Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

I'm a huge movie fan, but I'm not a fan of 3-D, which why I found this very interesting.



http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110)



Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

By Roger Ebert | NEWSWEEK

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. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.
That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002VPE1B6/?tag=nwswk-20)), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001HN694K/?tag=nwswk-20), How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:

1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, "Look how slowly he grows against the horizon"? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

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 Fargo (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009W5CA/?tag=nwswk-20) gain in 3-D? Precious (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002VECM4A/?tag=nwswk-20)? Casablanca (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009W0WM/?tag=nwswk-20)?

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.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX. What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don't show a movie in 3-D, they can't have it in 2-D. Although there's room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

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. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: "Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific." And it did. The "3-D" was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it "cheeseball," adding: "You just snookered the movie audience." He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children's films, animation, and films such as James Cameron's Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron's film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It's used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron's Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.
Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.
Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it's worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do "fake 3-D" better than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more milk.
I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will "approach" the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and 3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist standing in the cavern might have.

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.
What Hollywood needs is a "premium" experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I've been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it's 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven't seen it have no idea how good it is. I've seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull's Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.
I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It's all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can't get at home. But they're betting on the wrong experience.

[FireWarrior]

Nice find there Bat-Fan. I have to say that I'm not the biggest fan of Ebert and I rarely if ever agree with his opinions, but right here he pretty much nails every single reason why I dislike 3-D as well.

[Marvin Tikvah]

So in summary, Roger Ebert thinks 3D is a pointless novelty.

Sounds about right to me.

[Ookamikun]

That's why he loves Avatar!

[Hanshotfirst113]

Not that I don't agree with this, but we already had a pretty lengthy (http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showthread.php?t=265058) thread about it.

[launchpad20]

Great article. I've had my suspicions of Hollywood's fascination with 3D technology as a way to boost sales, and Ebert's observation pretty much nails it. While i have yet to see a movie in 3D, myself, i agree that not every film needs to be in 3D. I also agree that film makers shouldn't be forced to convert their films to 3D just to make the suits happy. Katzenberg may be a big time 3D supporter, but at least he's right about how 'Clash of The Titans' didn't need to be in 3D.

[Serena S.]

So in summary, Roger Ebert thinks 3D is a pointless novelty.

Sounds about right to me.
And I basically agree with him. Was there really a need for movies like How To Train You Dragon and Miley's previous concert movie to be in 3D? :shrug: IMO, 3D movies are only right for horror movies as they actually uses the effects of 3D to the fullest (if that makes sense). I hate this is becoming the next revolutionary commodity in America. :yawn:

[mr.happy]

1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.Similarly, having two eyes is a waste of an eye. Sure, one-eyed people lack that same perception of depth the rest of us have, but their brains learn to compensate. So hate one of your eyes. You heard it here first.

Mr. Happy: 1
Ebert: 0


2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they "need" 3-D?Brilliant argument. Almost as brilliant as asking people if their greatest movie experiences needed sound or color... two days after color and sound were introduced.

Mr. Happy: 2
Ebert: 0


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.Yeah, just like that stupid surround sound that makes me turn around looking for the non-existent plane that just went by. Those evil audio mixers constantly deprive directors of the ability to hold the audience's attention. Either way, this argument is aimed at faux 3D. Doesn't count anymore than the argument that we should hate color due to synthetic colorization of b/w movies.

Mr. Happy: 3
Ebert: 0


4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.Yes, this is a huuuge problem, and I cover many of the same arguments in my award winning book "Why I Hate Alcohol (And You Should Too)

Mr. Happy: 4
Ebert: 0


5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?Evidently, a similar argument could be made for hating Ebert.

Mr. Happy: 5
Ebert: 0


6.Do I need special glasses to read point #6?

Mr. Happy: 6
Ebert: 0


7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.I'm not sure it's a reason to hate it, but I'm feeling generous today, so...

Mr. Happy: 6
Ebert: 1


8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.So this is really just movie bigotry at the end of the day? Hey, could you imagine those movies in Pixar-style CGI, and if not, does this mean we should hate CGI as well? It's the back of the bus for you, CGI.

Mr. Happy: 7
Ebert: 1


9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.Excellent closing argument. Damn you color, sound, widescreen, etc, etc!!! Can I please have a b/w, 4:3, Betamax copy of Lawrence of Arabia?

