My Response to Ebert’s Hatred Toward 3-D Movies

A couple weeks ago Roger Ebert posted a little editorial explaining why he hates 3-D and why we should too.  He posted his key points and had his reasoning behind each one of them.  I’m actually quite surprised at the amount of people backing Ebert on this one, but I however disagree with most of his points and think 3-D is a great addition to the theater experience.  If I may, let me counter examine his points.

1. It’s the Waste of a Dimension:
What a ridiculous, childish claim from Mr. Ebert. I feel like we’re five years old coming up with anything to cover a point. Ebert claims that “When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned”. Well, sure Bob, can I call you Bob… our minds do play tricks on us and does provide a principle of perspective to create that third dimension without any camera trickery, however I think both of us know that it’s not the same thing here. 3-D DOES make you feel more immersed in the movie as if you are actually in it more so than the tricks our minds plays on us while watching 2-D.

Now I realize that it’s different depending on the moviegoer. Some people do get headaches and some people can’t even see the third dimension. So I’m well aware this problem however am not concerned about it as long as movie theaters continue to offer 2-D showings of the 3-D capable films.

2. It Adds Nothing to the Experience:
WHHAAATTT!?!? Ebert asks if the greatest moviegoing experiences of our lifetime needed 3-D using examples of Fargo, Precious and Casablanca. Well, absolutely not. Although, are we talking about movies like the former? I don’t think so! I believe the films that have been FILMED in 3-D have deserved the added dimension. I don’t believe too many people out there are looking for films like Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction to Citizen Kane to be in 3-D. 3-D has been reserved for epic action-adventure movies to cheesy horror flicks. The 3-D technology is not taking away anything from these huge pictures that are really created for a more “fun” moviegoing experience.

3. It Can Be a Distraction:
Ebert brings up points about poorly made 3-D films where everything remains in focus and where some objects just float about others. 3-D CGI movies are not using it in this way and others are starting to use the technology correctly. Directors and filmmakers are still looking for the correct way to use the new BETTER 3-D technology, which isn’t the same as it was used back when Birds came to theaters. If we are comparing super artsy films, then I hope they are shooting the film using the same techniques that have worked for many decades. The art of quality cinematography is not going anywhere.

4. It Can Create Nausea and Headaches:
Yes it can and that’s why 2-D showings of each 3-D film still exist. I’m under the assumption that most people with these visual problems are aware of them by now and if not, they aren’t going to suffer through 3-D films after the first one they see since they will know not see it in that format. I felt as the 2-D version How to Train a Dragon still looked very three dimensional, but just lacked the total immersion capable with 3-D.

5. Have You Noticed That 3-D Seems a Little Dim?
Heh, I actually didn’t realize this till I recently read about how 3-D is actually dimmer. I’ll admit that this stinks, but I must not be knowledgeable enough to notice or even care. I hope that this is an issue being addressed for future films, but for now I don’t know if this is really a complaint from the common moviegoers.

6. There’s Money to be Made in Selling New Digital Projectors:
Ebert seemed a little harsh about how these new digital projector exhibitors are rudely making theaters remove their analog projectors for these expensive new ones. I’m sure there is a little money hungry projector makers that are trying every way they can to get these new projectors sold, but I actually like the new digital projectors so it’s fine by me. I was recently very disappointed by a visit to the theater when the film started and it was analog. Sorry, guess I’m not a traditionalist enough to respect film, but the fact of the matter is that digital is clearer. There are no spots where they have glued the film together and it doesn’t begin to wear out like film does. I have much respect for traditional film, but am starting to prefer the clearer picture.

I’m very aware of the problems that occur from 3-D, but I don’t think the cons outweigh the pros. By no means do I want to see every picture in 3-D! I also don’t want to see directors substituting classic film techniques for new technology. If 3-D filmmakers can create movies that are just as pretty as Avatar and are artistically just as sound as great films from the past, I welcome 3-D with great big arms.

Bookmark To: