Apparently in need of something to take his mind off of the "are games art?" debate, film critic Roger Ebert has published "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)" in Newsweek. While standing up to "the biz side of show business," that only wants to see 3D succeed in order to sell new projectors and increase ticket surcharges, he instead suggests moviemakers focus on higher framerate solutions that would... require new technology and increase ticket surcharges. His often-contradictory nine points aside, the key to the success or failure of 3D will obviously be whether or not audiences think the difference is consistently worth the money, no matter what anyone says about it -- or how awesome it makes sports look. Until then, the choice of formats and how to make use of them is a decision best left to directors, like the 3D projects he mentions are currently under way from Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog. Besides, the creative future of Hollywood is in great hands, just check out the trailer for Piranha 3D (embedded after the break.)
@Stevenk Color is so superfluous and contributes nothing to the movie-viewing experience. It's just a way to tack on a few extra dollars to the ticket price.
HD contributes nothing...
You could theoretically do this for every advancement in film technology. It's still young, I think we'll be impressed with 3D very soon.
3D should have waited until we had the right technology (no glasses, better viewing angles). Higher framerates are quite important to making video feel more natural -- I was playing with a 120fps webcam the other day, and the difference was astounding!
@Dissident I'm not so sure 3D adds as much as color did. 3d takes a lot of focus away. It can also create headaches in a lot of people, especially if they attempt to view more than just the things flying out at them. There are improvements to be made. But right now, for most movies, I'd rather a normal movie than a 3D one.
the effects are cool but the glasses block way too much light.. reducing the fidelity of the color...offsetting much of the benefit of the effects. I'd rather watch the normal version in most circumstances.
@Greg7388 I agree, I'm not a fan of 3d movies because they just give me a bad headache and for some reason makes my left eye water. Because of that I noticed during a good portion of Clash of the Titans 3D that it was mostly 2D, was able to watch portions of it without the glasses on, made me wonder why I bothered paying extra.
@Greg7388 totally agree, 3d glasses add a greyspectrum to the original colors that aren't there normally.. it like looking the world with sunglasses. I definitly hate the glasses that don't cover your whole vision and makes you having an headache each movie that are more than 1hour long... 3D is great when you talk about interface and new way of interacting with technology... but for movies? it does nothing more than distract you from the storyline and that probably why a 3D made movie can be totally crap when it turns on the story. Like Roger Ebert I hate 3D, but only when it is about movies, I think it can be interesting in a game or things like interfaces but that's all.
@Greg7388 I agree, it's not ready yet. But telling your audience to hate it is pretty extreme in my opinion. Let it mature, let the early adopters hash out the good from the bad; don't just write it off because its still taking baby steps.
For that matter, moving pictures are superfluous. What happened to the good old days of books with photographs. And don't even get me started about the talkies
The problem with 3D isn't the technology (though that will be improved). The problem is the same as with any new effect: filmakers depend on them to bring asses to seats and forget that a movie needs a story and characters that work for the audience. Remember the early CGI movies that came out? They looked pretty at the time but it wasn't until something like Terminator 2 came out where the CGI was just a compliment to the movie, not it's soul purpose for being.
It always comes back to making a good story with interesting characters. Once filmakers remember that, we should start seeing movies that use the technology to compliment the story, rather than be the story as is now the case with 3D.
3D is lame, why? It does nothing for story telling. Colour does, music does, well used special effects do. HD hmmm not really. 3D could in another 2 or 3 generations of it.
Avatar's story, it's emotive content, has as much impact in 2 or 3D. I've observed and questioned people on the issue.
For 3D to be as colour or sound or good effects in aiding story telling it needs to respond to head movement and focal length. Without that it's a gimmick as it always was.
Eg: a mystery film using 3D and the viewer focuses on a tabletop where a clue is that would otherwise be out of focus. Or looking behind something by moving your head to see what otherwise is hidden.
@Stevenk 3D movies make my family and me sick to our stomachs. Honestly, I see it to be nothing more than a gimmick. It's absolutely useless. People compare it to HD and surround sound, but I honestly think there is no comparison in those technologies. I enjoy being able to see and hear what I watch in more detail. 3D is just superfluous.