Mr. Happy: 8
Ebert: 1

Well, that was easy.

[Tay the Cat]

Sorry Ebert, but you've become a joke to me, and this article makes you even more of a joke to me. The only correct point he has is the extra cost to watch a 3D film. Otherwise... just no.

[Bat-Fan Beyond]

Do I need special glasses to read point #6?




LOL! Good one!

I fixed it.

[DarthGonzo]

Any chance we can criticize the opinion without attacking Ebert himself? I feel beating up on a cancer survivor who can't even talk or eat just because one doesn't agree with his opinion is in poor taste.

[defunctzombie]

This thread's just going to end up like the other one.

[Spideyzilla]

Don't get me wrong: I LOVE Roger Ebert, but I disagree. I love 3D, and for once Mr. Happy and I can agree. 3D adds to the experience of movie going, which is why I love movies, the experience.

[Antiyonder]

Mod Note: Lets try some civility people. Comment on the the validity or therefore lack of concerning 3D Movies. Going off-topic will lead to infractions. And back seat modding will also lead to infractions.

[mr.happy]

Any chance we can criticize the opinion without attacking Ebert himself? I feel beating up on a cancer survivor who can't even talk or eat just because one doesn't agree with his opinion is in poor taste.It's got nothing to do with Ebert's condition. I actually happen to like the guy, but this list was for the most part just dumb. I don't think he would want to hide behind his health problems either. He put his opinions out there, and would expect people to take them on merit... or lack thereof, as the case may be.

3D may not be for everyone or every movie, but Ebert comes off as suggesting anything other than a Hurt Locker or Up In The Air somehow isn't a worthy movie. The benefit of 5.1 surround to a movie like Up In The Air is negligible as well, but that's no reason to hate it. That's why I say it sounds like movie bigotry, when the guy just comes at this from the perspective of movies he deem worthy.

That said, I'm not sure a movie like Hurt Locker wouldn't benefit from 3D, or indeed a Lawrence of Arabia. Some of LoA's beautiful vistas and cinematography would benefit greatly from some subtle 3D, the kind you see in 3D documentaries not Monsters vs Aliens, and I would think the documentary feel of a Hurt Locker would only be enhanced by immersing the audience in the visuals, which is more or less the goal of the documentary style anyway. Not everything has to be crap flying out of the screen and Clash of the Titans faux 3D. I'm certainly not advocating 3D conversions of the aforementioned movies, I'm just saying that I think movies like that could benefit from being shot in 3D originally. For now, though, the cost of producing a 3D movie is too high for anyone to green-light Hurt Locker 2 - 3D - Back To The Locker, so it's mostly blockbusters that will get the 3D treatment for now.


I love 3D, and for once Mr. Happy and I can agree.Feels good, doesn't it? :)


3D adds to the experience of movie going, which is why I love movies, the experience.Yes, we may disagree about Avatar as a movie, but it would be completely absurd to suggest that the 3D doesn't add to the experience. And Avatar really is the benchmark for 3D movies. It's not Dial M For Murder, and it's most certainly not Clash of The Titans. The 3D techniques and implementation will improve over the next few years, if we can get past the glasses, and the admittedly somewhat exaggerated price point, 3D will certainly be here to stay.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Considering just how very wrong Roger Ebert is about interactive entertainment in the form of video games, this essay is probably a good indicator that 3D is going to be more than a fad and that it really is the thing of the future. He's a great movie critic but not so great as a prognosticator of technological advancements and their worth.

So get used to 3D, I guess.

[TheGunheart]

Though I do agree that it would be nice to see some higher framerates.

[Antiyonder]

I can certainly agree that not all movies need to be 3D, but to say that 3D movies should be done away with altogether is just extreme.

[R-Taco]

I agree with him, especially on the part about it being a distraction. 3-D seems like it would make the experience more immersive, but because it doesn't look anything like actual 3-D objects all it does is remind me that I'm watching a movie.

The extra charge, dimmer picture and fact that I'm wearing some disgusting re-used eyewear on my face only make it worse. I honestly can't stand 3-D, and pray to God that it doesn't become the only version a person can go see in theatres.

[Peter Paltridge]

The extra charge, dimmer picture and fact that I'm wearing some disgusting re-used eyewear on my face only make it worse.
What theater do you go to? I've never been handed a used pair.

