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.)
There was a cinema in Moscow in the mid-1930s which showed 3-D films without glasses. The images were bounced off thin wires to reach the left and right eyes separately. We have come a long way since then in recording the images but nowhere at all in displaying them.
Pictures went motion, then they went color, then widescreen, then HD, now 3D... its a natural progression of technology.
The very first 3D movies may not have implemented the technology perfectly just like the off-colors on the first color films, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the way forward.
Two forward facing eyes with depth perception is one of the defining characteristics of being a human and is the way we are designed to experience the world. Give me 3D.
I have to say - I ain't with it, either. It is fun enough for the occasional slasher flick or whatnot to don the glasses... But I ain't rushing out to replace my TV and monitor so I can see the toothbrush come through the TV while colgate tells me how many dentists out of 10 think I should use it.
we watched Titans in 3D a few days back. It was poor quality, the 3D effect was neglegable. The sound was far too loud (probably almost damaging to my ears) The film was absolute crap and the ticket price was far more than I ever intend to pay again. Its a bloody scandal to charge for those rubbish 3D glasses every time and this concept of surcharges for this, that and the other is taking the piss.
Not only that, the popcorn was a rip-off (as ever), the coke more expensive than malt whisky and the cinema staff where unfriendly.
That was the last time we will be going to the cinema for a while, there are better things to waste money on.
If the film industry wants to tackle piracy , they should start getting their act together. They just lost 4 long time customers, probably forever.
if I recall that right, this statement comes from a man who once wrote something like this about Toy Story "they even went so far as to make all the reflections look right"... I hope his technological insight has grown since then :)
I read in an interview that Martin Scorsese also wanted more focus on higher framerate rather than all these gimmicky effects. The framerate in today's movies is really sad, and it's really too bad that all that motion is being reduced to a blur in every movie.
A> The guy previous who said that anti-3D people probably are anti-HD, etc, is an idiot who has no clue
B> Anyone who believes that 3D is the future of everything is a complete tool who just wants to support something so they can be a fanboy of something too.
c> Most of you 3D supporters are still too stupid to understand the difference between '3D effect' and real 3D... real 3D is what you all want and are fooled into thinking you will eventually have. Keep dreaming.
You are the idiot. Try the TVs out. The effect is amazing, and if you can't find it enjoyable, it's because you're stupid.
Ebert's been a hack for ages. He has no idea what he's talking about, and never did. He can't make good movies because he has no idea what that would be. He just moans a lot.
I agree that some of Ebert's complaints (e.g., not adding anything to the experience) aren't really valid, but I also think that 3D is a little overrated. 3D movies are fun to watch, but that's partly because they're special- most movies I see aren't 3D. Having the glasses, and the occasional weird, unintended 3D effects that don't look quite right take away from the experience. To make up for those problems, I think you need to be in a case where 3D really does end up adding something significant to the experience. I don't think 3D is ever going to be useful for dramas, for instance. And I'm definitely not interested in wearing 3D glasses as I'm watching a game with friends at home. And I also think that to do a 3D movie properly you have to film it with 3D in mind. You have to do things that maybe you wouldn't ordinarily do, but you know that it it will look kind of cool in 3D. That has the potential to make the movie sort of gimmicky if it isn't done just right.
my wife and I popped into Compusa this weekend and they had a 55" Sammy playing Monsters Vs Aliens in 3d with 2 pairs of demo glasses. It was STUNNING. To be fair, we couldn't stand there for an hour to see how the glasses felt but the 3d was clear, bright, and amazing.
I actually started watching Avatar at home yesterday and I was amazed at how much better the movie seemed without 3D. I guess I just found the 3D distracting so it kinda ruined the experience for me
that pirana (spelling) thing is an old cliché in the movie industry. I guess the so-called 3D application must be seen as a plus in the studios arsenal. But this will never change anything to bad filming, bad acting, bad screenwriting and bad script ideas. This 'advanced' technology subject is a false concern which hides a deep disillusion in the film industry. I may be wrong but sports do not define filming qualities, it depicts athletes at work. The real mastery comes from the artistic POV -- point of view -- and if the cameraman doesn't have an artistic eye or an decent artistic director, forget technology, for the result would always be like carbonizing a sloppy burger on, say... a Thermador grill at the Ritz Carlton in Cannes. Anyone seen my medication bottle?
