Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

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

michael zaletel

michael zaletel

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life.
By Roger Ebert | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 29, 2010
From the magazine issue dated May 10, 2010

LINK TO FULL ARTICLE
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

Excerpts:
"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...

"...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" or "I wish this were 3D?"

Thoughts on the article?

-michael zaletel
 
I think it is okay for big/dumb/blow em up movies but for drama, I'll pass... I think the way it is being used right now is spot on. Spectacle.
 
The market will sort it out... plain and simple. Avatar would not have been the same amazing "experience" without 3D, period. It's good for some movies, not for others.
 
I really want 3D to go away. The only good thing to come from this whole 3D craze is that its putting more digital projectors out into the field...that's it. I would much rather see a movie in 2D. I just think with all this 3D people are going to get really tired of it, not to mention the price increase to see a movie in 3D.

I would much rather see a move towards 4K projectors out in the field. I have seen some amazing 4K material that is so sharp and amazing that it blows the socks off 3D.
 
Hollywood is not the only source of 3D content and cinemas are not the only source for 3D experience.


Original drama was made in 3D in Greece 2500 years before the 2D version.
 
We didn't saw best 3D movies yet.
 
Andrew Walker said:
I would much rather see a movie in 2D.
Click to expand...

Including Avatar? You would probably be in very small company if so. Nearly everyone I've heard from enjoyed the 3D experience of watching Avatar, and it's the only major (non animated) feature film that has even been shot in 3D in, what, decades?

I think the "backlash" is coming a little early, considering that only one film has even been shot and released in 3D, and it was a huge, earth-shattering success.

I also oppose "Fake 3D" like Alice and Clash of the Titans, but that is a different topic.
 
I agree with Ebert for the most part, and in my opinion, 2D movies are actually more realistic to how our eyes perceive the world than 3D movies.

I think the only way to actual reproduce the way that human eyes perceive the world would be to have a system that tracks where you are looking at the screen and adjusts the focus depending on what you are looking at. If you're looking at a person's face, that's in focus. If you are looking at an object on a table, that's in focus. Etc.
 
Although 3D has been around for some time, the technology is in its infancy (in relation to where this can develop). It takes a craze like this to advance the technology and hence our cinema experience.

Having said that, the only movie I've personally enjoyed putting on the glasses for is 'Avatar.' Although I've been to quite a few 3D movies because my children love them.

Im not sure how many people are going to 'hate' something because a journalist recommends it. (Provocative articles sell magazines apparently.)
 
Screenwriters are having a hard time getting projects not in 3D green-lighted (at least in the realm of big summer films). As long as the population is stupid enough to pay the outrageous prices for 3D tickets, filmmaking as an art will continue to die. I blame the population for not opening their eyes. You cannot blame the studios, they will always go with profit if people are willing to pay. I hope 3D dies a slow and painful death but I have a feeling it will not. There is no turning back. With Avatar, 3D gained both critical and financial success. 5 of 6 years from now, could I finance a film like Saving private Ryan if it were not in 3D? I doubt it.

I also disagree about moving to 48 frames per second. Films will look like television broadcasts. I don't understand why hollywood thinks they need to come with new gimmicks to sell tickets. What's wrong with leaving well enough alone. Move up to 4K projection. Why change the framerate? moving to 48fps will cause a bunch of problems, especially for digital animators that need to render each frame.
 
Last edited:
Hollywood is dealing with the continual splintering of its entertainment pie.
People twitter, tweat, iphone, youtube, video games, you get the idea. This is affecting all of us. Some of us will be out of a job, but I digress.

The first and maybe the last place for Hollywood is 3-D. It's the game in town that the little guy hasn't infiltrated yet. It's the best place for Hollywood to make money. Either Cameron's at the cusp of something great or he's created a monster. My experience with shooting and posting 3-D is scant, but I've heard people on a couple of 3-D films complain about the slow process on the set for all concerned. Hurry up and Wait.

Do I like 3-D? I'm not sold yet. Do I still love books. You bet. Ebert has a point.
 
I'm fine with Hollywood blockbusters being done in 3D. Most of the time they are just popcorn thrill rides amped up with lots of visual effects and 'splosions anyway. I'd like to see more things SHOT in 3D, as opposed to converted to 3D. I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D, and after that I will never see a converted to 3D movie in 3D ever again.

I think 3D done right is amazing, but I fear that the studios will turn off the general public by flooding theaters with crappy looking fake 3-D movies, and kill it off before it has a chance to get good.
 
Andrew Walker said:
I would much rather see a move towards 4K projectors out in the field. I have seen some amazing 4K material that is so sharp and amazing that it blows the socks off 3D.
Click to expand...

Hear, Hear!
 
No matter what the film is shot or delivered on, a good story well told will captivate an audience and draw in bums to those empty seats.

3D is just another little tool in the storyteller’s arsenal just as stereo sound was.
When stereo sound was first introduced to cinema filmmakers would purposely put in shots of footsteps travelling from one side of the frame to the other. Because the technology was so revolutionary and there was a huge buzz about it, at the time, ring a bell?
Now stereo sound is minimum standard delivery if you cant listen to stereo sound you can always select a single track and listen in mono.

I think that 3D will be similar in that it will become standard delivery. But if a show was not shot in 3D or there is no 3D enabled monitor or projector then switch to 2D viewing. As most broadcasters may well broadcast in 3D and a clone channel in 2D. BlueRay will likely have a switchable 3D/2D option as well and cinema will either project one or the other.

No amount of 3D delivery systems are going to attract more or less budgets to Indi films and if studios want they can afford the budgets for 3D.

How will people be out of work from 3D?!!!

There is nothing to like or hate about it.
 
Stereoscopic 3D and/or 2D should be a choice from the what the filmmakers want/need for a particular project. It then should be up to the audience if they want to see it or not, just like they always have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top