"Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too" Roger Ebert

[Stuart G]

A very interesting read on the new 3D revival. From one of the nation's most respected movie reviewers, and a great progressive too..

By Roger Ebert | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 29, 2010


"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), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, 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:"

(see link for rest)


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

[Oregone]

1. I gotta agree

I saw two too many movies since this new wave has hit, and I was dissapointed both times. Now they are going to bring it into the living room? Fuck that.

[Tesha]

31. Actually, for sports, porn, and videogames, it'll probably be wildly successful.

Me? I watch too many movies from the old days (when movies had
characters, plot, and dialogue instead of just "shit getting blowed-up
real good!"), so unless Ted Turner "dimensionalizes" the catalog, I
probably won't even have the opportunity to see much 3D.

Tesha

[paulsby]

2. he sounds like a luddite bemoaning the advent of color, or sound

to movies back in the day.

ebert's been staggeringly wrong before (witness his review of clockwork orange)

nice to hear his opinion, but imo he's wrong

and fwiw, i thought avatar pretty much sucked. 3-d or not (saw it in 2-d granted)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. He has a point.

some of the dialogue in B&W flicks was timeless and fantastic. All too often, special effects seem to drive a movie, which is OK for pathetic Sci Fi, but not for anything else. For great sci fi, (see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes) again, the writing and the production are far more important that FX.


Bells and whistles can turn crap into HiTech crap.

[Captain Hilts]

7. That's what's happened to 'popular' music. Tech-generated beats and auto tuned shlock. nt

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. and thereby rendering it unlistenable.

ProTunes and other "fixes" sterilize live music and make it without soul, heart, spirit or life.

a very good point, make you, says Yoda.

[paulsby]

15. and EVERY generation bemoans the new generations music this way

because we all know that "how much is that doggie in the window" "da doo ron ron" etc. were the HEIGHT of good music.

thanks for reinforcing my point

[Captain Hilts]

20. I certainly did not condemn a "generation" of music. I think a lot of it is good, but

technology gives too many no-talents entry.

Look at the shitty 'singers' auto-tune has created. Get some hot babe, dress her up, then tune her up!

[paulsby]

34. the same complaints were made about reverb

and the taping processes in general
and god knows no talent hacks have ALWAYS been a part of popular music (and arguably classical music back in the day)

plus ca change

[Wednesdays]

62. New technology...opening the doors to horrible music...

"For myself, I can only say that I am astonished and somewhat terrified at the results of this evening's experiment -- astonished at the wonderful power you have developed, and terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music may be put on record forever."

--Sir Arthur Sullivan (of Gilbert & Sullivan fame), talking on an Edison recording in 1888, about the advent of recorded sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arthur_Sullivan_-_wax_cylinder_recording.ogg

[paulsby]

12. i have no doubt

it is sad that so few directors can do a black and white movie any more and get any success

there have been some really good one : Pi and Raging Bull come to mind

but my point is this, if you actually read the opposition pieces to SOUND in films they sound almost EXACTLY like how ebert sounds

eeringly similar. i remember studying this in college, and their arguments were nearly exactly the same

ANY new technology is prone to overuse, gee whiz, etc.

we saw that with CG, and now CG is used much more artistically and better

we saw that with color

we saw that with sound

etc. etc.

some of my favorite movies of all time have no special effects whatsoever (chariots of fire).

others do. Alien

[Wednesdays]

63. IIRC, Schindler's List was B&W, wasn't it?

Except for a few moments when a girl in a red dress was highlighted.

[Aviation Pro]

51. Or any Tarantino movie....

...which is always dialogue rich. The violence is just the set up.

