Why Ebert Hates 3D

Roger Ebert has a piece in Newsweek on why he hates 3D. I must agree. To be clear, there are good uses of it, but there are also a lot of crappy, after the fact, lipstick on a pig 3D conversions. This is just like the IMAX “conversions” where they use their patented process to change a regular movie into the exact same fucking movie, except it costs more. I’ve been boycotting the fake IMAX films (by boycott I mean I just see the normal version) and I’ll be doing the same with the fake 3D films. You may be surprised to find out that both Clash of the Titans and Alice In Wonderland are fake 3D. I just read they’re slapping it on Michel Gondry’s Green Hornet, too. Let’s all follow Ebert’s lead and save some money.

I do have one prediction: 3D in the home won’t take off until, like VHS and the Internet, it’s embraced by the pornographers.

2 thoughts on “Why Ebert Hates 3D”

  1. Too True. I got a headache watching “Avatar” and now I’m wondering if it was due to my progressive bifocal glasses or because of mis-use of depth of focus in a 3-D movie (see comment attached to the article).

    I have been a fan of 3-D still photography for many years and never experienced the headache until now. I also have seen many CGI movies in 3-D without problems (eg:Meet The Robinsons, How to Train Your Dragon) Of course “Avatar” is also mostly CGI, but not during the scenes involving humans. And the director may have tried the depth-of-focus trick in 3-D to achieve highlighting of certain scene elements, inducing headaches for those of us with slow brains.

    Great, now the movie ratings can be ammended to show “This movie may take too much processing for brains under 13. Brain Training suggested.”

    Still, I would have liked to have seen certain scenes from Iron Man 2 in 3-D

    Where, oh, where is MaxiVision when you need it ?
    This is the superior technology that gives you a brighter, more-realistic projection of film stock.
    Sadly, I could not find a website for this technology that was not in Japanese. Here is the 11-year old interview with Roger Ebert, where he discussed its impact:

    Is MaxiVision going the way of Cinerama??

  2. I almost went in to see Iron Man 2 in “Cinemark XD” which is supposed to be the competitor to IMAX. But I’ve also heard that the definition on some XD projectors varies, from 4K to 2K (whatever that means). 2K is supposed to be only twice as sharp as your HDTV at home. Doesn’t sound like it’s worth the higher ticket price.

    Not sure if XD can be used for 3D movies. It’s a digital projector, but I don’t think that makes a difference. In any case, I’ve heard that the seats are upgraded to leather and that is good enough for me to try it out. But I won’t do it for Iron Man 2; the movie wasn’t that good (more on that in a separate thread).

    If someone can tell me the resolution of the XD projector in the Cinemark Century Stadium 25 here in Anaheim, I’d be most thankful.

Comments are closed.