Latest Entertainment News Headlines

Roger Ebert tells Newsweek why he thinks 3D stinks!

04.30.2010

Roger Ebert has always been the guy willing to give a thumbs down.

After seeing KICK-ASS, Ebert didn't care for it. He had no clue how an 11 year old could have no remorse for killing others. A lot of people did not agree with his viewpoint.

This time, you might agree with this one.

Ebert wrote an article for Newsweek titled, "Why I hate 3-D (And You Should Too)". This is how his article opens:

"3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches."

Here are the nine reasons given as to why you should hate 3-D (if you don't already). Some are already mentioned in the opening:

1.) It's the waste of a dimension.

2.) It adds nothing to the experience.

3.) It can be a distraction.

4.) It can cause nausea and headaches.

5.) Have you noticed that 3-D seems a little dim?

6.) There's money to be made in selling digital projectors.

7.) Theaters slap on a surcharge of $5 to $7.50 for 3-D.

8.) I cannot imagine in a serious drama, such as UP IN THE AIR or THE HURT LOCKER, in 3-D.

9.) Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.

Of course someone had a rebuttal. Devin Coldewey of CrunchGear debates from a tech perspective each of the reasons given by Ebert. Coldeway's introduction: "Roger Ebert. I love the guy, but love can be complicated. I respect and admire so much about him, from his honest take on movies to his courageous embrace of technology to replace his voice, that I feel obligated to give anything he says a fair shake. But his recent dismissal of games as art, and this attack on 3D cinema, demonstrate a curmudgeonly side of him that I wasn’t aware of (I’m well aware of my own)."

Both articles are fairly long, so head here for Ebert's write-up. Then head here for Coldewey's rebuttal.

Extra Tidbit: So who are you with?
Source: NewsweekCrunchGear

RECOMMENDED MOVIE NEWS

MORE FUN FROM AROUND THE WEB

Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

3:28PM on 05/03/2010
Is criticism art?
Is criticism art?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
11:29AM on 05/03/2010

I'm with Ebert

Avatar seems to be the only film I've heard that used 3D to put you in the story, to deliver something you couldn't get in 2D. No other film has done this. Clash Of The Titans is a GREAT reason 3D is a gimmick still and will probably remain one. Spears being through at the screen and things just generally, "popping out" is a reason I HATE 3D movies and I don't see that changing.
Avatar seems to be the only film I've heard that used 3D to put you in the story, to deliver something you couldn't get in 2D. No other film has done this. Clash Of The Titans is a GREAT reason 3D is a gimmick still and will probably remain one. Spears being through at the screen and things just generally, "popping out" is a reason I HATE 3D movies and I don't see that changing.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:52AM on 05/03/2010
I really don't care for what Ebert movie reviews, if your into Artsy/Fartsy foreign flicks then hes your man. I get my movie reviews from JoBlo, but I do agree with Ebert's option about 3D. Give me a choice between 2D & 3D I'll choose 2D (Clash of the Titans).
I really don't care for what Ebert movie reviews, if your into Artsy/Fartsy foreign flicks then hes your man. I get my movie reviews from JoBlo, but I do agree with Ebert's option about 3D. Give me a choice between 2D & 3D I'll choose 2D (Clash of the Titans).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:55PM on 05/02/2010

Ebert definitely has a point

3D has become the gimmick that it once was back in the 80s, and hopefully it dies off within the next few years. Certain films belong in 3D, while others don't. Avatar is one of those films that didn't need to be in 3D.
3D has become the gimmick that it once was back in the 80s, and hopefully it dies off within the next few years. Certain films belong in 3D, while others don't. Avatar is one of those films that didn't need to be in 3D.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:41AM on 05/03/2010
I disagree. Avatar was probably the ONLY film that needed and thrived in 3D. The movie was made to be in 3D, almost every scene was optimized and designed for a 3D screening. That's why people loved the experience, the 3D aided the movie. It's the other movies that convert themselves to 3D during post-pro that suck.
I disagree. Avatar was probably the ONLY film that needed and thrived in 3D. The movie was made to be in 3D, almost every scene was optimized and designed for a 3D screening. That's why people loved the experience, the 3D aided the movie. It's the other movies that convert themselves to 3D during post-pro that suck.
5:26PM on 05/02/2010

