Roger Ebert; Why I Hate 3D (sums it all up perfectly)
- Thread starter Lord Boron
- Start date
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
Agreed...I saw one movie in "3D" and it sucked because of all the things mentioned. It felt like a burden and took away from the story because my mind was distracted by this weird picture that is no better than a view master I played with as a kid.... I'll never see another movie in "3D" again... Stupid waste.
Alan Cross
Sr Member
I saw UP in 3D and thought it was fantastic. Same thing with Avatar. So, I guess, to each his own. As for Roger Ebert, I always thought he was a decent critic with the exception of his taste in comedies. He used to recommend comedies that were just awful. A few paragraphs into his article he contradicts the premise of his own argument:
"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."
And then he goes back to giving us reasons why 3D sucks. I believe 3D could become a filmmaking standard in time. And I think that'd be great. But that's just me.
Alan
"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."
And then he goes back to giving us reasons why 3D sucks. I believe 3D could become a filmmaking standard in time. And I think that'd be great. But that's just me.
Alan
Last edited:
cayman shen
Master Member
Yup. You go Ebert. It's really, really cool as a gimmick for popcorn movies, but I'd hate to see a film of any quality tainted by this distracting schlock.
franz bolo
Sr Member
The only movies I've seen in 3D were Avatar, Up and Ice Age 3 and they were all incredible.
3D is just another tool for film makers to use. Like anything, it can be abused or used incorrectly.
FB
3D is just another tool for film makers to use. Like anything, it can be abused or used incorrectly.
FB
KnightAsylum
Sr Member
Shocked that I don't agree with a film Critic!!! - aren't they always right?
:rolleyes
Love the egotistical article title that tells you that he dislikes something, and you should do!
Please, Please tell me what I should think!!!!:lol
As with everything in movies from color to sound it can be used for good, or it can distract from the experience, it all depends on it's use. All the rest is just fear of change - and the usual whining.
:rolleyes
Love the egotistical article title that tells you that he dislikes something, and you should do!
Please, Please tell me what I should think!!!!:lol
As with everything in movies from color to sound it can be used for good, or it can distract from the experience, it all depends on it's use. All the rest is just fear of change - and the usual whining.
CB2001
Master Member
I saw "Alice in Wonderland" in 3D last week (hey, I did it because I was invited by a classmate, and I rarely get a chance to be invited to any film viewing by my classmates). It had depth inside the movie, but it did not have anything coming out. Of course, I understand that "Alice in Wonderland" was not made with 3-D in mind, thus not a whole lot of stuff jumping out at the audience. And to be honest, the last movie I saw in theaters that was 3-D was "Freddy's Dead" (I did not include "Terminator 2: 3-D" as it is a stunt show, not a feature-length movie), and I will admit its great not having headaches or the odd color temperature from one eye to the next like the old 3-D, but I truly have not experienced a new movie with the new 3-D technology to truly judge (I did see the 3-D episode of "3rd Rock from the Sun" a while back too, and I still have the glasses which I use to watch various other movies, which adds the depth in the same manner as "Alice in Wonderland").
niennumb1
Master Member
I don't HATE 3D, but I don't think it will be the 2D film killer. 3D is not the key selling point of a film. Avatar was cool in IMAX 3D, but the thing I don't like is having to wear a mildly uncomfortable pair of glasses through the whole thing and I like using my own eyes. The advances in some of this tech I hear about without the use of glasses sounds cool, but for movies it's far from a deal breaker for me to go see something.
We went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D, and actually it was rather pointless. It didn't offer any new dimension to the film. Avatar Was really cool and enjoyed the utilization of 3D in the film, but I am far from disappointed the Blu-Ray isn't in 3D. I more prefer the traditional way of seeing movies. I say get rid of the annoying audience and implement convenience fees to be guaranteed a moviegoing experience without people texting and talking... and bringing babies in to ruin a film. I'd pay a few extra bucks to see a movie in an auditorium that didn't tolerate any of that.
