While Avatar was technically impeccable, we have already said that 3D is Hollywood’s next big scam. Film critic, Russ Meyer devotee (amen), and overall good guy Roger Ebert agrees. And he provides a definitive list of reasons:
1. It’s the waste of a dimension.
2. It adds nothing to the experience.
3. It can be a distraction.
4. It can create nausea and headaches.
5. Have you noticed that 3D seems a little dim?
6. It’s an excuse to buy new digital projectors.
7. Cinemas slap on a surcharge of $US5 to $US7.50 for 3D.
8. I cannot imagine a serious drama in 3-D (neither can I).
9. Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology to save the day.
I have to agree with him. I see 3D serving a purpose in interactive experiences like gaming or science visualisation, but I hope 3D movies die soon. At least, in its current form.
Read Ebert’s crystal clear explanation of each point in his list at [Newsweek]
edthecow
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 11:51 AMI want true holographic tv, movies, photos, games, imaging, etc. If current 3d tech is a step towards that then great. Otherwise if 3d on a 2d screen is as good as it gets then I’ll sadly add watching holograms to the same list as jet packing to work and holidaying on the moon.
Dean
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 11:13 PMWhat would be the point of holographic TV? Everyone would have a different view depending on where they were sitting. At least with 3D on a 2D screen everyone gets the same view.
Andrew Siers
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 1:01 PMI disagree with point 2. Avatar is a downright horrible film without all the eye candy that the 3D version provides.
MIchael
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 3:23 PMRoger Ebert should stick to reviewing the movies not the technology. His reasoning is like having watched a couple of films in 1900 and declaring 9 reasons film is just a fad; it flickers, the movement is jerky, it causes eye strain, yadda, yadda. I’m neither for against 3D, but whether it takes ten years or fifty years, the evolution of 3D displays is a near certainty and content will be created for it.
It got pretty nasueating when bad CGI was used like treacle but film makers are getting a handle on it. Just as modern film evolved from silent, jerky, black and white so 3D will evolve and the technogy and technique will become less conspicuous.
I see the world in 3D; it’s actually home turf for my brain.
Mordd
Saturday, May 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM1. As compelling as this argument is, im going to go with 3 dimensions real life, ppl want movies to as life like as possible therefore 3d for movies is ideal.
2. Wrong, wrong, wrong, it adds an extra dimension, is this guy stupid?
3. Yes, same as mobile phones in cinemas or RL, we will need to wait for holo-deck technology for it to be truly immersive, but 3d is a heck of a lot less distracting than 2d was, wrong again.
4. Wrong, wrong, wrong, this is the old technology not the new technology, again is this guy stupid?
5. No, and apparently neither has anyone else, again is this guy a complete moron or what?
6. Oh now, new technology brings new devices, for all you morons out there with 3 iPod’s, 2 iPhone’s and at least 1 iPad, im sure this won’t ne an issue. For the rest of us we all have to upgrade sometime anyway (tv’s do die eventually, etc..) so most of us will upgrade when we would have anyway and not before, no issue here.
7. Well sucks to be american then, Aus cinemas charged a premium of $3 AUD at the most.
8. Just because your imagination sucks, doesn’t mean the rest of us couldn’t appreciate serious films in 3d.
9. Well this statement is so vague anyway theres really not much point trying to counter it.
So to summarise Russ Meyer is an idiot and Roger Ebert is as well. Great article gizmodo, keep up the crappy work!
boc
Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 5:05 PM1. Are you saying the 3d in movies we have now are close to reality? Calling it a waste of a dimension implies that the dimension is not being best utilised and he is right in that regard.
2. Wrong? I guess that’s just your opinion. Most 3d effects in movies right now are too overt and distracting. So for me it does not add, but, detracts from the experience.
3. How can you say he is wrong when you agree with him in the very same sentence?
4. This new technology you talk about, is it perfect? I have a couple of friends who can’t watch 3d using this new technology without getting sick. While I don’t get sick watching 3d, I do get a slight headache.
5. He is correct in that he is speaking of how cinemas in the US have implemented 3d. You technically are seeing less light, so even if it’s not noticeable, it is in fact dimmer.
6. He’s not talking about us consumers, but, cinemas that have to put down a lot of money on a technology that may never take off. Even if 3d really takes off, how long do you think the current 3d technology will last or be acceptable? This technology could be obsolete before they’ve even made a return on their investment, an investment (if you read the article) they’re being pressured into by movie studios.
7. Agree with you here. My friend went to Singapore and saw a movie in 3d. He paid $4 just to rent the glasses. Renting was the only option. At least we can keep and reuse our glasses.
8. Read the article …
9. The article raises some interesting information regarding technology.
simon
Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 12:20 AMagreed.
Besides. It is not 3D. it is 2D with depth. I cannot go behind the screen and look at the back of the actors head.
I think Ill wait for the holodeck
Robert Chawner
Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 2:06 PMI love it how people resort to name calling as a final resort when they’ve got no decent comeback.
Take a step back from all the glitter sticking to your dog turd. It’s not polished.
Any serious movie filmed properly in 3d is going to detract from the story-line. Hollywood is about making bucks. Gimmicks attract the crowds, hence mindless spending.
Provide a cinema experience where you’re actually looked after, as it used to be, rather than herded in like cattle, and fleeced of your wallet at the gate.
Devz
Sunday, May 2, 2010 at 5:04 PMexactly simon. its misuse of the term 3D, 2D+D makes more sense (+D = depth)
Troy Thompson
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 1:14 PMSo I went ahead and read the article.
I agree with nearly all of his points. Kinda sad as the poor title and intro detracts from a well though out piece on 3D.
Jess
Friday, July 2, 2010 at 12:33 PMAs my rebuttal for all points made in favour of 3D movies, i point you in the direction of ‘The Final Destination.’
Checkmate.
Roger Whitaker
Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 10:34 PMI love how people that don’t like something, 3D in this case, insist that others shouldn’t be allowed to like it either. I don’t like seafood and can come up with many reasons why you shouldn’t like it either but does that mean if you do like it you should deny yourself the pleasure because I say so?
3D is not real 3D, it’s dark and can give you headaches and costs too much and blah, blah, blah…No, that’s your opinion! Mind your own business and let people decide for themselves.