I love 3-D, always have, and Ebert is really starting to grate on me.

[Wounded_Dragon]

The extra charge, dimmer picture and fact that I'm wearing some disgusting re-used eyewear on my face only make it worse. I honestly can't stand 3-D, and pray to God that it doesn't become the only version a person can go see in theatres.

I suspect that since the article mentions that 15 percent of the moviegoing audience "experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies" I doubt "2D" will ever go away. I'm glad to know I'm in a noticeable statistic.

[KJ Styles]

I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with Roger Ebert on his movie reviews (although sometimes I have) but I agree with him 100% on this topic.

3D is nothing special. I watched Avatar in 3D (the first 3D movie I've seen in years) and certain parts were blurry as hell. I had to rub my eyes when it was all over. The movie is better in 2D.

[HG Revolution]

Keep in mind that Ebert's not attacking all 3D. He mentions how impressed he was with Avatar and the possibility of other good uses for the technology in point 8 of the article. It seems his point is that 3D isn't going to help most movies and that the trend of putting every blockbuster in 3D isn't a good thing. And I don't know how you can argue with that. His point about the dimness is probably his most significant one in terms of how 3D can detract from an experience. Avatar looked fine in 3D because Cameron intentionally overlit and oversaturated the movie; the Navi look more realistic in 3D than in 2D because the movie was designed to use the dimness of the 3D glasses to its advantage. Animated films generally use bright color schemes and thus tend to look fine in 3D, though the nighttime scenes in How to Train Your Dragon did get a bit blurry in 3D. But would a blockbuster with a darker color scheme like the next Harry Potter film look good in 3D? The next Batman? 3D's a great tool, but it's a limited one, and unlike, say, 5.1 sound or other tech that doesn't get consistently used to its fullest, it's actually a hinderance on most films.

[Spideyzilla]

Feels good, doesn't it? :)

Yeah.....:D

[Spastic Minnow]

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are "intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX. What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

This is the big o for me. I could not stand Alice in Wonderland, a movie that is supposed to be covered in brilliant color but instead it was mired in shades of grey.

Although I have to think some of the responsibility is the fault of the theater set-up. I don't understand that talk about the lamberts but I know I had no problem with Avatar at a "Fake IMAX" but apart from Alice my viewing of Coraline in 3D last year was also really dark.

I do know that I refuse to watch Toy Story 3 in 3D.

[garfield15]

Whether we agree or disagree with the article, we can at least all agree that upscaling just does not work amirite?

At least, I thought so with Clash of the Titans.

[GWOtaku]

Keep in mind that Ebert's not attacking all 3D. He mentions how impressed he was with Avatar and the possibility of other good uses for the technology in point 8 of the article. It seems his point is that 3D isn't going to help most movies and that the trend of putting every blockbuster in 3D isn't a good thing. And I don't know how you can argue with that. His point about the dimness is probably his most significant one in terms of how 3D can detract from an experience. Avatar looked fine in 3D because Cameron intentionally overlit and oversaturated the movie; the Navi look more realistic in 3D than in 2D because the movie was designed to use the dimness of the 3D glasses to its advantage. Animated films generally use bright color schemes and thus tend to look fine in 3D, though the nighttime scenes in How to Train Your Dragon did get a bit blurry in 3D. But would a blockbuster with a darker color scheme like the next Harry Potter film look good in 3D? The next Batman? 3D's a great tool, but it's a limited one, and unlike, say, 5.1 sound or other tech that doesn't get consistently used to its fullest, it's actually a hinderance on most films.

I agree completely. Well said!




Well, that was easy.

Eh, you can do better than that.