Ebert is talking about the use for serious films, not entertainment (theme park ride) films. In that respect, I'd agree with him. Saying 3D vs 2D is the same as color vs. black and white is like saying adding smell to movies, released through vents or whatever, would add to the art. Or how about classical paintings done in 3D where you have to bring 3D glasses to the gallery. Or little buttons on books every 10 pages that play a musical score having to do with the drama you're reading. Its just extraneous to the medium, and so is tacky.
my 2 cents: 3d conversions are an abomination. They are a waste of Millions and a slap in the face to movie goers who think they are going to see a native 3d movie, but instead get Clash of the Titans. 3d conversions will KILL 3d. Please STOP them. As a fan of the show, I feel insulted that they are doing a last minute rush job conversion on The Last Airbender. I want this movie to succeed, but a 3d conversion is going to HURT ticket sales and public opinion, not help. NO ONE really wants to watch a conversion.
3d is NOT for every movie. NO ONE wants to see The Notebook or Terms of Endearment in 3d (okay, who wants to see those, period?) And not every action/cg/scifi movie should be 3d either. A movie should only be in 3d if it is created with 3d in mind. You have to think about what your doing with 3d, you cant just stick 3d cameras out there and then direct it like any other movie. think of 3d like black and white. You ONLY do b&w today if the film calls for it, you need to take special consideration for it and have it intended in mind from the beginning.
I think both 3D and higher framerates should be addressed. I think that it's high time that 24 frames per second be treated like it is -- a problem. The human eye(and brain) can perceive more than that and film technology(I believe) has surpassed the prior limitations it once had.
And 3D, well that's just cool. It is, after all, how we perceive things in real life.
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
There was a cinema in Moscow in the mid-1930s which showed 3-D films without glasses. The images were bounced off thin wires to reach the left and right eyes separately. We have come a long way since then in recording the images but nowhere at all in displaying them.
@peterjohndean
In Soviet Russia, films 3D you!
Pictures went motion, then they went color, then widescreen, then HD, now 3D... its a natural progression of technology.
The very first 3D movies may not have implemented the technology perfectly just like the off-colors on the first color films, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the way forward.
Two forward facing eyes with depth perception is one of the defining characteristics of being a human and is the way we are designed to experience the world. Give me 3D.
@Ducman69 I mean evolved. Forgive me Raptor Jesus.
Did anyone see Piranha 2: The Spawning?
It was directed by James Cameron himself.
I have to say - I ain't with it, either.
It is fun enough for the occasional slasher flick or whatnot to don the glasses...
But I ain't rushing out to replace my TV and monitor so I can see the toothbrush come through the TV while colgate tells me how many dentists out of 10 think I should use it.
Wake me when the holograms ship.
we watched Titans in 3D a few days back.
It was poor quality, the 3D effect was neglegable. The sound was far too loud (probably almost damaging to my ears)
The film was absolute crap and the ticket price was far more than I ever intend to pay again.
Its a bloody scandal to charge for those rubbish 3D glasses every time and this concept of surcharges for this, that and the other is taking the piss.
Not only that, the popcorn was a rip-off (as ever), the coke more expensive than malt whisky and the cinema staff where unfriendly.
That was the last time we will be going to the cinema for a while, there are better things to waste money on.
If the film industry wants to tackle piracy , they should start getting their act together. They just lost 4 long time customers, probably forever.
if I recall that right, this statement comes from a man who once wrote something like this about Toy Story "they even went so far as to make all the reflections look right"... I hope his technological insight has grown since then :)
I read in an interview that Martin Scorsese also wanted more focus on higher framerate rather than all these gimmicky effects. The framerate in today's movies is really sad, and it's really too bad that all that motion is being reduced to a blur in every movie.
I don't enjoy watching a movie while wearing sunglasses Over top of my regular glasses
A> The guy previous who said that anti-3D people probably are anti-HD, etc, is an idiot who has no clue
B> Anyone who believes that 3D is the future of everything is a complete tool who just wants to support something so they can be a fanboy of something too.
c> Most of you 3D supporters are still too stupid to understand the difference between '3D effect' and real 3D... real 3D is what you all want and are fooled into thinking you will eventually have. Keep dreaming.
@Hate Everything
You are the idiot. Try the TVs out. The effect is amazing, and if you can't find it enjoyable, it's because you're stupid.
