3D Movies Might Not Be As Bad As Roger Ebert Claims

[zelda2fanboy]

This is just all sorts of misinterpreted information. Ebert didn't try to disprove the inherent technical flaws of 3D. Walter Murch did, then Ebert reposted the letter and tweeted it. The slate article doesn't disprove anything Murch said, it just disagreed with him on a subjective level.

Argument 1: "3D is unnatural, gimmicky, and makes people's heads hurt."
Argument 2: "No, it doesn't."
Ebert's Position: "I don't like having to put the goggles on over my glasses, wah. And it makes the screen darker."

My Position: I see a movie in a theater about once or twice a year. I haven't seen a 3D one yet, and don't really intend to because I'm afraid of germs, spending money, and social interaction of any kind. Also, every movie screen in my area looks murky, misframed, washed out, water damaged, and unfocused enough already. I don't need 3D to contribute to that problem. My home theater always looks and sounds better.

 

[Kaymish]

I went to see the green hornet in 3d the other day had to leave the theater for a short walk because of the screaming headache 3D gives me so even if its not "bad" in the way Ebert claims they are still bad in the fact that like an Xbox i cant use them without debilitating pain

 

[Baresark]

This is utterly stupid. Why is it so ridiculous that people don't like 3D movies.

My argument is this, I like animated films such as The Incredibles and Megamind, but I don't want every single film in the future to be animated. Why would I want all future sci fi and horror films to be 3D. It's simple, I don't want them to be. Make the occassional 3D film, who knows, maybe I would even watch it. But why make them all like this?

Like I said, utterly stupid.

And I agree with Zelda2fanboy, it's not like Ebert did all sorts of scientific research, he merely paraphrased someone who did. I don't care for the man as a critic, so it's best not to give him any undo credit.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

When the Polar Express came out Ebert actually ranted and raved about the new 3D technology. It seemed to work no matter where the audience sat and could finally be worn over another pair of glasses. Like him I was equally impressed, then grew equally tired.

Stereoscopic effects can give footing to movies that are too weak to stand on it's own without gimmicks such as Beowulf, A Christmas Carol, and Avatar and make them enjoyable. However it can't make already great movies such as Toy Story 3 soar higher.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I maintain that 3D is an industry-pushed fad, like 'common usage HD' tv-shows last year.
(You probably wouldn't believe how much content was filmed standard definition, scaled up and then sold as HD.)

 

[UberNoodle]

Is it just me or is this article in existence primarily to show up Ebert. I suspect it is sour grapes over his prior commentary on gaming. One of the favourite pasttimes of sites like this is to make out like one man's opinion is in danger of defining reality for us all, especially if that 'one man' is Roger Ebert.

The guy is outspoken, but he's also a great film reviewer, and it's his right to have opinions on whatever he wishes to have opinions on. This article lingers too long on how "wrong" Ebert is, but you don't have to look as far as a celebrity reviewer to find people who have deep reservations or dislike for 3D.

And, what did we expect to happen, when the technology has been exploited in mostly the wrong ways? So many examples of 3D make the image appear as rows of paper cutouts. Last I used my eyes, that wasn't how the world looked. Tron and Avatar, however, did not look that way. They are examples of great use of the technology. However, Avatar tripped over its own shoelaces, in that, while the stereoscopic illusion provided depth, Camerons cinematography often put that depth out of focus.

Throughout the entire film, the illusion of a 3D word was therefore balked. Cameron's own visual design demanded that my eyes survey the whole image, searching for detail. In a true 3D world, my vision would focus on whereever I looked. I felt like I had cataracts for a large percentage of the film. This dissonance frustrated me in ways that when I later watched the film in 2D, I didn't feel.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

This just seems like an excuse to attack Roger Ebert.

Honestly, I don't need science to know whether or not 3D is worth it. I already know it costs more money, dims colors, contributes nothing, gives me eye strain and causes me intense pain by grinding my glasses into my ears.

 

[Shreder55]

I don't really care at all about 3D I just go see movies I want to see and if given the choice I see it only in the format it was meant to be seen in.

 

[Supp]

I have three major problems with 3D:

1. If you have glasses, you're screwed.

2. In 90% of cases, its something hastily added on to an already finished product, meaning that it looks terrible.

3. In the other 10% of cases, I'm perfectly happy with the movie without the 3D part. So why would I pay extra to go to an experience that is uncomfortable?

 

[Jamie Doerschuck]

Did anyone else keep confusing the two people's names throughout the article? I did... They're so similar =/

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

It´s not really important who is scientifically right or wrong

glasses based 3D is industry pushed add-on money cahscow that drags down most of the cinemtic experience without giving anything back. The only thing they give me is a headache from the glasses after 60minutes.