@shogunmaster I've felt that Pixar nailed this part. While they are a high-tech company, they've always said they maintained the priority of putting a good story first. They didn't hire computer animators, they hired animators and taught them how to use the computer software, talent before technology. I was at a presentation they did at the NAB expo, they discussed how they set the "apparent depth" to complement the intended mood of the scene, much like what filmmakers already do with lighting, colors, framing, pacing, textures and anything else.
I think 3D may well be here to stay, I'd like to see better display technologies for the home, and it really has to be shot in 3D or left in 2D. The cost isn't going to be a big deal in the long run. In the short term, yes, it's expensive, but HDTVs used to be about 10x more expensive a decade ago, cost usually goes down with time.
I hope it doesn't catch on. When I went to go Avatar, I was greatly disappointed with 3-D. It was View-Master quality at best. Most of the time it was blurry and I couldn't really tell what was going on too well. Maybe that's because 3-D is new, studios have only been dabbling in it for 95 years. Or maybe I just can't view movies in 3-D. Either way, I'm not enticed to go see another.
I had another problem when I went to see Avatar as well: glare! Despite wearing polarized glasses, I was almost overwhelmingly distracted by it. That WILL need to be fixed beore I pay extra to give 3-D another chance.
@Hef Buy contacts. If that's not feasible, then wear bigger 3D glasses.
The solutions aren't elegant or practical, but that's all we're stuck with for now. The glasses-over-glasses thing gives me a headache, so I have to put my contacts on every time I go watch a 3D movie. It's seldom ever worth it.
Indeed, I wore the glasses over my prescription glasses and didn't have too much issue. Of course it may have been slightly more annoying than to the person next to me without script glasses, but it wasn't really a bother.
And after rewatching Avatar on Bluray, I really missed the experience of it in 3D which was really was amazing. So immersive that it changes the movie watching experience.
I don't agree. I enjoy 3D, when done correctly. And understand that of the handful of movies that have come out, I've seen maybe 2 do it correctly. Its a new art form that directors need to learn where to put it and where not to put it. How to make it impact a movie and not simply be filler. Avatar's 3D was NOT filler. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was also not filler. Titans wasn't filler either. It was pure crap. Monsters 3D was on the edge. Alice....haven't seen it. Don't know. the people who are raging against 3D are probably the same people would would rage against surround sound. rage against high def TV, rage against blu-ray or HDDVD, or pretty much rage against anything that isn't the status quo. This is new. Learn that its going to take directors and studios time to figure out how to use it. Until then its purely a gimmick to draw in people. And also understand that exceptional directors on the 2d medium may not be able to do 3D in a way that doesn't blow. tarantino, spielberg, Scott, may all suck at 3D. But there may be a no name director that has the knack for doing it. This could open up a whole new world for no name directors.
@John Doe "Its a new art form that directors need to learn where to put it and where not to put it." Sorry John, but you should do a little homework. This done by the master film maker himself.
I think Roger Ebert has been on the crazy train for about 3 years now. I dunno what meds he is on, but they are causing him to have some wacky pontifications and movie critiques.
@jupigare Thanks, I got that. I still think there is no need to post the trailer, it just encourages the sort of media most of us hope never comes out.
@farsideoff I put it in there just to make light of the situation. There are crappy/awesome movies in 2D & 3D, and Piranha 3D appears to be pretty crappy, and possibly a little awesome, I mean c'mon, Christopher Lloyd.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
posted May 2nd 2010 8:58PM
I'd have to agree
@Stevenk Yeah 3D is kind of a distraction. It draws attention to itself, which spoils the whole film effect.
@Stevenk
Color is so superfluous and contributes nothing to the movie-viewing experience. It's just a way to tack on a few extra dollars to the ticket price.
HD contributes nothing...
You could theoretically do this for every advancement in film technology. It's still young, I think we'll be impressed with 3D very soon.
@Dissident It's very superficial.
@Stevenk
3D should have waited until we had the right technology (no glasses, better viewing angles). Higher framerates are quite important to making video feel more natural -- I was playing with a 120fps webcam the other day, and the difference was astounding!
@Dissident I'm not so sure 3D adds as much as color did. 3d takes a lot of focus away. It can also create headaches in a lot of people, especially if they attempt to view more than just the things flying out at them.
