some popcorn and soda, and then I suffer a migraine 15 minutes in. Instead of creating 3D technology, they should have come up with a way to taser the annoying fat prick in front of you who's constantly crinkling his paper feedbag filled with junk food. Now THAT's technology I'd pay money for.

[Niet]

08:35 PM on 05/13/2010

It's really cool when you're stoned too.

[MikeyG]

07:25 AM on 05/14/2010

Isn't everything? :-)

[UsedConn41]

07:44 PM on 05/13/2010

iron man 2 was amazing. it rocked...and i bet you if it came out in 3d it would have sucked. for me, 3d technology will never ever ever be where it needs to be for me to go, 'ok, i'll shut my mouth now that was awesome!'

[Niet]

08:36 PM on 05/13/2010

It is out in 3d and every bit as awesome as in 2d, but with 3 instead of 2. And 3, my dear friends, is the magical number.