1. He did not say that there is no point to depth. He said that the 3D effect does what we already do for ourselves anyway. You did not refute this. Advantage Ebert.
2. You claim that 3D is just as important an advance as sound as color. That's an assertion, not a fact. Advantage Ebert. If it's so important and revolutionary, incidentally, why didn't it stick around the first time?
3. This point is a draw. I think the issue depends on how much "faux 3-D" we could get in contrast to the good kind of 3D that is actually used well. If 3D were always used as well as it is in Avatar, that would be one thing. But that's not a given at all.
4. Pretty lame point. One can control alcohol intake. Do 3D crusaders want to continue the 2D/3D choice, or do they dream of a future where 3D basically replaces 2D in the long run? If the latter, this would of course pose a problem to the minority that literally suffer side-effects from 3D no matter what. Advantage Ebert.
5. Heh. Here you just insult him and fail to address the claim that 3D picture is dim. Advantage Ebert.
6. A lack of substance again. If 3D is such a wave of the future, it will win on its own without needing the industry to basically force it on the market by chucking analog projectors ASAP.
7. You were right to cede this to Ebert. From an average moviegoer's perspective, that's a lot of extra money for a movie ticket. Now that prices have gone up, I wouldn't want to go to a 3D movie more than once a year if that. I'd rather spend less and see more movies, because I really like seeing movies.
8. This one makes sense. Very good point. Again, 3D as another option is one thing. 3D as "the future" is unattractive to me.
9. This point is really about how 3D isn't enough to keep people coming to movie theaters in the long run. If this is coming to TV eventually, how does the gap between that and the theater not close again? Personally, I think IMAX (be it the "true" IMAX or the lesser version) is the more impressive experience. I hadn't heard of this MaxiVision48 thing before, but it sounds really attractive and impressive. Why not seriously think about that option?

[Antiyonder]

Keep in mind that Ebert's not attacking all 3D. He mentions how impressed he was with Avatar and the possibility of other good uses for the technology in point 8 of the article.

Sure, but his title "Why I Hate 3-D?" seems like he is making no exception in his opinion.

If the title was "Why I Hate Over Reliance On 3-D?" his stance would have been clear from the getgo.

[Rud]

The last 3d movie i saw in 3d was Spy Kids 3D back in 2003 back when i was 12, i remember it gave me a headache, i dont think it was necessary at all for that movie to have 3D. 3D is cool (probably, have little with it myself experience), but i dont think its necessary to push it on everything as much as they are doing.

[Blankments]

The last 3d movie i saw in 3d was Spy Kids 3D back in 2003 back when i was 12, i remember it gave me a headache, i dont think it was necessary at all for that movie to have 3D. 3D is cool (probably, have little with it myself experience), but i dont think its necessary to push it on everything as much as they are doing.

You need to see one of the new 3-D movies. They're completely different glasses, and it looks more realistic. I've seen Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Avatar, and How to Train Your Dragon in 3-D, and even though I didn't really have an option for the first two, all of them had way better 3-D effects than Spy Kids 3.

[mr.happy]

Eh, you can do better than that.Sure, but why play an ace when a two will do? ;)


1. He did not say that there is no point to depth. He said that the 3D effect does what we already do for ourselves anyway. You did not refute this. Advantage Ebert.No, the facetious tone of my reply aside, it really is more or less the same as the one-eye vs two-eye argument. If you close one eye, your depth perception will be compromised, but the brain will start to compensate, the way Ebert says we already do with 2D.


2. You claim that 3D is just as important an advance as sound as color. That's an assertion, not a fact. Advantage Ebert. If it's so important and revolutionary, incidentally, why didn't it stick around the first time?There were various attempts at adding color and sound to movies before it really go going as well. Similarly, the old red/blue glasses variety of 3D was obviously very different from what we have now, as was the technology used to record in 3D. 3D is still at the baby steps stage, but it's now comparable to the first successful ventures into color and sound, but it does need to mature and evolve to be able to stick around.


4. Pretty lame point. One can control alcohol intake.Alcoholism statistics and the amount of unconscious teenage girls you see on a Friday night would suggest otherwise, but the point was that something having an adverse effect on a small number of people is irrelevant, or at least not enough to really hate it. Similarly, certain parts of the media recently made a bit of a stink about the fact that that the first generation of 3D televisions come with an epilepsy warning, but failed to realize it was more or less the same standard warning that comes with a new games console, or any number of other electronic devices. I actually read the warning leaflet that came with my new bread maker and got the impression that the nut-dispenser alone could potentially unleash Armageddon. :)


5. Heh. Here you just insult him and fail to address the claim that 3D picture is dim.I thought I was making a more subtle point with that would-be dig, but never mind. The dimness issue is a non-issue that's easily resolved by adjusting the movie's color, brightness and contrast levels, as they did with Avatar, but a few other 3D movies failed to do so. We didn't hate color and sound when the first few movies were over or desaturated, and the audio balance was a bit uneven.


6. A lack of substance again.No, point 6 was missing when I answered the post. A default that meant I got the point. I was going to give myself another one for wit, but didn't want to seem greedy.