[paulsby]

55. tarantino is a mixed blessing

imo he's incredibly derivative, but he's derivative of GOOD stuff and stuff many people were unfamiliar with, so it worked well

my biggest complaint is his egotistical need to play bit parts in tons of different movies. he's a nerd trying to play tuff guys which always comes off looking ridiculous and it's just stupid.

some of his movies are phenomenal. imo, some are incredibly indulgent well... crap

i thought kill bill was pretty bad, but hey that;s just my opinion

[Cant trust em]

13. Great visuals can't save a mediocre story. That's my opinion of Avatar.

As George Lucas once said, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

[sweetloukillbot]

36. Pity he didn't listen to himself with eps. 1-3 n/t

[paulsby]

58. not to mention his rape of indiana jones

that was simply uncalled for

[paulsby]

57. i can agree

it was the noble savage dances with wolves thing, except with blue people.

it was "fun", it just wasn't great.

i saw a lot of people whinging that they couldn't get why hurt locker beat out avatar

i had seen HL but hadn;'t seen avatar at the time

now that i've seen BOTH, it's no contest. HL was simply a much better movie (i don't use the term "film". it sounds pretentious to me)

avatar is remarkable for special effects, but that's really it.

i'd put it on the same level as jurassic park.

[Warpy]

16. Something was lost with the addition of sound and something else with color

Turner found that out when he tried to colorize some of the classics. The photography just didn't work in color. Likewise, dubbing sound into a silent movie would be grotesque, selling a scene with guestures and expressions becoming overacting pretty quickly.

The only 3D film I ever enjoyed as such was Warhol's "Frankenstein." The scene with the impaled doctor giving a long winded soliloquy while a chicken gizzard dangled off the end of the spike in front of your nose was worth the price of admission.

Otherwise, Ebert is correct, I just end up with an eyestrain headache.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

47. I know you have a good point there, but remember, when it's a question of quality or schlock,

Ebert will always come down on the side of quality.

If he were going to rank the possibilities for eye-candy, I'm sure 3-D would be right up there.

Maybe some director will create a film that makes good aesthetic use of 3-D, something that raises the entire film -- story, cinematography and all; that would be pretty cool.

[depakid]

3. Defintiely hard on the eyes

For films like avatar or star wars types of things, it's a decent medium. As a general rule for most films, I suspect it'll end up to be a fad.

[abelenkpe]

4. There are going to be tons of 3D movies

coming out. And while I agree with Ebert that it doesn't really add much, and seems like a fad, it does employ many so can't complain about that. ;)

[Stuart G]

9. I saw that Avatar has a 3D version on DVD coming out next year..

So I contacted a friend up on this and he said that 3D TVs around now...and you will need a blue ray to play the movies..I am not sure it will be a fad. Who knows?
Roger has some good points though. Especially with dialogue and director's ability to use light and and form..

[abelenkpe]

19. Well

you are right. Hollywood is not expecting it to be a fad. They are heavily invested especially since the new 3D TVs are coming out.

[donco6]

6. I thought Avatar was great in 3D.

But it had a reason to be. Just throwing it in for grins is silly.

[Stuart G]

14. In Imax it was really something. That will be the exception rather than the rule.

I have seen some junk in 3D...Something about meatballs??

[Cant trust em]

21. I saw it in 3-D, but a regular theatre (not IMAX)

I wish I would have saved my money and saw it properly the first time.

I wasn't too enthralled by the story, so I'm unlikely to go watch it again for the expense and the length of the movie.

[abelenkpe]

22. How To Train Your Dragon

was pretty good too.

:)

[donco6]

53. Haven't seen it yet, but heard good things.

Sounds fun.

[Sentath]

66. Add me to the list

There's one moment near the end with a floating ash effect that is just scenic and appropriate.

Besides, this is the guy that said (again if memory serves) that video games cannot be art.

[elocs]

8. Well, good luck with that attitude because nothing succeeds like success.

I've seen both Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3D and it looked good except for after about 10 minutes or so I forgot all about it.

I don't think I'd bother with it at home. When push comes to shove I started out watching the radio and spent years having to get up to change the channel on the tv.

[abelenkpe]

11. O and

if we're gonna make all these animated 3D movies for kids....how about making glasses that actually fit their tiny heads? When I took my son to see How to Train Your Dragon he literally had to hold the glasses on his head. Love how we get charged for using the glasses that don't fit and then have to return them.

[eyewall]

17. It's euphemistically called progress

but it's really a means for the electronics industry to create a new market where there is none today. They need new stuff to make new sales.

[Stuart G]

18. Very well said..Can someone tell me why records are making

a comeback if they were so outdated and poor comared to casette tape and CD?..Maybe they were not such a bad listen.