Roger Ebert STINKS

I hate this dude. This guy spends too much time eating dodgy popcorn. He needs to shower.
I hate this dude. This guy spends too much time eating dodgy popcorn. He needs to shower.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:56PM on 05/02/2010
I RARELY agree with Ebert's movie reviews, but I have to agree with him on this. Hopefully the 3D fad fades away like it did the last time Hollywood pushed it decades ago. Clash Of The Titans is a perfect example of both the implementation of unnecessary 3D to up the ticket price and Roger Ebert giving a poor film a good review.
I RARELY agree with Ebert's movie reviews, but I have to agree with him on this. Hopefully the 3D fad fades away like it did the last time Hollywood pushed it decades ago. Clash Of The Titans is a perfect example of both the implementation of unnecessary 3D to up the ticket price and Roger Ebert giving a poor film a good review.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+2
1:24PM on 05/02/2010
3D is a novelty. Its not the anchor for a film. Everybody is defending 3D with Avatar. But in my opinion the most incredible part of that movie was the mo-cap. I could really care less for seeing sam worthingtons head 3 inches in front of the background, it really did nothing for me. 3D is a bandwagon that every major studio and manufacturer is jumping on and everytime you spend that $17 on an IMAX 3D ticket you are telling them that, Yes, you cant get as much money out of my pockets as you
3D is a novelty. Its not the anchor for a film. Everybody is defending 3D with Avatar. But in my opinion the most incredible part of that movie was the mo-cap. I could really care less for seeing sam worthingtons head 3 inches in front of the background, it really did nothing for me. 3D is a bandwagon that every major studio and manufacturer is jumping on and everytime you spend that $17 on an IMAX 3D ticket you are telling them that, Yes, you cant get as much money out of my pockets as you want just by making me wear dorky glasses and telling me its state of the art.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+3
1:07PM on 05/02/2010
i tottaly agree, i think that the majority of the movies that are comimng out right now in 3D are just "feeding" on avatar´s success with 3D and hoping to get a few extra bucks themselves, i think 3D is ok, when the movie calls for it, besides that, up yours you greedy hollywood monsters!!!!!
i tottaly agree, i think that the majority of the movies that are comimng out right now in 3D are just "feeding" on avatar´s success with 3D and hoping to get a few extra bucks themselves, i think 3D is ok, when the movie calls for it, besides that, up yours you greedy hollywood monsters!!!!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:39PM on 05/02/2010
The smartest thing said in this thread yet.
The smartest thing said in this thread yet.
8:23AM on 05/02/2010

Reactions

1.) It's the waste of a dimension.
Cute play on words. This is an invalid reason, and it skewers his entire opinion of anything already. But please, Mr. Ebert, go on...

2.) It adds nothing to the experience.
That's awfully subjective. The money made says that at least SOMEbody out there enjoyed seeing a movie in 3D, that there's something to the experience that one won't get in 2D.

3.) It can be a distraction.
Subjective again. And some people LIKE this so-called "distraction."

4.)
1.) It's the waste of a dimension.
Cute play on words. This is an invalid reason, and it skewers his entire opinion of anything already. But please, Mr. Ebert, go on...

2.) It adds nothing to the experience.
That's awfully subjective. The money made says that at least SOMEbody out there enjoyed seeing a movie in 3D, that there's something to the experience that one won't get in 2D.

3.) It can be a distraction.
Subjective again. And some people LIKE this so-called "distraction."

4.) It can cause nausea and headaches.
Subjective. Key word: CAN. Not "does."

5.) Have you noticed that 3-D seems a little dim?
It has happened, but it's not always the case. For one thing, blame the COMPANY Real3D for putting out glasses that are tinted and thus dim the picture. That's not a real fault of 3D films, however, given that it's a TECHNICAL ASPECT of ONE COMPANY'S PRESENTATION.

6.) There's money to be made in selling digital projectors.
That's why they buy them, chief. Did you notice that they make the money back, too?

7.) Theaters slap on a surcharge of $5 to $7.50 for 3-D.
FINALLY, a VALID reason to snub 3D! It can cost grotesquely more to see a movie in 3D. No question about that. However, given that this IS a whole other way of viewing a movie, don't you think this is to be expected?

8.) I cannot imagine in a serious drama, such as UP IN THE AIR or THE HURT LOCKER, in 3-D.
It's a good thing they didn't make UP IN THE AIR or THE HURT LOCKER in 3D then, and generally DON'T make serious dramas in 3D. (Even Martin Scorsese's proclamation that PRECIOUS should be in 3D was kind of a joke, chief.)

9.) Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.
Ohhhhh, so the entire history of cinema, and all the impacts it has made on cultures, societies, times, and in general, the WORLD, has been nothing but a series of gimmicks? And you, Mr. Ebert, call yourself a movie reviewer? Sounds to me like you're in the wrong business.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:22AM on 05/02/2010
3D is a fad. It was a fad before, and it will be a fad again. Some movies it does work well with, others not so much.

For every one good 3D movie, we will get 10 others that suck.
3D is a fad. It was a fad before, and it will be a fad again. Some movies it does work well with, others not so much.

For every one good 3D movie, we will get 10 others that suck.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:38PM on 05/02/2010
That's true of movies in general.
That's true of movies in general.
7:29AM on 05/02/2010

Not a fair assessment...

I'm not a fan of the "post-production 3D" movies coming out lately but AVATAR was immensely beautiful in 3D because it was FILMED that way. Ebert may have loved AVATAR in 3D but I can see why he hates all the latest "converts" cause they literally suck balls.

And I don't know about you guys but up here in Canada, it's only an additional $3 to see a 3D film. That's it.
I'm not a fan of the "post-production 3D" movies coming out lately but AVATAR was immensely beautiful in 3D because it was FILMED that way. Ebert may have loved AVATAR in 3D but I can see why he hates all the latest "converts" cause they literally suck balls.