9. This point is really about how 3D isn't enough to keep people coming to movie theaters in the long run. If this is coming to TV eventually, how does the gap between that and the theater not close again?I'm sure it will close eventually. That's not much of an argument against 3D, though.


I hadn't heard of this MaxiVision48 thing before, but it sounds really attractive and impressive. Why not seriously think about that option?Ebert got a little bit confused here, I think. It's true that Maxivision48 has an increased resolution, but that's got nothing to do with the frame rate. Maybe he just got the wording wrong. However, a standard NTSC broadcast runs at 60hz/fps, 50 for PAL, and that kind of fluidity of movement is by most seen as undesirable for movies. Ironically, it's in a way one of the few arguments against the idea of moving film closer to a real-world experience. I have honestly never heard of a film critic or buff who would champion the cause of higher frame rates for movies. I can't imagine this was anything other than Ebert getting his facts or wording wrong.

[AdamYJ]

To each their own. The people who don't like 3-D can go see the 2-D versions that are out there.

Personally, I like 3-D. I don't think it's "the future" like James Cameron and Jeffrey Katzenberg do, but I find it an enjoyable addition to a movie and will enjoy it when I get the chance.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Similarly, having two eyes is a waste of an eye. Sure, one-eyed people lack that same perception of depth the rest of us have, but their brains learn to compensate. So hate one of your eyes. You heard it here first.

So you're suggesting that basically, we should do it because we can do it?


Brilliant argument. Almost as brilliant as asking people if their greatest movie experiences needed sound or color... two days after color and sound were introduced.
You continue to harp on this analogy. Putting aside for the moment that 3D has been around before and didn't work, what is there to suggest that 3D will take off in the way color (something we essentially take for granted) or even surround sound (something that some films still don't use) did? Again, "pompous" critics might warm up to 3D if it's used on something other than a stupid CGI fest summer blockbuster to sell action figures. Maybe it will be one day, who knows? But Avatar and Transformers and othersuch sludge are not enough to sell me on 3D. Being someone with, you know, actual artisic talent, Cameron began to show a few possibilities with 3D, but I still hardly think it's enough to convince me, to say nothing of it being a textbook case of using said technology to make a story as worn as tire tread.


Yeah, just like that stupid surround sound that makes me turn around looking for the non-existent plane that just went by. Those evil audio mixers constantly deprive directors of the ability to hold the audience's attention. If the director needs such to tricks to hold the audiences' attention, either the director is talentless or the audience is stupid. Either way, it scores no points for 3D.



Excellent closing argument. Damn you color, sound, widescreen, etc, etc!!! Can I please have a b/w, 4:3, Betamax copy of Lawrence of Arabia?
Do you have another argument? Because I can see Lawrence of Arabia being enhanced by color, widescreen, HD. 3D? Not to much.


Sure, but why play an ace when a two will do? ;)

What is that from?

[GregX]

I agree with Ebert. I think 3-D is a big, fat, asinine waste of time. I'm shocked so many people are going for it, considering that the last two times Hollywood tried this, they failed.

It's a gimmick and a terrible one. I cannot see any erudite film being in this format. But even the CGI-laden special effect orgies look bad in this format.

[Desensitized]

My friend can't watch 3D movies because he gets sick from them, so we couldn't even get to see the movie we wanted to just yesterday. (The film being so pricey didn't help either) While I did get to see Kick Ass instead, if this is becoming a standard for cinema viewing, I guess I'm out.

[Bloody Marquis]

Yeah, I ended up getting a huge migraine from watching Avatar. I'm going with Ebert in how 3-D is becoming too overused.


To each their own. The people who don't like 3-D can go see the 2-D versions that are out there.Now that's the main problem, these films get released in 2-D only in select theaters. The theater I went to certainly didn't have 2-D versions of Avatar, Clash of the Titans, or How To Tame Your Dragon, and I'll guess they won't have them for any further movies.

[Ookamikun]

I think the problem is that he sees 3D as some sort of "natural evil". It's kind of like seeing someone saying that CGI is "naturally evil" compared to the "always good" hand-drawn.

[Wounded_Dragon]

The worst to me has to be IMAX3D. While there's a good chance you can see a 2D version with ease, if there's an IMAX3D, the chances are bad you'll be able to find an IMAX in 2D without a bit of work.

