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

[Christopher Lefchik]

Roger Ebert weighs in with his thoughts on Hollywood's "suicidal" rush to 3-D and the alternative process he believes would provide a superior movie theater experience.

Link: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - Newsweek

[Kris Zimbelman]

I agree. I have seen Avatar in 3-d Imax and How to Train your dragon. Kinda cool but if they did away with it tomorrow I would not be upset.

[Bruce Foreman]

Seeing Avatar in the theatre in 3D was a nice experience, I liked it but there were a few problems.

The 3D glasses just barely fit over my eyeglass frames (medium "aviator" frames identical to air force issue to flight crews). The fit was not smooth, and my current frames are just a tad larger so I'm going to have a real problem next time.

I noticed the projection lighting level was dimmer than 2D in that same theatre, I figured at the time it was because 50% of the normal projection level was reaching each eye.

I'm not super sensitive to lighting condition induced headaches but I could never take my wife or my daughter to a 3D movie...The aftermath would not be a pretty sight.

I ordered the 2 disk set as Amazon was about to release it, got it on the release date. I enjoyed the Blu-Ray version on my BD player and 42" LCD much more than seeing it in 3D in the theatre.

[Robert Turchick]

Subtitle to this thread should be "Why we should all love Ebert!"

Normally, I dismiss anything put forth by critics and prefer to make my own judgement. Great to see Ebert get so technical to support his opinion. I have not delved into the technical aspects of 3D but have always known somewhere in my subconscious that I don't like it 99% of the time. I also happen to be one of the lucky people who doesn't get nausea or headaches and the glasses work fine. So I should be OK with it.

I went to see Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater. I thought there were a ton of unnecessary 3D scenes. I was more impressed by the CGI and artistry than the 3D (or the story for that matter)
Seeing it at home on bluray on my Samsung 55" LED TV confirmed everything. Visually in 2D it is incredible. Made me forget the whole 3D experience.

After that I have decided to not see the 3D versions of all the movies coming out and will happily wait for the BR for anything I really want to see.

Hopefully this 3D fad will pass quickly and manufacturers will concentrate on giving us higher frame rates at full HD and larger for money us mortals can afford.

In the mean time, kudos to Ebert and I hope he sways enough of the public to help kill (or significantly diminish) 3D's popularity.

[Jon Fairhurst]

I have a theory: if you like roller coasters, you like 3D TV. If you don't have any desire to ride on the wildest, most gnarly roller coaster you can find, you probably aren't ready to rush out and buy the latest 3D set.

In other words, us old f@rts are content with 2D - and our nice, comfortable sofas. But my sons would love to play Halo on a huge 3D TV - and they'd love to ride on a 50-story puke mobile.

The good news is that 3D TVs just alternate the right an left images. The 3D switching happens in the glasses. So, when you take off the glasses and put the TV in the 2D mode for 2D content, you won't be losing any performance. (3D media might just have half resolution in 2D mode though...)

[Alister Chapman]

I don't particularly like roller coasters, but I do like 3D when it's done well. I found the Avatar 3D experience to be very immersive, more so than 2D. I don't really understand the anti-3D stance as when you shoot a 3D film you end up with a 2D film as well, so viewers and movie goers have the choice to watch either depending on their preference. 3D is still very much in it's infancy, the more movies that get made the better the processes and technologies will become and the experience will get better and better.

When color movies came out there were many similar criticisms.

[Brian Drysdale]

3D cinema seems to problems with a certain percentage of the population. Seemingly there's more to how the brain processes 3D information than just the distance between the lenses and this can cause problems.

As for films, there has to be more than just 3D going on, just having 3D and relying on that is a cop out to the more difficult aspects of making a successful film. It really has to work even if it's in 2D and some may even actually work better in 2D.

As for 3D television, as James Cameron puts it "what's the point?" Budgets and schedules are already strained with 2D HD, although some people have said football (soccer to Americans) looks good in 3D. Sport may be the big selling point, but they've still not got people fully up to speed watching HD, many just watch SD on a HD capable television.

[Paul Mailath]

I wish you were right but go to your nearest retailer and watch something, anything in 3D - it looks GREAT - sport, bikini clad women on a beach - it all looked fantastic to me.

The sport particularly was immersive and engaging - people will pay to watch the sport and be hungry for other content.