And I don't know about you guys but up here in Canada, it's only an additional $3 to see a 3D film. That's it.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:00AM on 05/02/2010
Again like I have said many many times, some people just have trouble seeing 3D images, particularly if you just so happen to wear glasses, I hope the public is smart enoough to realize you are gaining nothing from the experience, wow, images popping out of the screen, big fucking deal, dats so 1950s. I agreee with the poster who mentioned how to fix Hollywood by creating original & interesting stories & not bringing back every gimmick from the past & remaking every damn movie dat doesn't need
Again like I have said many many times, some people just have trouble seeing 3D images, particularly if you just so happen to wear glasses, I hope the public is smart enoough to realize you are gaining nothing from the experience, wow, images popping out of the screen, big fucking deal, dats so 1950s. I agreee with the poster who mentioned how to fix Hollywood by creating original & interesting stories & not bringing back every gimmick from the past & remaking every damn movie dat doesn't need to be.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
5:00AM on 05/02/2010

I'm With The Ebert!

The thing is, some people actually take the effort to make proper 3D, like Avatar, which deserves its kudos because the movie was filmed specifically for a 3D screening. In those cases, it's NOT a distraction because it works and aids the film. In all other cases INCLUDING home-viewing, 3D is a major distraction because you can't focus on the story or the characters. It all looks like a theme-park ride with hands and heads popping into your face. 3D at home is even worse because I can't think
The thing is, some people actually take the effort to make proper 3D, like Avatar, which deserves its kudos because the movie was filmed specifically for a 3D screening. In those cases, it's NOT a distraction because it works and aids the film. In all other cases INCLUDING home-viewing, 3D is a major distraction because you can't focus on the story or the characters. It all looks like a theme-park ride with hands and heads popping into your face. 3D at home is even worse because I can't think of a worse way to watch TV, which is supposed to be the most relaxing thing in the world besides sleeping. So yes, I hope 3D fizzles out and leaves the tech for the few who know how to properly use it. I can see Transformers 3 happening in REAL 3D. Do I want The Hobbit in 3D? Hell no!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
3:27AM on 05/02/2010
i can totally do without 3D. however, i have seen some cool flicks in 3D, coraline probably being the better of them...yes, even avatar.
i can totally do without 3D. however, i have seen some cool flicks in 3D, coraline probably being the better of them...yes, even avatar.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+0
3:25AM on 05/02/2010
"Art" is a "game".
"Art" is a "game".
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
3:22AM on 05/02/2010

Just a show of hands......

..how many people are going to see TRON : LEGACY in 3D? I rest my case.
..how many people are going to see TRON : LEGACY in 3D? I rest my case.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:28AM on 05/02/2010

3D - most pointless movie tech since Smell-o-vision

Thank you, Ebert. After the whole "games aren't art" thing, I was starting to think you'd lost your senses. Clearly you have not.
Thank you, Ebert. After the whole "games aren't art" thing, I was starting to think you'd lost your senses. Clearly you have not.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:27AM on 05/02/2010
[edited for BUG: 'refreshing' in Firefox after posting a comment causes site to resend comment]
[edited for BUG: 'refreshing' in Firefox after posting a comment causes site to resend comment]
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:25AM on 05/02/2010
Damn it Joblo, stop letting my browser resend forms!
Damn it Joblo, stop letting my browser resend forms!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:05AM on 05/02/2010

You know what will save the movie industry?

Here's a interesting idea. How about you try to actually make "good movies". Movies that poeple want to see. Why don't we bring back, I don't know, Stories?! Fuck Hollywood and fuck the all the people and movie nerds that made that happen. AWWW nose bleed!
Here's a interesting idea. How about you try to actually make "good movies". Movies that poeple want to see. Why don't we bring back, I don't know, Stories?! Fuck Hollywood and fuck the all the people and movie nerds that made that happen. AWWW nose bleed!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:14AM on 05/02/2010
"Fuck all the people and all the MOVIE NERDS that made that happen."

You sir, just said the smartest and most accurate thing I've read here in weeks. It's ridiculous what stupid shit these nerds let pass just because their favorite genre or technology is finally getting some attention.

Cheers.
"Fuck all the people and all the MOVIE NERDS that made that happen."

You sir, just said the smartest and most accurate thing I've read here in weeks. It's ridiculous what stupid shit these nerds let pass just because their favorite genre or technology is finally getting some attention.

Cheers.
+0
11:44PM on 05/01/2010

GIVE ME A BREAK.