[Cant trust em]

24. I think it's a back to basics movement by enthusiasts.

I don't think that the average person is buying too many records, but I could be wrong.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. where 'comeback' is an increase from zero to slightly more than zero?

because there are always niche markets for arcane stuff.

[kenny blankenship]

23. I prefer black and white

[Cant trust em]

25. Most 3D just looks mediocre and gimmicky.

If they could make it really really great, like virtual reality, then maybe it would be worth it.

[Stuart G]

26. If you think that this is gimmicky..well those of us who saw it in the 50s

will tell you what is real gimmicky..But just a little later..60s they came out with...smellovision...yea.

[Cant trust em]

28. Yeah, but your pop music was a lot better then. nt

[eShirl]

30. ha - our little local movie house showed "Polyester" in Smellovision (early 80s)

gah!


edit: whoops! not Smellovision but the similar Odorama
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/50776

[snort]

52. Would that have been at the CHARLES?

Went to it. Stayed for the porn.

[eShirl]

29. +1

[SocialistLez]

27. I could care less about 3d

I'm doing just fine with the way technology is now.

The movies are already expensive enough, this just gives them another reason to rack up prices.

[The River]

32. I'll Wait Until "Feelies" Are Available

"Feelies: These are the popular films. Filmgoers sit in special chairs that allow them to feel, and to interact, with the movie. The plots are simple, and often involve sex. Lenina takes The Savage to one of these feelies. She enjoys it very much, but he is horrified."

http://www.bookrags.com/notes/bnw/OBJ.htm#26

[flamingdem]

46. Believe me it's almost here, gestural interfaces nt

[LaPera]

33. I agree with Roger....and my opinion; 3D fucking sucks!!

[Jefferson23]

35. I'm glad Ebert is doing well enough to write, hang in there! n/t

[Pubslayer]

37. here to stay

I work for a big studio pushing 3D. The bottom line is it brings in audiences in a big way. Theaters fill more seats, and tickets cost more money. Until they don't - it ain't going away. I'm not sure when the last time Ebert was right, but I agree that it is a distraction for some story telling, but in the case of kid's movies - they tend to be grandios adventures... rides, if you will, and the added dimension can greatly enhance that feeling. Most studios are just beginning to experiment with 3D, and don't do a very good job; your eyes will tell you if they know what they are doing. Movies like Up, Coraline, Avatar, Dragons have toned down the strain, and don't distract from the story with gimmicks in your face. If they do its always in the very beginning, like "see? that was neat, now let's get on with the story" and you won't see the paddle ball again. I've seen those 4 movies with and without, and they are all more fun with 3D.I can't say the same for the home experience; it is total crap, and I don't think it will stick.

[Jefferson23]

38. Welcome to DU Pubslayer.

Best wishes on your work too.

[2Design]

39. I avoid 3D - don't like things jumping out at me and certainly won't

pay more than the already outrageous movie prices

[JenniferJuniper]

40. A few months ago, I'd have completely agreed. Then I saw Avatar.

But I see his point. It must be done properly (Burton's Alice In Wonderland was dreadful, and the lousy 3D just made it worse) and it will be unfortunate if the trend ends up sending Hollywood down an even more juvenile path just for cheap, I mean, expensive, thrills and chills.

[flamingdem]

45. Hollywood has to make its buck, adolescents spend the most nt

[IndianaGreen]

41. Sorry, Roger, I totally disagree with you, just as I did on your review of Kick Ass

Best wishes, though.

[tucsonlib]

42. 3D Is To Film........

...as MTV is to music.

A few words come to mind -

abomination

greed

The death of: art, imagination, creativity, culture, Western Civilization.......
:shrug:

[Tutankhamun]

43. Although I've always liked 3-D, I think Ebert's right.

3-D isn't 3-D. It's flat 2-D on a few flat planes. I want real 3-D with no glasses, no headaches, no dimness, no jacked up prices, and no dumbing down of films. Until then, I'll enjoy the occasional sci-fi 3-D movie, but for most good movies, it's a distraction at best.

[flamingdem]

44. He is being silly, it's just one of the many new technologies we'll take for granted soon nt

[jeremyfive]

48. Don't Dis' Steve-O's You Know What

It's Steve-O's best feature.