And you're already being hit with an IMAX charge.

[launchpad20]

If the title was "Why I Hate Over Reliance On 3-D?" his stance would have been clear from the getgo.Indeed. Especially since he points out better kinds of 3D technology out there in his article.

[mr.happy]

So you're suggesting that basically, we should do it because we can do it?It worked for Wall Street, didn't it? :)

If what we can do is deliver a high quality 3D experience enjoyed by the vast majority of the audience, then, yes, we probably should do it.


You continue to harp on this analogy. Putting aside for the moment that 3D has been around before and didn't work, what is there to suggest that 3D will take off in the way color (something we essentially take for granted) or even surround sound (something that some films still don't use) did?There are no guarantees that anything will take off. All I'm saying is that color, sound, etc, resulted in a similar degree of nervous hand-wringing by cinematic fundamentalists, when those advances were first introduced. Ebert himself describes them as something Hollywood resorted to for financial reasons, so let's just give 3D a chance and see how it pans out, now that there is demand, investment, and the necessary technology to drive the momentum across all platforms. Previous implementations of 3D were technologically inferior, unfeasible, and didn't have this united front of support from virtually all studios, networks and hardware manufacturers.


Do you have another argument? Because I can see Lawrence of Arabia being enhanced by color, widescreen, HD. 3D? Not to much.But the advancement of the medium will not be determined by what you or any other individual can personally see as being worthwhile. The general movie-going public will decide whether 3D sinks or floats.


What is that from?The Big Red Dragon from Jeff Smith's Bone.

[Aquadementia]

I love 3D. I have a Virtual Boy around here some place.

As long as the audience is burdened by the enormous hassle of putting on a special pair of glasses it’s going to be a novelty. If it wasn’t for that then sure, everything should be in 3D.


Though I do agree that it would be nice to see some higher framerates.
I also agree with that part the most. It could bring an immediate improvement to all movies.

But you know which films would probably benefit from that the most?
3D ones.

[mr.happy]

I love 3D. I have a Virtual Boy around here some place.Nice, forgot about that one. Nintendo are actually diving into the murky (or dim?) depths of 3D consoles again. They're supposed to unveil their new Nintendo 3DS soon, which, as the name suggests, is a 3D enabled Nintendo DS with no need for special glasses. This device seems like it was designed purely to annoy Ebert, given his views on videogames and 3D. :)


But you know which films would probably benefit from that the most?
3D ones.Yes, this is actually the only implementation where a higher frame rate could benefit the resolution.

[AdamYJ]

Now that's the main problem, these films get released in 2-D only in select theaters. The theater I went to certainly didn't have 2-D versions of Avatar, Clash of the Titans, or How To Tame Your Dragon, and I'll guess they won't have them for any further movies.

You're kidding?! At the movie theaters near me, every movie that's being released in 3-D also has a 2-D version showing the same exact theater.

It seems to me that the issue here isn't 3-D, it's the movie theater you're going to.

[FireStarterLE]

Whether we agree or disagree with the article, we can at least all agree that upscaling just does not work amirite?

At least, I thought so with Clash of the Titans.

yep, I agree. I think a lot of people agree with you on this one. 3D becomes annoying when something like Clash of the Titans happens, when companies think "Hey they did it with Avatar, let's do it with our movie too!"



The studio was hoping that the "up-conversion" (as the post-shooting technique is known) could match the magic (and box-office cash) that was captured by "Avatar." But as far as it's 3D's concerned, it seems to have failed. Time will tell about the box office.


I saw one 3D movie, that was Coraline, that was a long time ago. Movies are already expensive so I think I'd rather skip the 3D cost, wait 3-4 months and then buy the dvd release for a few dollars more.

I'll go see the movie in 2D or not at all.

[Spideyzilla]

The last 3d movie i saw in 3d was Spy Kids 3D back in 2003 back when i was 12, i remember it gave me a headache, i dont think it was necessary at all for that movie to have 3D. 3D is cool (probably, have little with it myself experience), but i dont think its necessary to push it on everything as much as they are doing.

Yeah, that made my entire head hurt: eyes and brain. It sucked. But, see some new ones, they're far superior.

[Hanshotfirst113]

It worked for Wall Street, didn't it? :)

Oh, yes. So spectacularly.