The best part of Avatar was the 3D. He gave that 4 stars. What's he going on about? 3D works best when it's FILMED IN 3D. is he complaining because he saw Clash of the Titans? PLEASE. 3D is a WICKED experience - and for those who hate it - DON'T WATCH IT. You have the CHOICE whether to see it in regular or 3D. WHY bitch about it if you ain't gonna even watch it in 3D? They're not mandatory. Real 3D is amazing - and if you dislike it so much, then it's a shame we 3D lovers have a better time at
The best part of Avatar was the 3D. He gave that 4 stars. What's he going on about? 3D works best when it's FILMED IN 3D. is he complaining because he saw Clash of the Titans? PLEASE. 3D is a WICKED experience - and for those who hate it - DON'T WATCH IT. You have the CHOICE whether to see it in regular or 3D. WHY bitch about it if you ain't gonna even watch it in 3D? They're not mandatory. Real 3D is amazing - and if you dislike it so much, then it's a shame we 3D lovers have a better time at the cinemas than you do. FOOLISH.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:27AM on 05/02/2010
Ehh...sometimes the audience *doesn't* have a choice whether to see in 3D. If a studio thinks a movie will do bad these days, they'll release the 3D version wider than the 2D version.
Ehh...sometimes the audience *doesn't* have a choice whether to see in 3D. If a studio thinks a movie will do bad these days, they'll release the 3D version wider than the 2D version.
5:58AM on 05/02/2010
No need to sound like a dick in your post, but I CAN'T see 3D images PERIOD, I wear glasses & it's just annoying to wear 2 pairs of glasses, & ya 3D is nothing more than a gimmick
No need to sound like a dick in your post, but I CAN'T see 3D images PERIOD, I wear glasses & it's just annoying to wear 2 pairs of glasses, & ya 3D is nothing more than a gimmick
10:19PM on 05/01/2010
Games arent art?
Games arent art?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:12PM on 05/01/2010

To each his own

Like everything else in life, there is no clear cut answer other than to once again say . ONE MAN'S TRASH IS ANOTHER MAN'S TREASURE. 3d works for some movies and doesn't for others, make up your own mind and don't let other people do it for you. I respect Mr Ebert's opinion and he's well entitled to it, but I think for movies such as How to Train... and Shrek and even Avatar, 3d helped add to my exp rather than take away .
Like everything else in life, there is no clear cut answer other than to once again say . ONE MAN'S TRASH IS ANOTHER MAN'S TREASURE. 3d works for some movies and doesn't for others, make up your own mind and don't let other people do it for you. I respect Mr Ebert's opinion and he's well entitled to it, but I think for movies such as How to Train... and Shrek and even Avatar, 3d helped add to my exp rather than take away .
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:59PM on 05/01/2010

Ebert is losing touch with reality

I totally agree with Devin Coldewey. Ebert is showing more and more how is an old fart that knows nothing about modern entertainment. From dissing Kick-Ass and being unable to see what it was trying accomplish and its fun and entertainment factor...to the fact that he disses the 3D technology with reasons like "it's the waste of a dimension". OMG you sound stupid just saying that!
I agree that not every movie needs the 3D treatment cause it doesn't bring much yet, you can't dismiss the
I totally agree with Devin Coldewey. Ebert is showing more and more how is an old fart that knows nothing about modern entertainment. From dissing Kick-Ass and being unable to see what it was trying accomplish and its fun and entertainment factor...to the fact that he disses the 3D technology with reasons like "it's the waste of a dimension". OMG you sound stupid just saying that!
I agree that not every movie needs the 3D treatment cause it doesn't bring much yet, you can't dismiss the technology. Look at widescreen, HD, Imax, etc... all modalities that were once new, all things that we now enjoy as improved. At some point, 3D will be standard and it will be higher quality, one day technology will allow us to be fully immersed in a holographic 3D experience, who knows...
Avatar was an amazing experience in 3D...if more movies give me a heightened sense that Avatar did, then I totally embrace it. Again, my point of view is currently some movies don't justify the 3D treatment and thus the extra costs to see it in 3D, but one day, we will have a better 3D product as technology advances!!!
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:55PM on 05/01/2010

Avatar worked because it was a breakthrough

It was the first time a major director was making a film specifically for 3D. He took an awful lot of time creating a new world and used the best technology available. How often will that happen?

Avatar 2 will still be an event because it's the sequel of the most succesful movie of all time, but the freshness will already be gone.

I suspect Ebert will be proven right in the future. 3D will work while it still feel new but will slowly be marginalized.
It was the first time a major director was making a film specifically for 3D. He took an awful lot of time creating a new world and used the best technology available. How often will that happen?

Avatar 2 will still be an event because it's the sequel of the most succesful movie of all time, but the freshness will already be gone.

I suspect Ebert will be proven right in the future. 3D will work while it still feel new but will slowly be marginalized.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:48PM on 05/01/2010
The old bastard needs to retire, I can't stand to look at Roger or hear him talk anymore. The old man has just lost it and needs to give it up.
The old bastard needs to retire, I can't stand to look at Roger or hear him talk anymore. The old man has just lost it and needs to give it up.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:45PM on 05/01/2010
ummm . . . he can't talk anymore.
ummm . . . he can't talk anymore.
6:26PM on 05/01/2010

Don't need Ebert to tell me why I don't like something

Just because Ebert says 3d sucks, it doesn't mean I have to agree with him or that it will change my opinion on the matter.
Just because Ebert says 3d sucks, it doesn't mean I have to agree with him or that it will change my opinion on the matter.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
-4
12:27PM on 05/01/2010

"waste of a dimension"?

1.) It's the waste of a dimension.

2.) It adds nothing to the experience.

These two are entirely subjective. How is the dimension "wasted"? Should have filmmakers done something else with the dimension? Perhaps let it loose in the wild where it can live the rest of it's life free from the movie industry?

And "adds nothing to the experience"? Avatar 3D add tons to the experience. My friggin' jaw was to the floor regarding that "wasted" dimension.

Roger is a good man and a legendary
1.) It's the waste of a dimension.