3D as it is now does not need science to suck!

 

[lolokitten]

Every time I watch a 3D movie, my eyeballs start drying out.
I think I'll wait for glasses free, 3D movies before I watch another.

 

[Frasman]

I have three major problems with 3D:

1. If you have glasses, you're screwed.

2. In 90% of cases, its something hastily added on to an already finished product, meaning that it looks terrible.

3. In the other 10% of cases, I'm perfectly happy with the movie without the 3D part. So why would I pay extra to go to an experience that is uncomfortable?

Spot on!

The 3D label in itself is quite misleading. Yes you still put on the glasses, but the image quality ranges from piss poor to "excellent" (or barely tolarable in my case). Many times I swear the quality of the 3D picture with the glasses on is no different than standard cinima quality.

 

[Jimtopia]

Did anyone else keep confusing the two people's names throughout the article? I did... They're so similar =/

Glad I wasn't the only one. I have a theory that Roger Ebert has multiple personalities, and is using Engber as a pseudonym solely to argue with himself and generate buzz.

Joking aside, I have a hard time understanding all the hate for 3D these days, the only time I ever got a headache when seeing a 3D movie was when I went and saw Avatar for the first time, and that was only because I already had a headache that day anyway, and watching a big bright screen with loud noises isn't good for headaches.

I think that adding depth to a picture may just advance movies into something even more spectacular. Is 3D perfect right now? No. Should every single movie from here on out be in 3D only? No. However Tron and Avatar, to me, showed a lot of potential for the medium, and I think just killing it now, as some people have suggested, seems like an awful idea when it really could become something amazing given a few years.

 

[brumley53]

I went to see the green hornet in 3d the other day had to leave the theater for a short walk because of the screaming headache 3D gives me so even if its not "bad" in the way Ebert claims they are still bad in the fact that like an Xbox i cant use them without debilitating pain

I just want to point this out, The Green Hornet was made for 2D and they added 3D later and I think it's useless for people to base their perception of 3D off of a movie like this which pretty much just chucked it in as a gimmick.

 

[Narcogen]

Sigh. First, don't attribute to Ebert what he is quoting. The arguments made in the post are Murch's, not Ebert's. Ebert happens to agree with them, which is why he posted Murch's opinion on the subject, as a film editor and sound designer.

Murch's dismissal of 3D as impractical an undesirable hinges on one central point, to which all the rest is auxiliary: the idea that in order to see the image, your eyes still have to focus on the screen (since that is where all the image actually is) but the illusion is going to draw your eyes to an object that is apparently closer than that-- like deliberately letting a nearby object go out of focus. The majority of Murch's text is devoted to illustrating this point.

Engber's article hardly debunks this central thesis, and without assaulting that, there is no debunking going on here whatsoever. His own response to it:

"This is a reasonable point, and it may represent a real challenge for 3-D filmmakers."

and

"All these years later, we still don't know whether the "convergence/focus issue" causes 3-D headaches, or if they arise from some other aspect of the experience. Either way, I proposed, the problem of visual discomfort would doom the new batch of digital 3-D films to the same fate as their analog forebears: The bubble will pop.

Thing is, I've changed my mind since I wrote that piece nearly two years ago. Or maybe 3-D movies changed my brain: After watching 10 or 20 of these films since then, I've grown accustomed to the ocular aerobics, and the same format that gave me splitting headaches back in 2009 hardly bothers me now."

In other words, he admits this is a problem, and that it used to make him think 3D won't work, and even though he's not sure that's what causes people headaches, it used to cause him headaches but now it doesn't (as much) since he's used to it so 3-D is now okay.

If that's "debunking" the word has lost all meaning.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

3D is like Zombies to me.

It was nice and entertaining at first, but now it's just a gimmicy oversaturated thing, devoid of any shock factor or uniqueness.

 

[Jamie Doerschuck]

Did anyone else keep confusing the two people's names throughout the article? I did... They're so similar =/

Glad I wasn't the only one. I have a theory that Roger Ebert has multiple personalities, and is using Engber as a pseudonym solely to argue with himself and generate buzz.

-Snip-

Lmao, I know, right? I wasn't sure if I was going crazy...

And I'm actually one of the ones who DOES get horrible headaches from 3D images.. Even from movies that were "meant to" be in 3D like Avatar. Isn't that really the only one that was "shot and conceived in 3D" (poking fun at that guy's new.. Cave.. Movie.. Thing. That looks really stupid, but that's another topic for another time..)? I didn't actually see Tron, but was that made with 3D in mind too?

But yeah, Avatar gave me headaches... That's really the big name one, but "My Bloody Valentine 3-D" also gave me headaches. If that's any kind of consolation..