If what we can do is deliver a high quality 3D experience enjoyed by the vast majority of the audience, then, yes, we probably should do it.

It's the same argument about CGI: "Now anything that we can envision, we can create on screen." We saw how well that worked out. My feelings about 3D are directly proportionate, if my meaning makes any sense. Though I suppose that you could say the same about pretty much anything.


But the advancement of the medium will not be determined by what you or any other individual can personally see as being worthwhile. The general movie-going public will decide whether 3D sinks or floats.

Depends on your faith in the public ;).

[G. Wen]

My biggest problem with 3D is that the technology isn't there yet, and I feel like I'm watching a shoebox diorama. I think I was one of the few people who felt Avatar looked better in 2D. It's already beautifully shot with excellent camera angles, it didn't need the 3D shoebox diorama effect.

I don't think they should do away with 3D, just improve the technology more before fully employing it.

On a side note: I saw How to Train Your Dragon tonight, and when I walked out of the theater, I saw an advertisement for Step Up (stupid dance movie) in 3D. Is that the best use of the technology, to have limbs flailing about your face? Is that even realistic? When you watch a live dance performance, do the dancers' limbs flail about in front of your face? (Lap dances don't count.)

[Antiyonder]

Mod Note: Again, posts whether they are off-topic or uncivil (insulting another member or flamebait in general), will receive infractions. If the attitude doesn't improve, the thread will be temporarily closed.

[launchpad20]

It's the same argument about CGI: "Now anything that we can envision, we can create on screen." We saw how well that worked out. My feelings about 3D are directly proportionate, if my meaning makes any sense. Though I suppose that you could say the same about pretty much anything.I also share your concerns with 3D. For me, it started with the CGI boom in animation, and a figured the 'animation' suits (I'm looking at you, Disney, and Dreamworks.) looked at CGI, and said "Now, we can create anything on screen without the use of pencils, paper, and all those yucky art supplies", and yet they forget about big failures like 'Final Fantasy' because they don't want to admit that CGI isn't always bulletproof. (Or in this case, 'critic proof'.) They view 3D movie projection the same way. It doesn't matter if 100 3D projected films don't look as good as their 2D counterparts, or make as much money. They want to do away with traditional methods in favor of this new, unproven technique that hasen't been set in stone yet.
On a side note: I saw How to Train Your Dragon tonight, and when I walked out of the theater, I saw an advertisement for Step Up (stupid dance movie) in 3D. Is that the best use of the technology, to have limbs flailing about your face? Is that even realistic? When you watch a live dance performance, do the dancers' limbs flail about in front of your face? (Lap dances don't count.)Again, this also fits right into my point about Hollywood blindly going forward with 3D technology regardless of weather it's necessary, or not. Honestly, 'Step Up 3D'? Seriously? Nobody wants to see a bunch 'flash in the pan' type dancing in 3D. The only people who might want this are the gratuitous hipsters, and the gossip industry. (I'm looking at you, E!) :mad:

[garfield15]

On a side note: I saw How to Train Your Dragon tonight, and when I walked out of the theater, I saw an advertisement for Step Up (stupid dance movie) in 3D. Is that the best use of the technology, to have limbs flailing about your face? Is that even realistic? When you watch a live dance performance, do the dancers' limbs flail about in front of your face? (Lap dances don't count.)
*milk shoots out nose*

Actually, I saw the Step Up 3-D trailer when I saw Titans (horrible upscale there) and I thought that actually looked like good 3-D. (this wasn't upscaled right? It was made for 3-D right?). I mean, definitely not realistic at all but if a movie is made for 3-D, I think that would be a good way to look at it.

[Nygma]

Ebert's line right here sums up how I feel about 3-D:

I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I have discovered I am part of the 15 percent of the population who 3D makes sick. I saw How to Train Your Dragon yesterday and got so nauseous, it felt exactly like being carsick, I thought I was going to puke right there on the theater floor. The nausea continued for about two hours after the movie and then was replaced with a mild headache. Not worth the discomfort for such a mediocre film, in my opinion. My brother said the movie didn't make him nauseous, but it did make his eyes burn and water. I'm not one of those people who get sick from things like video games, either. I can play first person shooters all day and be fine.

I'm also not sure 3D works that well for me. In some cases it looked gorgeous, just like puppets dancing on the screen. But for a lot of the movie there were occasionally double images, the same problem I have with red and blue 3D. I asked my brother if some of the images looked doubled to him and he said no.