2.) It adds nothing to the experience.

These two are entirely subjective. How is the dimension "wasted"? Should have filmmakers done something else with the dimension? Perhaps let it loose in the wild where it can live the rest of it's life free from the movie industry?

And "adds nothing to the experience"? Avatar 3D add tons to the experience. My friggin' jaw was to the floor regarding that "wasted" dimension.

Roger is a good man and a legendary critic but between this, the recent videogame diatribe and his Kick-Ass review, I definitely take his opinion with a grain of salt...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
1:42PM on 05/01/2010
I've taken everything he says with a grain of sault since reading his review of clockwork orange
I've taken everything he says with a grain of sault since reading his review of clockwork orange
12:20PM on 05/01/2010
I work at a movie theater that doesn't have a 3D projector and we get angry people all the time demanding we should get 3D. It's just sad that Hollywood has already brainwashed people into thinking they HAVE to see it in 3D to enjoy it. It adds NOTHING to the experience of seeing a movie. It's just a way for studios to make a few more bucks off each person and gain millions in return.
I work at a movie theater that doesn't have a 3D projector and we get angry people all the time demanding we should get 3D. It's just sad that Hollywood has already brainwashed people into thinking they HAVE to see it in 3D to enjoy it. It adds NOTHING to the experience of seeing a movie. It's just a way for studios to make a few more bucks off each person and gain millions in return.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:02PM on 05/01/2010

It's not that 3D "can" be a distraction

It is a freaking distraction. 3D ruins everything that I love about movie. Specifically finding a connection to "the story" and ,I don't know "The Fucking Characters". Rogert Ebert is my hero for this.
It is a freaking distraction. 3D ruins everything that I love about movie. Specifically finding a connection to "the story" and ,I don't know "The Fucking Characters". Rogert Ebert is my hero for this.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:38PM on 05/01/2010
3D is also a good distraction for covering up sub par story/acting, like in Avatar. I thought it was good in theatres, but man was I wrong after watching it on blu-ray. I guess I was just distracted by all the fancy stuff in 3D
3D is also a good distraction for covering up sub par story/acting, like in Avatar. I thought it was good in theatres, but man was I wrong after watching it on blu-ray. I guess I was just distracted by all the fancy stuff in 3D
1:00AM on 05/02/2010
Canuck, I'm with you man. I actually saw Avatar at the Imax for the first time and i hated It. The effects were spectacular but that is no excuse for having a shitty script.
Canuck, I'm with you man. I actually saw Avatar at the Imax for the first time and i hated It. The effects were spectacular but that is no excuse for having a shitty script.
11:05AM on 05/01/2010
He knows a lot more about cinema than i do, but he's wrong and he's wrong because he's contradicting his own review of Avatar. He goes on and on about what an amazing 3d experience avatar was and how he couldnt wait to see it on imax, now this article? 3D when used properly and in the right hands can do wonders with the medium, unfortunately the majority of directors will create the opposite effects mentioned by Mr Ebert..
He knows a lot more about cinema than i do, but he's wrong and he's wrong because he's contradicting his own review of Avatar. He goes on and on about what an amazing 3d experience avatar was and how he couldnt wait to see it on imax, now this article? 3D when used properly and in the right hands can do wonders with the medium, unfortunately the majority of directors will create the opposite effects mentioned by Mr Ebert..
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+7
10:56AM on 05/01/2010
Wow! There's a lot of "Mr. Ebert" fans on here. I think he's an overbearing snob.
Wow! There's a lot of "Mr. Ebert" fans on here. I think he's an overbearing snob.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:49AM on 05/01/2010
he also thinks videogames will never be considered as art on the level of films.
ebert is behind the times.
Besides, he gave Avatar 4 stars.... so he needs to stfu.
he also thinks videogames will never be considered as art on the level of films.
ebert is behind the times.
Besides, he gave Avatar 4 stars.... so he needs to stfu.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
10:42AM on 05/01/2010

Duh!

9.) Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.

Well, what the hell is wrong with that. People can't live without all that technology now and in 20 years people won't be able to comprehend movies without 3-D. I personally think the depth it gives adds to the experience. Now if only we could do something about those newfangled horseless carriages and giant metal birds.
9.) Whenever Hollywood has felt threatened, it has turned to technology: sound, color, widescreen, cinerama, 3-D stereophonic sound, and now 3-D again.

Well, what the hell is wrong with that. People can't live without all that technology now and in 20 years people won't be able to comprehend movies without 3-D. I personally think the depth it gives adds to the experience. Now if only we could do something about those newfangled horseless carriages and giant metal birds.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:34PM on 05/01/2010
People probably said the same thing about "not being able to comprehend movies without 3D" when 3D came out in the 50's/60's, then it died. It was probably said again when 3D came back in the 80's, then it died.
People probably said the same thing about "not being able to comprehend movies without 3D" when 3D came out in the 50's/60's, then it died. It was probably said again when 3D came back in the 80's, then it died.
7:22AM on 05/01/2010
While I don't see eye to eye on everything with Ebert, I do respect him and he is damn right about 3D.
While I don't see eye to eye on everything with Ebert, I do respect him and he is damn right about 3D.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
4:27AM on 05/01/2010
3D sucks. It's very over rated, cost extra money regardless of how it comes out and a good chunk of the time you can't even tell it's 3D, some arrogant prick that directed a film called Avatard proved they you can spend lots of time and money making a film and it'll still come out looking 2D while being a blatant rip off of a number of other films.
3D sucks. It's very over rated, cost extra money regardless of how it comes out and a good chunk of the time you can't even tell it's 3D, some arrogant prick that directed a film called Avatard proved they you can spend lots of time and money making a film and it'll still come out looking 2D while being a blatant rip off of a number of other films.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:35AM on 05/01/2010

3D is overrated!