We went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D, and actually it was rather pointless. It didn't offer any new dimension to the film. Avatar Was really cool and enjoyed the utilization of 3D in the film, but I am far from disappointed the Blu-Ray isn't in 3D. I more prefer the traditional way of seeing movies. I say get rid of the annoying audience and implement convenience fees to be guaranteed a moviegoing experience without people texting and talking... and bringing babies in to ruin a film. I'd pay a few extra bucks to see a movie in an auditorium that didn't tolerate any of that.
mez7
Sr Member
"Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal"
this is where i think he hit it right on....
so many of the film companies are looking at avatar, and how much money it made in 3D and saying wow....we should make our movies 3D now too.
its a moneymaking decision not a filmmaking decision.
the thought that it being 3D will make them more money is driving thier thoughts..
so in the long run we'll see tons of movies upconverted to 3D to meet what the studios see as the demand of the day.
which for the most of them wont actually look as good. and maybe even look worse than the "normal" versions.
the producers of the green hornet after seeing the footage so far..... and being underwhelmed....have decided to make it 3D in the hopes it will make it better.......:unsure
this is where i think he hit it right on....
so many of the film companies are looking at avatar, and how much money it made in 3D and saying wow....we should make our movies 3D now too.
its a moneymaking decision not a filmmaking decision.
the thought that it being 3D will make them more money is driving thier thoughts..
so in the long run we'll see tons of movies upconverted to 3D to meet what the studios see as the demand of the day.
which for the most of them wont actually look as good. and maybe even look worse than the "normal" versions.
the producers of the green hornet after seeing the footage so far..... and being underwhelmed....have decided to make it 3D in the hopes it will make it better.......:unsure
darthgordon
Sr Member
Well... it's obvious that he hasn't had to pay for a ticket in a while. In most major cities movie tickets are 10 dollars. Which is even more obsurd. The problem is "how do you get people in the theater with these stupid prices?" The answer is 3-D. It's a gimmick.
True, it causes producers to push aside better movies in favor of something in 3-D. However, that's no different than the blockbuster (lots of CGI, explosions and a crappy plot) or the remake.
My solution to getting butts in the seats is to lower prices... but that's not going to happen. So until then, I will only go to see a movie in the theaters when it is an event... something I can't wait for or yes, in 3-D. Otherwise I've got an HDTV at home.
True, it causes producers to push aside better movies in favor of something in 3-D. However, that's no different than the blockbuster (lots of CGI, explosions and a crappy plot) or the remake.
My solution to getting butts in the seats is to lower prices... but that's not going to happen. So until then, I will only go to see a movie in the theaters when it is an event... something I can't wait for or yes, in 3-D. Otherwise I've got an HDTV at home.
Zombie_61
Master Member
In addition to Avatar, I've seen House of Wax (1953), Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), and Flesh for Frankenstein (a.k.a. Andy Warhol's Frankenstein, 1973) in 3D on the big screen. The thing is, House of Wax and Creature from the Black Lagoon are just as good in 2D; 3D did nothing to improve either film. Flesh for Frankenstein is pure rubbish no matter what. As for Avatar, while I thought the 3D effects were well done I found the film itself overly long and uninteresting, and I can only imagine I would find it even less interesting in 2D
I agree completely. Certain films might benefit visually from 3D, but if a film is already lacking 3D won't make it a better film, and anyone in the film industry who thinks otherwise should find another career.
I've only seen two flicks made natively in the new format, but really liked the implementation in both. I haven't seen any post-processed stuff yet and will probably avoid it (not hard for me, I hardly see anything at cinemas anyway).
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the format. How to Train Your Dragon, in particular, is just really beautiful.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the format. How to Train Your Dragon, in particular, is just really beautiful.
Ttaskmaster
Well-Known Member
What an ignorant ****....
The usual stock whiny ramblings of someone who doesn't know how 3D works and has no clue as to why it doesn't always work.
3D is great. 3D is fantastic.
However, as mentioned, it can be used, or abused.
Compare it to that Dolby Stereo 5.1 über surround sound thing. Every film has THX or something these days.
How many people even have one installed in their home?
How much did it cost?
How often do they brag about how fantastic and 'experience enhancing' it is?
UTTER CRAP.
3D is just like surround sound. It is a background effect. It is not a sales gimmick, therefore it should not be used as such. It only seems like a gimmick, because it's still new to people, it's still a novelty and people expect novelty from it, so it is wrongly treated as such.