There are improvements to be made. But right now, for most movies, I'd rather a normal movie than a 3D one.
the effects are cool but the glasses block way too much light.. reducing the fidelity of the color...offsetting much of the benefit of the effects. I'd rather watch the normal version in most circumstances.
@Greg7388
I agree, I'm not a fan of 3d movies because they just give me a bad headache and for some reason makes my left eye water. Because of that I noticed during a good portion of Clash of the Titans 3D that it was mostly 2D, was able to watch portions of it without the glasses on, made me wonder why I bothered paying extra.
It just stresses out my eyes while I try to pay attention to the movie.
@Greg7388 totally agree, 3d glasses add a greyspectrum to the original colors that aren't there normally.. it like looking the world with sunglasses. I definitly hate the glasses that don't cover your whole vision and makes you having an headache each movie that are more than 1hour long... 3D is great when you talk about interface and new way of interacting with technology... but for movies? it does nothing more than distract you from the storyline and that probably why a 3D made movie can be totally crap when it turns on the story. Like Roger Ebert I hate 3D, but only when it is about movies, I think it can be interesting in a game or things like interfaces but that's all.
@Greg7388
I agree, it's not ready yet. But telling your audience to hate it is pretty extreme in my opinion. Let it mature, let the early adopters hash out the good from the bad; don't just write it off because its still taking baby steps.
@Dissident
For that matter, moving pictures are superfluous. What happened to the good old days of books with photographs. And don't even get me started about the talkies
@TheStatelyOne
The problem with 3D isn't the technology (though that will be improved). The problem is the same as with any new effect: filmakers depend on them to bring asses to seats and forget that a movie needs a story and characters that work for the audience. Remember the early CGI movies that came out? They looked pretty at the time but it wasn't until something like Terminator 2 came out where the CGI was just a compliment to the movie, not it's soul purpose for being.
It always comes back to making a good story with interesting characters. Once filmakers remember that, we should start seeing movies that use the technology to compliment the story, rather than be the story as is now the case with 3D.
@Stevenk
Personally I find the flicker of 24FPS annoying.
@Dissident
That's as poor an arguement as any I've read.
3D is lame, why? It does nothing for story telling. Colour does, music does, well used special effects do. HD hmmm not really. 3D could in another 2 or 3 generations of it.
Avatar's story, it's emotive content, has as much impact in 2 or 3D. I've observed and questioned people on the issue.
For 3D to be as colour or sound or good effects in aiding story telling it needs to respond to head movement and focal length. Without that it's a gimmick as it always was.
Eg: a mystery film using 3D and the viewer focuses on a tabletop where a clue is that would otherwise be out of focus. Or looking behind something by moving your head to see what otherwise is hidden.
@Stevenk 3D movies make my family and me sick to our stomachs. Honestly, I see it to be nothing more than a gimmick. It's absolutely useless. People compare it to HD and surround sound, but I honestly think there is no comparison in those technologies. I enjoy being able to see and hear what I watch in more detail. 3D is just superfluous.
@shogunmaster I've felt that Pixar nailed this part. While they are a high-tech company, they've always said they maintained the priority of putting a good story first. They didn't hire computer animators, they hired animators and taught them how to use the computer software, talent before technology. I was at a presentation they did at the NAB expo, they discussed how they set the "apparent depth" to complement the intended mood of the scene, much like what filmmakers already do with lighting, colors, framing, pacing, textures and anything else.
I think 3D may well be here to stay, I'd like to see better display technologies for the home, and it really has to be shot in 3D or left in 2D. The cost isn't going to be a big deal in the long run. In the short term, yes, it's expensive, but HDTVs used to be about 10x more expensive a decade ago, cost usually goes down with time.
@JOBN Just wait until this robert eat his words when the next avatar arrives on 2012. http://j.mp/avatar-2-coming-soon
@Stevenk
I agree completely!
@KarlW
i agree, its also bad that some films just completely rely upon 3D as their main selling point and have an awful storyline (avatar for example)
also, piranha looks amazing XD
@Dissident
I hope it doesn't catch on. When I went to go Avatar, I was greatly disappointed with 3-D. It was View-Master quality at best. Most of the time it was blurry and I couldn't really tell what was going on too well. Maybe that's because 3-D is new, studios have only been dabbling in it for 95 years. Or maybe I just can't view movies in 3-D. Either way, I'm not enticed to go see another.