Ebert's been a hack for ages. He has no idea what he's talking about, and never did. He can't make good movies because he has no idea what that would be. He just moans a lot.
Like anything else in film, it's optional.
I agree that some of Ebert's complaints (e.g., not adding anything to the experience) aren't really valid, but I also think that 3D is a little overrated. 3D movies are fun to watch, but that's partly because they're special- most movies I see aren't 3D. Having the glasses, and the occasional weird, unintended 3D effects that don't look quite right take away from the experience. To make up for those problems, I think you need to be in a case where 3D really does end up adding something significant to the experience. I don't think 3D is ever going to be useful for dramas, for instance. And I'm definitely not interested in wearing 3D glasses as I'm watching a game with friends at home. And I also think that to do a 3D movie properly you have to film it with 3D in mind. You have to do things that maybe you wouldn't ordinarily do, but you know that it it will look kind of cool in 3D. That has the potential to make the movie sort of gimmicky if it isn't done just right.
my wife and I popped into Compusa this weekend and they had a 55" Sammy playing Monsters Vs Aliens in 3d with 2 pairs of demo glasses. It was STUNNING. To be fair, we couldn't stand there for an hour to see how the glasses felt but the 3d was clear, bright, and amazing.
I actually started watching Avatar at home yesterday and I was amazed at how much better the movie seemed without 3D. I guess I just found the 3D distracting so it kinda ruined the experience for me
GET THESE MTHR FKIN FISH OUT MY MTHR FKIN LAKE!
There is nothing new about 3D. This forum has highlighted the issues associated to the failings of 3D which are plentiful.
that pirana (spelling) thing is an old cliché in the movie industry. I guess the so-called 3D application must be seen as a plus in the studios arsenal. But this will never change anything to bad filming, bad acting, bad screenwriting and bad script ideas.
This 'advanced' technology subject is a false concern which hides a deep disillusion in the film industry.
I may be wrong but sports do not define filming qualities, it depicts athletes at work.
The real mastery comes from the artistic POV -- point of view -- and if the cameraman doesn't have an artistic eye or an decent artistic director, forget technology, for the result would always be like carbonizing a sloppy burger on, say... a Thermador grill at the Ritz Carlton in Cannes.
Anyone seen my medication bottle?
Ebert is talking about the use for serious films, not entertainment (theme park ride) films. In that respect, I'd agree with him. Saying 3D vs 2D is the same as color vs. black and white is like saying adding smell to movies, released through vents or whatever, would add to the art. Or how about classical paintings done in 3D where you have to bring 3D glasses to the gallery. Or little buttons on books every 10 pages that play a musical score having to do with the drama you're reading. Its just extraneous to the medium, and so is tacky.
I skipped the entire article and just looked for a link to Roger Ebert's "Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)". Sounded interesting.
Who cares what he has to say! Is Ebert even relevant anymore? .... No!
my 2 cents:
3d conversions are an abomination. They are a waste of Millions and a slap in the face to movie goers who think they are going to see a native 3d movie, but instead get Clash of the Titans. 3d conversions will KILL 3d. Please STOP them. As a fan of the show, I feel insulted that they are doing a last minute rush job conversion on The Last Airbender. I want this movie to succeed, but a 3d conversion is going to HURT ticket sales and public opinion, not help. NO ONE really wants to watch a conversion.
3d is NOT for every movie. NO ONE wants to see The Notebook or Terms of Endearment in 3d (okay, who wants to see those, period?) And not every action/cg/scifi movie should be 3d either. A movie should only be in 3d if it is created with 3d in mind. You have to think about what your doing with 3d, you cant just stick 3d cameras out there and then direct it like any other movie. think of 3d like black and white. You ONLY do b&w today if the film calls for it, you need to take special consideration for it and have it intended in mind from the beginning.
'Do you believe in COD?' 3D The Movie... Unmissable!
I think both 3D and higher framerates should be addressed. I think that it's high time that 24 frames per second be treated like it is -- a problem. The human eye(and brain) can perceive more than that and film technology(I believe) has surpassed the prior limitations it once had.
And 3D, well that's just cool. It is, after all, how we perceive things in real life.
FINALY a guy who can say's what we all feel about this 3d HYPE!.
Forget it and give us higer resolution I WANT 4K!!!