It is a very technical effect, though. It must be done properly during filming, post-production and even at the cinema. Mess up on any one of several points and you have a wrecked product. Half the people whining about how they can't see the 3D and/or have headaches and eyestrain simply suffer because the projectionist is fresh out of school and this is just his minimum wage Saturday job.
3D works and it is very cool... so long as it's done right.
As for those with visual anomalies... I'm truly and genuinely sorry for you.
However, we're not about to replace stairs with lifts everywhere just because there's a small percentage who cannot use them.
3D will remain, though I predict interest in it will fluctuate as it has done in the past. Additionally, 2D will also remain. It is for those who find 3D doesn't work for them and for those who don't want to pay for extortionate tickets.
You even have a choice - See one 3D movie or, for the same price, see two different ones in 2D. Decent cheap night out with the Mrs.
So long as that choice remains - No worries. The percentage of 2D only people is significant enough that companies cannot afford to withdraw 2D.
Ultimately, for so many pathetic reasons, 3D may often never be the amazing experience people rightly expect.
For the truly ultimate in proper 3D motion picture entertainment, either it must be done properly (which they managed quite easily in the less-lazy 1950s), or you must wait for viewer-defined 360° holographic projection movies to become commonplace.
The usual stock whiny ramblings of someone who doesn't know how 3D works and has no clue as to why it doesn't always work.
3D is great. 3D is fantastic.
However, as mentioned, it can be used, or abused.
Compare it to that Dolby Stereo 5.1 über surround sound thing. Every film has THX or something these days.
How many people even have one installed in their home?
How much did it cost?
How often do they brag about how fantastic and 'experience enhancing' it is?
UTTER CRAP.
3D is just like surround sound. It is a background effect. It is not a sales gimmick, therefore it should not be used as such. It only seems like a gimmick, because it's still new to people, it's still a novelty and people expect novelty from it, so it is wrongly treated as such.
It is a very technical effect, though. It must be done properly during filming, post-production and even at the cinema. Mess up on any one of several points and you have a wrecked product. Half the people whining about how they can't see the 3D and/or have headaches and eyestrain simply suffer because the projectionist is fresh out of school and this is just his minimum wage Saturday job.
3D works and it is very cool... so long as it's done right.
As for those with visual anomalies... I'm truly and genuinely sorry for you.
However, we're not about to replace stairs with lifts everywhere just because there's a small percentage who cannot use them.
3D will remain, though I predict interest in it will fluctuate as it has done in the past. Additionally, 2D will also remain. It is for those who find 3D doesn't work for them and for those who don't want to pay for extortionate tickets.
You even have a choice - See one 3D movie or, for the same price, see two different ones in 2D. Decent cheap night out with the Mrs.
So long as that choice remains - No worries. The percentage of 2D only people is significant enough that companies cannot afford to withdraw 2D.
Ultimately, for so many pathetic reasons, 3D may often never be the amazing experience people rightly expect.
For the truly ultimate in proper 3D motion picture entertainment, either it must be done properly (which they managed quite easily in the less-lazy 1950s), or you must wait for viewer-defined 360° holographic projection movies to become commonplace.
Paradox
Well-Known Member
Having done theater for many years (including acting, set construction, lighting, sound, stage management, props, etc) I couldn't agree more.
Actors saying lines is one thing, actors saying lines on a well lit and well constructed set with sound to go along with what they're conveying is completely different. Everything the audience sees and hears is supposed to draw them into the story being portrayed. This can be applied to film as well. If 3D can be used the same proper/artistic way, it will be a huge game changer in film. Otherwise, it turns into a gimmick and the audience will not enjoy the show.
Wolfie
Sr Member
Not a fan of that critic for sure... but not a fan of 3D either for movies where I have to think and pay attention. I get minor headaches/eye strain (I dont normally have to wear glasses or anything)
I basically end up spending a chunk of the movie moving my glasses closer and farther away from my eyes trying to take some of the strain off them.
