Roger Ebert has long been considered a respected staple in the film critic industry, but recently when he posted an article called “Why I Hate 3D, And Why You Should Too” I took a closer look at the 3D trend, and while I don’t always agree with Ebert (and I find I disagree a lot more lately) I found this article bore closer inspection and I would chime in with my feelings on the subject.
I am referencing his reasons from the Newsweek article, and will address his approach to each from my own standpoint.
1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.
I agree that not everything NEEDS to be in 3D, but I couldn’t disagree more that its a waste of a Dimension. This blanket statement dismisses appropriate use of the effect while focusing on an inappropriate use of the effect. He claims that our minds adapt for the illusions on the screen to make it 3D in our perception, which is true. But his application of this argument suggests that we never should have developed realistic CG character renderings, as claymation and muppets were fine and our minds will adapt what we see into the fantasy they want to display.
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?
Now this I couldn’t disagree with more. 3D is a weapon that needs to be aimed right, so his argument that the best moments in cinematic history would not benefit from 3D is narrow thinking. What about the best moments in visual effects? Would they be better in 3D? Very possibly the answer would be yes, while steering this question to ask if Casablanca should be in 3D is just limiting the topic to suit your argument.
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.
There are few isolated moments where this applies. I noticed it in Alice in Wonderland where some artifacts were “too close” to the screen and it disoriented, however I have yet to experience something that suggests that all depths of field be in sharp focus. Even those “too close” moments the foreground was out of focus as well as the deep background.
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.
If you fall into this demographic of people who have conditions that do not adapt well to the technology… go see it in 2D. See. Not an issue.
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Never noticed this at all. While he has scientific quotes and terminology to back it up, this has never been my experience with the new technology of 3D films. This is grasping.
6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
Again, this has little to do with my movie going experience. That theaters have to upgrade their technology to keep up with the current trends is irrelevant to why 3D is something to hate. They already have inflated prices at the theater that we have been sucking it up while moaning the whole time. I am sure improvement and maintenance costs are included in their ticket prices, and we will pay them anyways.
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D.
And going to the theater is extortion for wanting to see it on the big screen in a theater setting. The $20 Bluray and my very impressive home theater system is still a more cost effective way of viewing a film, but we still race out to see the movie for the experience knowing it will cost me $15 a head to get in. We pay for that experience, so why is it unreasonable to not surcharge for a different experience, especially when it costs them more to present it (Glasses, projectors etc). And again… if you don’t agree with the surcharge, see it in 2D. Done.
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
This is the ONLY point I can fully agree with on his list. Some films just don’t need to be made into 3D. That being said, not all films are. Visual effects films and animation draw in part on their visuals as part of the appeal, and to apply this technique to dramas or any film that would not benefit from stunning visuals are not improved by adding 3D.
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.
And this last excuse he gives to hate 3D is also a non-issue for me. All the improvements to Home Theater technology have been to keep up with the Theater experience. Yes, Theaters adapt to thrive in a changing marketplace. All businesses do. It inspires what we don’t have at home and is the basis of our greedy economy. Always leave them wanting more. Its just the source of our evolution of technology.
One day, like the classic arcades that ate up allowances and quarters by the dozen our technology at home improves. And maybe one day there will not be a theater to go to, and movies will be made available to watch in the comfort of our own homes with reasonable priced snacks at the ready. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, as theaters are always trying to stay a step ahead.
Overall
My opinion on 3D is that it is NOT a gimmick. It is a technique. Just like animation and special effects improve the experience of a film’s consuming belivability. I feel this is just another tool in the filmmaker’s box that can add to the film. I do however agree to some extent that the effect is sometimes being abused. Some films are being converted to 3D FOR gimmick, and that abuses the technique. They used CG to make the new Freddy Krueger look a bit more gruesome, but when it came down to it the film would not have benefitted by a 3D conversion.
The bigger statement challenged here is that Ebert says “Why I hate 3D and Why you should too” and to address that, I dont agree with many of the reasons that he hates 3D, and I find many of them to be vague grasping that seems beneath such a respected member of the movie industry media.
Furthermore. I would never tell you that you have to hate it too. While some have formed the opinion against the use of 3D, you still have the choice to see it in traditional presentations. No one is MAKING you see it. If you live somewhere remote where they don’t give you the option, its not an attack on you personally. Its just poor circumstances.
The strongest offense I get from all of Ebert’s rambling here is that he wants you to hate it too, and as much as I like to share my opinion, I don’t get to tell you yours. That’s not his call.
Ebert can sit on his front porch and tell you whippersnappers to stay off his lawn.