Look, Avatar in 3D was sweet. But it took James Cameron to pull it off. But really it doesn't look very good and it doesn't add anything. Every year I could imagine seeing 2 or 3 flicks in 3D. Big tentpole action pics. The rest? No thanks, 2D is fine.
Look, Avatar in 3D was sweet. But it took James Cameron to pull it off. But really it doesn't look very good and it doesn't add anything. Every year I could imagine seeing 2 or 3 flicks in 3D. Big tentpole action pics. The rest? No thanks, 2D is fine.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:24AM on 05/01/2010
I actually think a 3D drama would be fucking sweet if done right. But I also think that, while 3D is fun, we shouldn't be looking at it as the future of ALL video media.
I actually think a 3D drama would be fucking sweet if done right. But I also think that, while 3D is fun, we shouldn't be looking at it as the future of ALL video media.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
12:01AM on 05/01/2010

Half and Half

I agree with him. I beleive some movies are good in 3-D, but making every f'n movie in 3-D is just stupid. As for him not beleiving in an 11 year old killer...did he miss the part where he brain washed her into thinking it was some kind of game?
I agree with him. I beleive some movies are good in 3-D, but making every f'n movie in 3-D is just stupid. As for him not beleiving in an 11 year old killer...did he miss the part where he brain washed her into thinking it was some kind of game?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:59PM on 04/30/2010

Whoa

Look at all the schmoes more or less supporting the 3D resistance. I thought I was alone. It can be fun, and Avatar was, ya know, Avatar, but holy hell, enough.
Look at all the schmoes more or less supporting the 3D resistance. I thought I was alone. It can be fun, and Avatar was, ya know, Avatar, but holy hell, enough.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:31PM on 04/30/2010
It's really hard to argue with his logic that "it's already in 3D. It's called perspective." I want 3D to die, but I'm okay with it if it keeps the movie business alive.
It's really hard to argue with his logic that "it's already in 3D. It's called perspective." I want 3D to die, but I'm okay with it if it keeps the movie business alive.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:33PM on 04/30/2010

#10

In all seriousness, there are a lot more people than you think who can't see 3-D for various reasons, but especially if they only have one functional eye.

I hope it's over soon.
In all seriousness, there are a lot more people than you think who can't see 3-D for various reasons, but especially if they only have one functional eye.

I hope it's over soon.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
9:17PM on 04/30/2010
I agree with Roger Ebert. 3D is a good change of pace once every 2-3 years, but I'd prefer to just stick with the 2D for the most part. I can see why people like it, but I'm hoping its a fad that goes away in a couple years
I agree with Roger Ebert. 3D is a good change of pace once every 2-3 years, but I'd prefer to just stick with the 2D for the most part. I can see why people like it, but I'm hoping its a fad that goes away in a couple years
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
2:02AM on 05/02/2010
doubtful but will see...
doubtful but will see...
9:09PM on 04/30/2010
I'm with Ebert. "Avatar," while great, was about three hours long, and I felt the effect on my eyes. That was too long for 3D. I believe there are places where it might be suitable (wouldn't "The Matrix" have been even MORE amazing?), but it also forces on audiences something we already understand without the aid of glasses.
I'm with Ebert. "Avatar," while great, was about three hours long, and I felt the effect on my eyes. That was too long for 3D. I believe there are places where it might be suitable (wouldn't "The Matrix" have been even MORE amazing?), but it also forces on audiences something we already understand without the aid of glasses.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:37PM on 04/30/2010

Meh.......

I have a lot of respect for Roger Ebert. He sticks to his guns and speaks from his gut. In the case of 3-D, he may be right in many respects. Some films benefit more than others from 3-D, and some are just marketing ploys I think.

However, I don't always agree with Mr. Ebert's opinions on media. His articles on gaming as art, Kick-ass, and "guilty pleasure film ratings" I strongly disagree with. That's just me.

On a side note, Ebert thought Speed 2:Cruise Control and Sky Captain and
I have a lot of respect for Roger Ebert. He sticks to his guns and speaks from his gut. In the case of 3-D, he may be right in many respects. Some films benefit more than others from 3-D, and some are just marketing ploys I think.

However, I don't always agree with Mr. Ebert's opinions on media. His articles on gaming as art, Kick-ass, and "guilty pleasure film ratings" I strongly disagree with. That's just me.