I havent seen Dragon yet but that would be something I can understand being a cute 3d thing, but When I saw Avatar with out it, I didnt miss it. (not that I thought Avatar was amazing either lol)
I saw Alice in Wonderland and Beowulf in 3d and it just wasnt worth the extra $. I've seen it in places where I can TELL they added an arm movement or something where its purposefully to look 'neat' in 3d and that makes it feel gimmicky to me for sure.
So for me if its something I want to take seriously I'm going for 2D and I'm kinda sad to agree with Ebert :/
I basically end up spending a chunk of the movie moving my glasses closer and farther away from my eyes trying to take some of the strain off them.
I havent seen Dragon yet but that would be something I can understand being a cute 3d thing, but When I saw Avatar with out it, I didnt miss it. (not that I thought Avatar was amazing either lol)
I saw Alice in Wonderland and Beowulf in 3d and it just wasnt worth the extra $. I've seen it in places where I can TELL they added an arm movement or something where its purposefully to look 'neat' in 3d and that makes it feel gimmicky to me for sure.
So for me if its something I want to take seriously I'm going for 2D and I'm kinda sad to agree with Ebert :/
Solo4114
Master Member
A few thoughts.
1.) "I'm not opposed to it as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life."
Couldn't agree more. 3-D as a cool extra for blockbuster films? Awesome! Might even get me in the theater, if the underlying film itself DOESN'T SUCK. Maybe. 3-D as slapped overtop of every film? Forget it. Not interested.
2.) "Whenever Hollywood feels threatened, they turn to technology."
Again, couldn't agree more. Hollywood thinks technological legerdemain will fool me into paying high prices to see **** movies. Hollywood is WRONG. If Hollywood wants my money, Hollywood can try ponying up for GOOD movies.
The "stampede" to 3D is conceived of by the same people who think that remaking the entire library of films made between 1978 and 1990 is a brilliant idea. Really, though, the films are just more crap. Apply 3D to it and you have......crap IN 3D! But still crap.
Wanna know why I don't go to the theaters anymore? Because they offer me nothing. I'd rather watch a film in the comfort of my own home on an HDTV with surround sound where I can pause it, talk as much as I like, and I've already paid for the food and drinks and DON'T have to listen to obnoxious kids or ******* adults. And the floor isn't sticky either. Oh, and there's the little matter of the films I'm watching NOT SUCKING. Put simply, there are very very very VERY few films that I feel the NEED to see in a theater anymore, because most of those types of films tend to suck anyway nowadays, and to the extent that the film is really good...I can just wait for it to come out on DVD.
Example: if Goodfellas were released for the first time ever this fall, I highly doubt I'd feel the NEED to see it in the theaters where I have to deal with all the other a-holes and high ticket prices.
Example 2: I saw Milk in one of the local "art house" theaters last year. It was a great movie. It was not a movie I needed to pay $10 to see. I could've just as easily waited for DVD.
In the meantime, I think I can safely skip Gamer, Death Race, Transformers 2, and a whole host of other films that try to position themselves as "You should see this in the theater" but really just suck.
Iron Man 2 is pretty much the only film coming out now that I think I NEED to see in the theater. Oh, and I should probably finally head to an IMAX 3D theater to catch Avatar.
This is, ultimately, Hollywood's great problem: the really "good" movies don't require and would probably be diminished by the application of 3D (Goodfellas 3D! Casablanca 3D! Citizen Kane 3D!! All the President's Men 3D!! To Kill A Mockingbird 3D!). The remaining movies that WOULD benefit from 3D -- the blockbusters, the action flicks, the comic book movies, the horror films -- are probably 95% dog****. At best, they're worth Netflixing. At worst, they don't even warrant that. 3D applied to that just means expensive prices...to watch a dog**** film...IN 3D!!! No thanks.
No amount of gimmickry will get me to watch a bad movie for $10 (plus another $8 for refreshments) surrounded by a bunch of people I can't stand. Until Hollywood starts coming out with good blockbuster movies that NEED to be seen in the theaters, I'm staying home.
1.) "I'm not opposed to it as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life."
Couldn't agree more. 3-D as a cool extra for blockbuster films? Awesome! Might even get me in the theater, if the underlying film itself DOESN'T SUCK. Maybe. 3-D as slapped overtop of every film? Forget it. Not interested.