[gtar100]

49. I disagree. I like and have enjoyed it in the movies I've seen with it.

Obviously not all themes lend themselves to 3D but I thought Up and Avatar were a blast in 3D.

Just wait until video games are more than just surround sound and 3D and become "surround vision". Total immersion into virtual reality. Now if we could just get the machines to operate off of a renewable battery source. Where could we find that.. hmmm.

[Flipper999]

50. Ebert follows this article up with this statement: "You kids get off my lawn!"

He's been making a lot of noise like this lately. Earlier this month he claimed that no video game in existence can be considered art. This, of course, managed to rile up the entire gaming world in matter of seconds. Better writers than I have already refuted most of his points, so I'll just say that his criticisms are sadly stereotypical in an older-generation-not-getting-new-trends kind of way.

Theaters are buying and installing things like 3D projectors because enough people are willing to pay extra to see 3D. That's all. The few times that I bother to go to a theater, I opt for the 3D screen if it's available. Why? Because if I'm already going to plunk down a chunk of change to see visual spectacle, then I might as well have that spectacle jump out of the screen and inject heroine into my eyeballs!

If people don't want 3D, they'll vote with their money. Ebert needs to get over himself.

[mimitabby]

54. one eyed

I can't see in 3d... so I agree...

[Kablooie]

56. Occasionally a movie benefits from it i.e. Polar Express, because it's a thrill ride not a story.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. 3D HD sports will end this debate.

Ebert has a valid point. But if Cameron is right that his cameras and processing technology makes it possible to do more than just poke the viewer in the eye, and there were quite a few examples of what he meant in avatar, then 3D will replace 2D as the standard for films and tv.

[sui generis]

61. eh, what's all this about sax and violins on tee vee?

[donco6]

67. As long as it's not gratuitous sax and senseless violins.

It has to have meaning. :)

[freesqueeze]

64. "grown-up films of any seriousness"

do we have any of those any more?

[Wednesdays]

65. 3D is okay as a format, but it needs to mature

I totally agree with Roger Ebert that there's too much playing around with the novelty at the expense of story and acting. I think it all comes down to everything--even the movie industry--being motivated by profit. "Blowing stuff up" movies sell tickets, but are hardly lasting works of art.

But I'd support 3D if it came out of the "gimicky" stage--directors need to stop thinking of things to throw at or point at the camera. If they do that, and start concentrating on how the new dimension could enhance the story, then it'll be a successful art form, otherwise it'll go the way of the 1950s 3D fad.

I also look forward to technology that will enable people to view 3D without glasses (I'm sure they'll come up with a way within a few years).

I think 3D is just the beginning. When I was at Best Buy the other day, they were promoting a new video game system (forgot the name) that like the Wii, there's no controller cords to mess with. Not only that, but there's no controller! The player merely moves his/her body and the system detects the movements. That particular system supposedly doesn't work that well, but I'm sure it's just the beginning of a new generation of video game systems that don't require any controllers. I turned to my wife and said, I'll bet within 30-50 years, we won't be playing video games on flat video screens, either...instead, our video game opponent will be a life-sized hologram, standing right in front of us in our living room! Let's say it was a boxing game--we'd be duking it out with what appears to be a real person; no controllers or anything.

Same thing with movies...we'll no longer be staring at a flat screen. Our living rooms will literally become live stages for the actors. And "Saturday Night Live" will be really live, with the guest host interacting with you in your living room, as though you were part of the studio audience!

That's my amateur prediction...but I'm quite sure this will come about within 30 years. After all, look at the technology we have today (the Wii, etc.), compared to TV and video games of just 30 years ago (Space Invaders, etc.).

[Blue_Tires]

68. He should write one on "Why I Hate CGI Overkill"

[swilton]

69. Technology Trumps Substance

:sarcasm:

[customerserviceguy]

70. Roger's grandfather

was probably upset when 'talkies' came out.

Yes, it is a waste of time for the next Matthew Mcconaughey romantic comedy, but for action, science fiction, and fantasy films, it's a wonderful thing. I've been to enough beaches, restaurants, hotel rooms, etc. to have a good imagination of what they feel like in 3-D to put into a 2-D movie, but when I'm using a movie to transport me to an otherworldly experience, I appreciate all that technology has to offer.