I had another problem when I went to see Avatar as well: glare! Despite wearing polarized glasses, I was almost overwhelmingly distracted by it. That WILL need to be fixed beore I pay extra to give 3-D another chance.
Die 3D Die
@ECH
German for "The 3D, The"?
@ECH
Nobody who speaks German could be an evil man.
Release the Kracken!!
@Edobe
WIN!!!!!!!
@Edobe
I'm here.
@Edobe
You forgot to unnecessarily clear the room first.
I remember the original Piranha. I was just a kid. Man that *really* gave me bad nightmares......... *runs for the preverbial hills*
blah blah 3d blah.
how am i supposed to wear glasses over my glasses eh?
@Hef
Buy contacts. If that's not feasible, then wear bigger 3D glasses.
The solutions aren't elegant or practical, but that's all we're stuck with for now. The glasses-over-glasses thing gives me a headache, so I have to put my contacts on every time I go watch a 3D movie. It's seldom ever worth it.
@Hef
The cheapo $3 3D glasses given for Avatar fit over my glasses perfectly.
@APV
Indeed, I wore the glasses over my prescription glasses and didn't have too much issue. Of course it may have been slightly more annoying than to the person next to me without script glasses, but it wasn't really a bother.
And after rewatching Avatar on Bluray, I really missed the experience of it in 3D which was really was amazing. So immersive that it changes the movie watching experience.
I don't agree. I enjoy 3D, when done correctly. And understand that of the handful of movies that have come out, I've seen maybe 2 do it correctly. Its a new art form that directors need to learn where to put it and where not to put it. How to make it impact a movie and not simply be filler. Avatar's 3D was NOT filler. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was also not filler. Titans wasn't filler either. It was pure crap. Monsters 3D was on the edge. Alice....haven't seen it. Don't know.
the people who are raging against 3D are probably the same people would would rage against surround sound. rage against high def TV, rage against blu-ray or HDDVD, or pretty much rage against anything that isn't the status quo. This is new. Learn that its going to take directors and studios time to figure out how to use it. Until then its purely a gimmick to draw in people. And also understand that exceptional directors on the 2d medium may not be able to do 3D in a way that doesn't blow. tarantino, spielberg, Scott, may all suck at 3D. But there may be a no name director that has the knack for doing it. This could open up a whole new world for no name directors.
@John Doe "Its a new art form that directors need to learn where to put it and where not to put it." Sorry John, but you should do a little homework. This done by the master film maker himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6N5gXr784Y
Same garbage you see today but fun to watch in context with today's attempts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYYgd6vker0&feature=related
And lets not forget one of the biggest selling all time 3-D movies....LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N25u6YZhHgE
This is just a small sample. I'm only allowed to attach 3 urls. Enjoy
3D supporters are idiots.
yeah Im not sold on 3D in this incarnation.
I think this 3D craze will only last a year or the hardware price will go down greatly before people really commit to this.
3D scum
@Lord Vader You should see spaceballs in 3d you might change your mind
@LordDarkHelmet. And just how do you expect me to put on the glasses? 3D has failed me for the last time
@Lord Vader You can always take your helmet off, oh wait don't...don't want to scare the ladies do we?...
@Lord Vader
You could always have the lenses molded into your helmet. Have a little flip down switch.
@Geoff900 well the kind of women he wants to attract.. will most likely fall for all his jedi mind tricks HOLLA
I think Roger Ebert has been on the crazy train for about 3 years now. I dunno what meds he is on, but they are causing him to have some wacky pontifications and movie critiques.
FIRST!... awh fu...
Besides, the creative future of Hollywood is in great hands, just check out the trailer for Piranha 3D (embedded after the break.)
_ _ _ _
what creative advertising, how much are you getting paid for that little plug? And if you aren't, why are you promoting such shit?
@farsideoff
It's called sarcasm. Engadget uses it a lot when talking about not-so-good products. See: Crapgadget.
@jupigare Thanks, I got that. I still think there is no need to post the trailer, it just encourages the sort of media most of us hope never comes out.
@farsideoff I put it in there just to make light of the situation. There are crappy/awesome movies in 2D & 3D, and Piranha 3D appears to be pretty crappy, and possibly a little awesome, I mean c'mon, Christopher Lloyd.