Roger Ebert; Why I Hate 3D (sums it all up perfectly)

[Rotwang]

Newtechophobia ...

Like CGI, in the right hands, it can be amazing, in the wrong hands.

A bunch of people in Hollywood are convinced that 3D=automatic box office record. A lot of big 3D movies will fail and the quest to find the magic trick that will draw hordes of people into the cinema's will continue unabated.

Talent, story, quality ??? Naah ....

 

[Solo4114]

I know. Too simple, right? Or maybe the hacks who run the studios think they've actually given people that stuff, and it didn't work.

 

[propologist]

it's just the flavor of the month, remember hologram cards randomly inserted into packs of cards..lol

 

[Solo4114]

Ha! That I do!

oooooh...look! The image is all, like, kind of not exactly 3D!

I always preferred the cards that did different things when you turned them slightly. That was like getting three cards in one.

 

[Nwerke]

Yeah, forced perspective tricks like in LOTR won't really work. Although, frankly, I was never 100% convinced by the forced perspective stuff in LOTR. I accepted it visually anyway, but I wasn't really convinced.

Oh c'mon. OK, Bilbo walks right through Gandalf at one point in the hallway at Bag End, but Frodo and Gandalf on the cart was just textbook work, practically flawless.

 

[Solo4114]

Sorry, I never bought it. I didn't feel they effectively matched the frames of the main actors and their "little people" doubles. The hobbits in long shots always look all stubby, but with the exception of Sam, none of the actors were really built that way.

I mean, I accept it and enjoy the movies anyway, but I never really felt like I was watching actual hobbits. I could always "see the strings", so to speak. The scenes in Bag End were probably the MOST convincing, but the cart? forget it. It looks like you see skinny little Elijah Wood one second, and then a stocky child leaping onto Gandalf the next. I mean, it's not quite as bad as having a slender female actor suddenly replaced by a stuntman in a wig with 40" guns, but it still didn't jive for me, visually.

 

[Nwerke]

I meant the forced-perspective work, not the doubles work. Although the Bag End scene I'm referring to is actually a compositing mistake, but anyway.

The forced-perspective cart shots can't be faulted. Eyelines maybe, but those are always a problem and I've never seen it done better, at any rate.

 

[dfrey79]

Well, today Playboy announced that the new Centerfold for June will be printed in 3-D and come with glasses. Right in the article it says Playboy is capitalizing on the popularity of 3-D in such movies as "Avatar". :lol

 

[jlee562]

Newtechophobia ...

Like CGI, in the right hands, it can be amazing, in the wrong hands.

If this is in response to Ebert's piece, with all due respect, you kinda missed the point.

I happen to agree with Ebert. I saw Up in 3d, but I enjoyed it much more when I saw it on Blu-Ray at home. For me, the loss of brightness and clarity was not worth the pay off. Avatar I thought was just a giant gimmick to cover up what was otherwise a pretty lackluster film.

I've yet to see a film in 3d that I thought was worth the effort.

 

[dcarty]

Personally, I completely agree with Ebert's points.

Francis Ford Coppola isn't a big fan either apparently:

http://kotaku.com/5536910/francis-ford-coppola-doesnt-really-like-todays-3d

 

[Solo4114]

I WANT MY ENTIRE LIFE TO BE IN 3D!!!!


Wait...


As a side note, on the point about 3D TVs, I plan to get one...but only because that's the current model year for Panasonic plasmas. They come equipped with 3D and with one set of glasses. All of which is useless without a 3D feed to the TV, of course. So, I MIGHT get a 3D BRD player, and maybe I'll stumble across some 3D channel or program on Comcast, but aside from that, I don't see much use for it. Only reason I'm getting a TV is that it'll be my first upgrade since 2002, and the current set is 25" CRT, has an unreliable power button (you have to hold it in a split second to turn it on or off), the remote doesn't work at all (and no remote will).

 

[nickytea]

It's really gone to far.

I went to the season-end board meeting for the Theater I work at, and our Managing Artistic Director made mentioning of our shows being presented, "in 3D."

I hung my head in shame. He was not joking.

 

[Solo4114]

He should go FOUR-D by having all those actors talk directly to the audience!



What?

 

[nickytea]

He should go FOUR-D by having all those actors talk directly to the audience!



What?

I know, why not, right?! If you sit close enough, they might even spit on you!

 

[Solo4114]

Better still, book Gallagher as the opening performance of your season!

 

[niennumb1]

I'm still just waiting to see Ebert make a better movie than what he's been criticizing for years. The guy writes a TON of smack about films. What better person to write a film than the guy who seems to know exactly what makes a movie great?

 

[Zombie_61]

I'm still just waiting to see Ebert make a better movie than what he's been criticizing for years. The guy writes a TON of smack about films. What better person to write a film than the guy who seems to knows exactly what makes a movie great?

That could be said of almost any "professional" critic. Those that can, do; those that can't, critique.

 

[jlee562]

I'm still just waiting to see Ebert make a better movie than what he's been criticizing for years. The guy writes a TON of smack about films. What better person to write a film than the guy who seems to know exactly what makes a movie great?

That's a pretty typical response to a critic of any kind, but it's really a red herring.

I mean, let me put it to you this way, Béla Károlyi is one hell of a gymnastics coach, but I've never seen the man on a balance beam. Phil Jackson sure knows how to coach Basketball, but do you think he could take Michael Jordan 1 on 1?

 

[Solo4114]

By the same token, I may not be a mechanic, but I know when my car's driving like ****.