On a side note, Ebert thought Speed 2:Cruise Control and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow were "good" films. That's a joke right?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
10:26PM on 04/30/2010
Ebert's a human too and likes some garbage flicks, like the ones you mentioned and the first Mummy movies aaaaand CONGO. Ha.
Ebert's a human too and likes some garbage flicks, like the ones you mentioned and the first Mummy movies aaaaand CONGO. Ha.
10:53PM on 04/30/2010
Sky Captain is a fucking awesome movie that was way underrated.
Sky Captain is a fucking awesome movie that was way underrated.
11:31PM on 04/30/2010
Sky Captain is fantastic, you probably have not seen it. Very underrated.
Sky Captain is fantastic, you probably have not seen it. Very underrated.
5:12AM on 05/01/2010
Sky Captain kicks ass.
Sky Captain kicks ass.
8:24PM on 04/30/2010

3D is stupid.

At least Roger gets that. And who the hell cares about whether or not video games are art? This little debate has bugged me ever since it started. Games are fun. That's why gamers play games. Who the hell cares whether or not it's "art"? I sure don't.
At least Roger gets that. And who the hell cares about whether or not video games are art? This little debate has bugged me ever since it started. Games are fun. That's why gamers play games. Who the hell cares whether or not it's "art"? I sure don't.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
8:43PM on 04/30/2010
Ah thank you for bringing the video games "as art thing." I think games are fun but that argument is just a cop out for those who want to feel they're doing something valuable with their time.
Ah thank you for bringing the video games "as art thing." I think games are fun but that argument is just a cop out for those who want to feel they're doing something valuable with their time.
8:31AM on 05/01/2010
I'm not much of a gamer, but even I know people can feel ways about certain games beyond mere recreational pleasure. That's why the art thing is debated.
I'm not much of a gamer, but even I know people can feel ways about certain games beyond mere recreational pleasure. That's why the art thing is debated.
8:09PM on 04/30/2010

He's about half right

Some of his reasons to "hate" 3D are a bit subjective and silly, particularly #1,2,3 and 8. Some other points sound quite valid.

I have only seen three 3-D movies, "Avatar", "How To Train Your Dragon" and "Alice In Wonderland"; all were technically well done, at least to my eyes, and it did enhance the experience for me (at least for these movies).

Just because Roger Ebert can't imagine a "serious" movie using 3D doesn't mean it may not work for some "serious" movies. I certainly agree
Some of his reasons to "hate" 3D are a bit subjective and silly, particularly #1,2,3 and 8. Some other points sound quite valid.

I have only seen three 3-D movies, "Avatar", "How To Train Your Dragon" and "Alice In Wonderland"; all were technically well done, at least to my eyes, and it did enhance the experience for me (at least for these movies).

Just because Roger Ebert can't imagine a "serious" movie using 3D doesn't mean it may not work for some "serious" movies. I certainly agree that the movie companies are licking their chops over the surcharges they feel they can tack on...
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+6
7:39PM on 04/30/2010
My personal reasons for hating 3D movies:
1. It doesn't look 3D. My eyesight is fine, I've checked. It looks like flat layers gliding over one another.
2. It's blurry.
3. It's dim.
4. Gives me terrible eye aches.
5. It is painfully obvious when the image is bound by the rectangular borders of the screen.
6. It's cheesy as fuck.
My personal reasons for hating 3D movies:
1. It doesn't look 3D. My eyesight is fine, I've checked. It looks like flat layers gliding over one another.
2. It's blurry.
3. It's dim.
4. Gives me terrible eye aches.
5. It is painfully obvious when the image is bound by the rectangular borders of the screen.
6. It's cheesy as fuck.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:39PM on 04/30/2010

Didn't agree with Ebert on "Kick-Ass" but he is right here.

It's gimmicky and it was only created/brought back so studios could get more money and charge a bigger surcharge and expect the dumbass masses to pay for it.

"Avatar" while visually stunning wasn't anything new or unique with the storyline but it's money was made because of 3D. Same with "How to Train Your Dragon" and others.

The whole thing is a distraction, a nauseous, grainy, stupid distraction. Videogames I'd pay money to play it on a 3D-TV, but movies or watching regular TV isn't
It's gimmicky and it was only created/brought back so studios could get more money and charge a bigger surcharge and expect the dumbass masses to pay for it.

"Avatar" while visually stunning wasn't anything new or unique with the storyline but it's money was made because of 3D. Same with "How to Train Your Dragon" and others.

The whole thing is a distraction, a nauseous, grainy, stupid distraction. Videogames I'd pay money to play it on a 3D-TV, but movies or watching regular TV isn't worth it. But of course for the next 2 years, it'll be around.

All thanks to James "Prick" Cameron.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:35PM on 04/30/2010

Don't panic.

I think the real problem is people just dont know how to embrace change. It has happened in the past with a lot of technologies and for all the millions that do embrace it there are the technophobes that do not. In the end Im sure Ebert will look like the fool as he has on many occasions but at least his blubbering this time will not have any impact on the future technology that seem to be hitting theaters like a tsunami. Face it people 3d is the future and the future is now.
I think the real problem is people just dont know how to embrace change. It has happened in the past with a lot of technologies and for all the millions that do embrace it there are the technophobes that do not. In the end Im sure Ebert will look like the fool as he has on many occasions but at least his blubbering this time will not have any impact on the future technology that seem to be hitting theaters like a tsunami. Face it people 3d is the future and the future is now.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
7:28PM on 04/30/2010

A little of both.

