Roger Ebert Lists 9 Reasons Why He Hates 3-D
By now it should come as no surprise that Roger Ebert is not a fan of 3-D. A couple of years ago when the trend was picking up steam, he wrote an article on his blog criticizing the format and comparing it to failed attempts from previous decades. However, last year he also praised James Cameron’s Avatar, giving it his “Special Jury Prize” among the Best Films of 2009. So has his stance on 3-D changed since then? Not at all.
Ebert has a new article in Newsweek called “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)”, and in it he reiterates his case against the new technology. Although there’s nothing particularly new in his argument, it’s nice to see him putting something out there to get the general public to think twice about blindly embracing 3-D films. Do you agree with his view, or is he being hypocritical for praising Avatar and condemning 3-D at the same time? Do you think 3-D is here to stay this time around? Check out the bullet points after the jump, or read the full article over at Newsweek.
1. It’s a waste of a dimension.
2. It adds nothing to the experience.
3. It can be a distraction.
4. It can create nausea and headaches.
5. Have you noticed that 3-D seems a little dim?
6. There’s money to be made in selling new digital projectors.
7. Theatres slap on a surcharge of $5 to $7.50 for 3-D.
8. I cannot imagine a serious drama such as Up in the Air or The Hurt Locker in 3-D.
9. Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.
Comments (13)
He couldn’t had thought of a 10th reason?
Posted by kyriacos on May 3rd, 2010I agree with him wholeheartedly. I do think that it’s great that filmmakers have 3D as an option and I’m sure Ebert would agree. Hence him enjoying Avatar. However, it’s the studio/movie theater company PUSH behind it that I take issue with. This stance that they’re going to release a 3D version of every big release (a la WB) no matter whether it’s called for or not. Just look at what happened with Clash of the Titans. Look at Aronofsky getting pressured to do Robocop in 3D, almost to the point that it’s pushing him off of the project.
It’s one thing if the tech is being used to push the art. It’s another thing if the tech is being pushed to increase the business.
Posted by Ben on May 3rd, 20103-D is simply a ploy by studio executives to make more money on movies by adding a $4 or $5 fee in your regular ticket price (as if the popcorn or soda is not robbery already…). Studios are very concerned about big flat screen TVs and Blu-Rays keeping people at home for their “big screen” experience instead of coming out to the theaters for it, so they figure 3-D is a way to make theaters “unique” experiences again. I personally do not like seeing movies in 3-D, as I do find it very distracting, therefore making it difficult to concentrate on the acting or the story. I have noticed that most 3-D films nowadays are kids movies filled with action and bright colors, and those movies are usually weak on character acting and story anyways…so I suppose that is the point, right? Let’s just make all movies in 3-D and forget about writing any kind of quality script or hiring any competent actors….as long as those floating mountains and dragons in Avatar pop out at the audience, then who cares! Well, I do.
I would not compare this 3-D revolution with previous film revolutions involving sound or color. Our eyes naturally want to see things in 2-D, so even though we see objects in 3-D naturally, our eyes try to “flatten” things out to make them more manageable. In real life, things do not “pop out” at you like they do in 3-D movies. Movies in 2-D with good lighting make the images very natural to your eye.
Posted by Andy on May 3rd, 2010The most infuriating thing about the whole 3D craze is that even though most of us have already upgraded our TVs to full HD and replaced our old DVD players with Blu Ray, now we are expected to do it all over AGAIN because 3D isn’t supported by even the most recent full HD TVs or Blu Ray players. We must now splash out and buy the ‘3D model’. It’s a vicious trend to milk as much money from the consumer and it shows no signs of abating until we vote with out wallets and say NO. How much do you want to bet that after we all have upgraded to 3D TV, they will probably bring out a brand new 3D model that doesn’t need to be viewed through the silly glasses…
Posted by Peter on May 4th, 2010Actually that’s where we are heading, 3-d without glasses. Tech is already being
produced it’s just a matter of time before that matures.
But I also believe that 3D is at it’s current tech state a gimmick and nothing more.
I mean who wants to sit with glasses on their faces while watching a movie or tv for that
matter. And I do agree that dramas really don’t need 3D. And to be honest Avatar was enjoyable in 2D as it was in 3D. I mean come on I can’t imagine seeing No Country for Old Men in 3D. It was great on 2D already.