And like other people have said in the thread, it's still not to the point where the depth looks perfectly natural. There's still a sort of viewmaster effect to it where it doesn't look exactly like looking into a window. "Shoebox diorama" was a pretty good term, although sometimes its effective enough that maybe it's better to describe it as a shoebox puppet show.

Having to wear the glasses over my glasses was annoying, too. They should provide clipons. The glasses we got were incredibly cheap and flimsy, too. We got four pairs and my brother's four-year-old broke all four, not even trying, just dropping them or putting them on. Or taking them off because she hated them and for the most part watched the movie without them.

I still think this is going to be the wave of the future, though, because the effect was much more impressive than the last red and blue 3D movie I went to. Also, as part of my job I recently toured a college where they had a lot of cutting edge 3D technology, including the EON IBox system, which would be amazing for 3D movies and videogames because it makes images look so real you want to touch them.

http://www.eonreality.com/products_ibox.html

They also had the closest thing I've seen to a holodeck, the EOn Icube.

http://www.eonreality.com/products_icube.html

It's a room with three walls and a floor where you could do things like move around an engine or move through a virtual city. The 3D in these applications looked much more solid to me and didn't make me as sick, although I did look at them for a shorter time. I also had the problem with seeing double images with them but was able to better focus my eyes and make it look solid. It has a head tracking system, too, which makes the experience even more effective.

[mr.happy]

And like other people have said in the thread, it's still not to the point where the depth looks perfectly natural. There's still a sort of viewmaster effect to it where it doesn't look exactly like looking into a window. "Shoebox diorama" was a pretty good term, although sometimes its effective enough that maybe it's better to describe it as a shoebox puppet show.Yes, most movies have a tendency to over-emphasize the 3D effect, which not only makes the depth seem unnatural and exaggerated, it tends to bring out that Viewmaster effect you mention. It's easily adjusted by finding the right setting for the offset between the two lenses. Again, I think Avatar is one of the movies that handled it best. It did have some crazy, uber-3D sequences, but for me, its 3D worked best when it was fairly subtle. It's obviously not as thrilling and in-your-face as arrows and explosions coming at you, but it does create a really nice-looking, natural sense of depth, where you don't really think about it being 3D. Then again, the blockbuster crowd probably prefer the in-your-face approach, but as I've said before, I think the more subtle approach could work with other kinds of movies, particularly as the technology improves.


Having to wear the glasses over my glasses was annoying, too. They should provide clipons. The glasses we got were incredibly cheap and flimsy, too.Botched polarization in flimsy glasses could definitely cause the double images you were seeing.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Botched polarization in flimsy glasses could definitely cause the double images you were seeing.

Maybe, but I think it's just me and my vision problems. It didn't happen to any of the other people I was with and it always happens to me when I'm looking at anything 3D, even that near holodeck stuff I posted about earlier.

How I Train Your Dragon at least didn't go out of its way to shoot stuff at you, that I could see. It wasn't like the last 3D movie I saw in theaters, Nightmare on Elm Street Part 6, where a character blatantly thrusts a baseball bat at the screen in a "check this out" way.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Ebert's line right here sums up how I feel about 3-D:

Exactly. I don't agree with Ebert's total vitriol, but I do agree with many of his points.

Look, I enjoy spectacle once in a while. But I do not need films to visually assault me with jaw dropping (or headache inducing) 3D images in every film I go to. Yet there's already talk among the bean counters that Hollywood is going to try to "3D" many more genres now (not just animation and SFX blockbusters) since the sheep are being herded the direction they want.

Not every film needs to be an amusement park ride. It's nice to have it as an option, but not as the ONLY option.

[Ookamikun]

I have discovered I am part of the 15 percent of the population who 3D makes sick. I saw How to Train Your Dragon yesterday and got so nauseous, it felt exactly like being carsick, I thought I was going to puke right there on the theater floor. The nausea continued for about two hours after the movie and then was replaced with a mild headache. Not worth the discomfort for such a mediocre film, in my opinion. My brother said the movie didn't make him nauseous, but it did make his eyes burn and water. I'm not one of those people who get sick from things like video games, either. I can play first person shooters all day and be fine.

Now now, this topic is about 3D, not bashing HTTYD :P