I saw Avatar in 2-D and 3-D and I must admit, it did Heighten the experience for me. Yet i believe that 3-D isnt really meant for us, us being the teenage to adult crowd. I think it meant more for the kids. When they put on those glasses and watch whatever movie that's just come out, their eyes fill up with wonder, awe, and excitement. Now I don't agree with Hollywood making everything 3-D, but I understand why they do it. Yet, i think they should just keep the 3-D to the Kiddie movies and
I saw Avatar in 2-D and 3-D and I must admit, it did Heighten the experience for me. Yet i believe that 3-D isnt really meant for us, us being the teenage to adult crowd. I think it meant more for the kids. When they put on those glasses and watch whatever movie that's just come out, their eyes fill up with wonder, awe, and excitement. Now I don't agree with Hollywood making everything 3-D, but I understand why they do it. Yet, i think they should just keep the 3-D to the Kiddie movies and leave everything else alone...Especially the Rated R flicks...because then its just overkill and can damage the experience of watching a film that was never meant to be in that format in the first place. Case in point the Clash of the Titans 3-D situation.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+1
7:22PM on 04/30/2010

Ebert

I agree with Ebert and the others below (or above depending on how your discussions are displayed).
I agree with Ebert and the others below (or above depending on how your discussions are displayed).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
+4
7:02PM on 04/30/2010
3D DOES suck balls. Avatar showed what 3D can do pretty comprehensively, and it cannot do very much. And I'm not going to even dignify post-production 3D with a response.
3D DOES suck balls. Avatar showed what 3D can do pretty comprehensively, and it cannot do very much. And I'm not going to even dignify post-production 3D with a response.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:59PM on 04/30/2010

type-o

**but what about its capabilities for the future**
**but what about its capabilities for the future**
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:58PM on 04/30/2010

mhm

I'm curious, though, because Ebert talks about how shitty post-production 3D adds nothing to the experience, but what about films shot specifically for 3D like Avatar? The technology spoke to the themes of the movie IMO. I think Ebert's pissed about the quickly commercialized lot of 3D bunk, but its capabilities. Has sound hurt our viewing experience, Ebert?
I'm curious, though, because Ebert talks about how shitty post-production 3D adds nothing to the experience, but what about films shot specifically for 3D like Avatar? The technology spoke to the themes of the movie IMO. I think Ebert's pissed about the quickly commercialized lot of 3D bunk, but its capabilities. Has sound hurt our viewing experience, Ebert?
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:31PM on 04/30/2010

3d is for the morons of society

These gimmicks are to attract idiots to go see movies. 3d is not going to be done right, because too much money can be made the cheap post production way. Stupid people will flock to the theaters and see it, because most of our population are ignorant/ill informed.

I agree with Ebert, this is all about the money (like most things).
These gimmicks are to attract idiots to go see movies. 3d is not going to be done right, because too much money can be made the cheap post production way. Stupid people will flock to the theaters and see it, because most of our population are ignorant/ill informed.

I agree with Ebert, this is all about the money (like most things).
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:24PM on 04/30/2010

My 2 cents...

I sort of agree, but not entirely for the same reasons. I think IMAX makes a better experience than 3D. I wouldn't mind 2 or 3 special filmed in 3D films a year, but I really dislike Hollywood's "every blockbuster film must now be in 3D" attitude. If they stopped making films in 3D I can honestly say I wouldn't miss it. I also think 3D only works in theaters when you are surrounded by the experience, on the tv it just seems lame.
I sort of agree, but not entirely for the same reasons. I think IMAX makes a better experience than 3D. I wouldn't mind 2 or 3 special filmed in 3D films a year, but I really dislike Hollywood's "every blockbuster film must now be in 3D" attitude. If they stopped making films in 3D I can honestly say I wouldn't miss it. I also think 3D only works in theaters when you are surrounded by the experience, on the tv it just seems lame.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:22PM on 04/30/2010

I wholeheartedly agree

I may have totally disagreed with Ebert's stance on Kick-ass and his dismissal of games as art, but he is definitely right about the current trend of 3D films.

Ever since the huge success of Avatar, Hollywood seems to be making almost every film 3D. The problem is that most of the films aren't even shot in 3D and are adding nothing to the film. 3D worked for Avatar is because it was filmed with 3D in mind. 3D has become nothing else but a marketing tool.
I may have totally disagreed with Ebert's stance on Kick-ass and his dismissal of games as art, but he is definitely right about the current trend of 3D films.

Ever since the huge success of Avatar, Hollywood seems to be making almost every film 3D. The problem is that most of the films aren't even shot in 3D and are adding nothing to the film. 3D worked for Avatar is because it was filmed with 3D in mind. 3D has become nothing else but a marketing tool.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
6:18PM on 04/30/2010
I agree with Ebert on every single thing he had say about 3D. He is a smart man, and really knows his shit.
I agree with Ebert on every single thing he had say about 3D. He is a smart man, and really knows his shit.
Your Reply:



Please email me when someone replies to my comment
View All Comments

Latest Entertainment News Headlines


Top
Loading...

Featured Youtube Videos

Views and Counting