2.) "Whenever Hollywood feels threatened, they turn to technology."
Again, couldn't agree more. Hollywood thinks technological legerdemain will fool me into paying high prices to see **** movies. Hollywood is WRONG. If Hollywood wants my money, Hollywood can try ponying up for GOOD movies.
The "stampede" to 3D is conceived of by the same people who think that remaking the entire library of films made between 1978 and 1990 is a brilliant idea. Really, though, the films are just more crap. Apply 3D to it and you have......crap IN 3D! But still crap.
Wanna know why I don't go to the theaters anymore? Because they offer me nothing. I'd rather watch a film in the comfort of my own home on an HDTV with surround sound where I can pause it, talk as much as I like, and I've already paid for the food and drinks and DON'T have to listen to obnoxious kids or ******* adults. And the floor isn't sticky either. Oh, and there's the little matter of the films I'm watching NOT SUCKING. Put simply, there are very very very VERY few films that I feel the NEED to see in a theater anymore, because most of those types of films tend to suck anyway nowadays, and to the extent that the film is really good...I can just wait for it to come out on DVD.
Example: if Goodfellas were released for the first time ever this fall, I highly doubt I'd feel the NEED to see it in the theaters where I have to deal with all the other a-holes and high ticket prices.
Example 2: I saw Milk in one of the local "art house" theaters last year. It was a great movie. It was not a movie I needed to pay $10 to see. I could've just as easily waited for DVD.
In the meantime, I think I can safely skip Gamer, Death Race, Transformers 2, and a whole host of other films that try to position themselves as "You should see this in the theater" but really just suck.
Iron Man 2 is pretty much the only film coming out now that I think I NEED to see in the theater. Oh, and I should probably finally head to an IMAX 3D theater to catch Avatar.
This is, ultimately, Hollywood's great problem: the really "good" movies don't require and would probably be diminished by the application of 3D (Goodfellas 3D! Casablanca 3D! Citizen Kane 3D!! All the President's Men 3D!! To Kill A Mockingbird 3D!). The remaining movies that WOULD benefit from 3D -- the blockbusters, the action flicks, the comic book movies, the horror films -- are probably 95% dog****. At best, they're worth Netflixing. At worst, they don't even warrant that. 3D applied to that just means expensive prices...to watch a dog**** film...IN 3D!!! No thanks.
No amount of gimmickry will get me to watch a bad movie for $10 (plus another $8 for refreshments) surrounded by a bunch of people I can't stand. Until Hollywood starts coming out with good blockbuster movies that NEED to be seen in the theaters, I'm staying home.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I wanted to see Clash of the Titans in 2D, my friend wanted the same - impossible to go see it in 2D unless we wanted to catch the 11am showing - which none of us had time for. If it is not SHOT in 3D, don't convert it to 3d and call it a 3D film. That's just a 2D film with added effects.
I wonder how they would do 3D on effects movies such as Lord of the Rings that relied heavily on the 2D perspective issue that would fool us into thinking that regular people standing further away was just small people standing next to a normal sized man. It certainly couldn't be filmed in 3D and create that effect, so would have to be filmed in 2D and then "converted" into 3D.
3D is not something I'd put my money on... but I guess I'll have no choice if I want to see movies in the theatre in the future.
I wonder how they would do 3D on effects movies such as Lord of the Rings that relied heavily on the 2D perspective issue that would fool us into thinking that regular people standing further away was just small people standing next to a normal sized man. It certainly couldn't be filmed in 3D and create that effect, so would have to be filmed in 2D and then "converted" into 3D.
3D is not something I'd put my money on... but I guess I'll have no choice if I want to see movies in the theatre in the future.
Oh... that was one of the most enjoyable things about that movie... no stupid things "coming out at the audience". I always hate that lame use of 3D. Like the common camera swirl around a CGI object in a movie. STUPID. It's drawing attention to a technology and a "look how much money we spent" kinda thing, rather than have the effects work for the story without really grabbing attention to to themselves. That's why Avatar was so nice... there the effects were there to create a world and move the story along... not the other way around having the story be a springboard to showing off expensive gags.
Last edited:
Similar threads