I noticed something else - the women looked thin.

What if the old addage that the camera adds 10 pounds only applies to 2D images?

[Brian Drysdale]

Looking great in a shop and sitting watching 3D for long periods of time are two different things. Sport is different to other types of programme output, perhaps closer to games.

I guess some female actors will be glad that they don't need worry about those 10lbs.

[Robert Turchick]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

When color movies came out there were many similar criticisms.

Yes, but I don't know anyone who has a real physical problem watching color :)

On a different note, anyone compared the percentage of people who can't watch 3D (nausea & headaches) to the percentage of the population that's left-handed? Maybe a coincidence but several of my lefty friends (including my wife) said they can't watch 3D or they'd puke.

On the roller coaster theory, that doesn't work for me as the more G's I pull the happier I am. I'm 41 and do track days on my sport bike and yesterday spent half a day driving my kids around a go cart track. Roller coasters without a loop or roll don't interest me. My wife who gets sick in 3D movies loves flinging her motorcycle around the track and even loves heights (which scare the crap out of me) She lasted 5 minutes in Avatar!

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

I have a theory: if you like roller coasters, you like 3D TV. If you don't have any desire to ride on the wildest, most gnarly roller coaster you can find, you probably aren't ready to rush out and buy the latest 3D set.

Doesn't work for me. I love roller coasters (retired mechanical engineer -- I think of roller coasters as "participatory dynamics" if that tells you anything ;-). Not much for 3D movies though.

I too went to see Avatar in 3D at the local cinema. I thought it was interesting but dim and desaturated, and it gave me a headache. Got the 2D version from Netflix on Blu-ray just last week. Watched it on my Panny plasma screen. The 2D version is the clear winner -- nice and bright, beautiful color pallet, nice level of saturation. The blu-ray was by far the better experience. My wife fully agrees.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Hmmm. I'll have to rethink my theory.

In any case, age seems to correlate pretty well. Many younger people like 3D. Most older people don't.

[Aaron Fowler]

Originally Posted by Robert Turchick

Yes, but I don't know anyone who has a real physical problem watching color :)

What about people who are colourblind? :P

I loved Avatar 3D but hated Alice in Wonderland. Right now 3D is just a big buzz word, a gimmick to get ticket sales and as Roger Ebert puts it, to give people something they can get at home. I reason I think I loved Avatar so much is that it was immersive, not just because it was 3D, but because James Cameron actually took the time and budget to to do it properly. Avatar was still playing in my local cinema after it was released on DVD and Blu-ray! That only tells me one thing, that people would still pay to see it once in 3D when they can watch it as many times as they like in 2D for the same price. I think the biggest problem is that 3D is that it's mostly an afterthought and the motivations are in the wrong place to make a 3D movie. 3D should be transparent and not the reason why you watch a film.

Also, whats wrong with wanting to sell digital projectors? I personally like the idea that cinemas have a reason to buy digital projectors and have stopped arguing about who's going to pay for it. In Australia (and many other countries) we're stuck watching second or third hand film prints, that have already gone thought projectors thousands of times and have deteriorated in quality to some extent. With digital distribution maybe we can see the movie without the quality degradation which on some prints can be awfully distracting.

With all new technology, there are always positives and negatives, but I guess it comes down to 3D is the biggest change cinema has seen in a long time... And some people don't like change.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

I'm also one of the people who prefer 2D over 3D. I don't vomit, but having myopia, I have problems focusing even when wearing contact lenses. Also developed some eye fatigue at the end of the screening of AVATAR, so I don't think I can stand watching 3DTV by the hours. During casual TV viewing, there are visual distractions from the set, which may result in more pronounced visual problems, since the eye has to adjust from pseudo 3D with glassed to normal viewing.
It is true that some content can benefit from the 3D effect, but I think in the end it lessens the suspension of disbelief that the cinematic experience is based upon.
Nevertheless 3D sets are very aggressively marketed nowadays and people may decide against their own visual comfort for the shake of fashion complicity.

[Robert Turchick]

Originally Posted by Aaron Fowler

What about people who are colourblind? :P

Though I'm not colorblind, I will admit I want to vomit whenever I see CSI Miami...or is that Caruso's acting? Hard to say! ;)

Sorry...a bit off subject! Carry on!