Like I said 3D right now is a gimmick. Plain and simple. I am not spending another grand or more to uprade my system at when I just did so a few years ago.
Posted by 1138 on May 4th, 2010“We must now splash out and buy the ‘3D model’”
We MUST do nothing of the sort. We don’t have to buy anything we don’t want to. Represent your opinion with your dollars.
Posted by Ben on May 4th, 2010I’d be more than happy to have every multi-plex devote 2 or 3 screens to 3d. And why not have every visual event movie have the 3d option. I’m all for it, there’s no chance in he’ll that studios are gonna go completly 3d, and there’s always gonna be a 2d option so let’s just get over this initial annoyance and move on to letting it just be.
Posted by Drewsifer on May 4th, 2010I think it’s another fad, although I’ve seen 3D TV’s in the stores now and I think it being available without the glasses will be the only way it would really become mainstream.
But, agree with Ebert on a few notes, especially the drama note. Plus…. when we watch films we are *viewers* not participates. There are many films were I don’t want that 3rd wall broken by any convention.
Plus – not everyone ’sees’ the 3D.
Posted by Shannon the Movie Moxie on May 5th, 2010Re. ‘We MUST do nothing of the sort. We don’t have to buy anything we don’t want to. Represent your opinion with your dollars.’
I actually did state to vote with our wallets and say NO…
Posted by Peter on May 5th, 2010The only reason I really agree with is number 9.
“Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D, stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.”
This is obviously what is happening, studios are scared of piracy, and I don’t know that 3D is really as much of a “greedy studio” thing as a “people in the film industry don’t want to be defunct” thing. But I don’t understand why that’s a reason to hate 3D, it’s something that happens, and i’m sure 3D will last just as long as Cinerama did. We still have 100 years of film to go back and watch DVD on guys, it’s not that big of a deal.
Posted by Drew on May 5th, 2010Up In The Air is serious drama? I think a lot of bad flak that 3D is getting now is mostly due to the gimmicky nature of it. I think only Avatar and CGI movies had depicted a 3D movie tastefully. If theme park gimmicks like the arm reaching out of the screen or stuff flying past your head were avoided, I can imagine ANY genre working in 3D whether it be Sci-fi action or hard drama.
The claim that serious drama cannot work in 3D is baseless. Our physical world has 3 dimensions and every second there is drama happening somewhere more viscerally and authentically than anything that can be produced on screen, 2D OR 3D.
Posted by Steve on May 6th, 2010You need CGI to generate real perceptible 3D as opposed to essentially the illusory 3D that we are getting today. The image is no more 3D than the blank screen itself. Only something along the lines of holography (Geez whatever happened to that? Talk about a technology whose entertainment potential never really got exploited) can achieve true 3D. I mean something where if you sit on the right side of the screen you see the left side of the actor’s face and vice versa. Just like going to a play where everyone has a different point of view. An actual different perspective based on your exact location in the theater. Using CGI you can render and map every object in every dimension. A complex system then incorporates computers, holographic projectors and possibly some kind of visor device that has a GPS system so that the computer can track your seat location, and your eye position and viewing angle to generate the image.
Posted by Maopheus on May 7th, 2010i would not agree that much.we have four 3D theaters here in my city.3 are polarized type,1 is shutter glass type.i have seen both converted and shot in 3D films.and i can assure you that conversion looks like headache giving 3D.since then,i haven’t watched a single converted 3D movie.but that aside,some movies look very good in 3D and does add the needed ‘oomph’ to the movie.example:tron legacy,step up 3D and the all time inclusion,avatar.
Posted by dipanjan dey on March 18th, 2011plus,we do not get charged for 3D glasses here.ticket prices are same,they just take 100 rupees(2$) from us which is later refunded(so basically free).plus,we have to try new things,who knows,maybe hurt locker would look a 100 times better in 3D.people once thought that 3D was for sci if only.then it was added to horror,which was a success,then to animation,again a success,then to action,which was great too and the recent,dance movies.so i wont agree to the points u made there.i never feel nauseous or headache or anything during a movie.my mom,who has motion sickness and claustrophobia,saw ‘SANCTUM’ with ease.
Leave a Reply