Ebert says the debate is over, 3D lost (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Sun]

Well, don't dismiss such undertakings, many people turn on the subtitles in English (for English-speaking movies) in their home theaters because either they have hearing issues, or sometimes can't understand the accent being spoken (might as well be a foreign language, I guess). They are still forced to engage their subtitle-reading skill for even native language films.

If you don't get entertainment value with 3D films, look for a 2D version or skip the film altogether if it's only in 3D at the moment (or wait until 2D DVD/BD later). I just find it a stretch for people who just don't enjoy 3D in its current form to place a lot of the blame on "extra" brain-processing that is required for 3D viewings. I fully acknowledge that not everyone can "see" 3D properly, just like people can't quite see the object within a green/red pattern, or the eye-crossing tricks to see other kinds of neat optical illusions. Sucks to be them, but them's the breaks.


When 3D films are done right, I enjoy the extra immersive environment that I'm seeing and visually experiencing, it's something worthwhile to my entertainment scale, so I will consume such viewings. If 3D viewings give you a headache or no added value, then avoid them. Sounds pretty simple. I just can't abide by people outright dismissing such just because they can't grok it enough to be entertained like others who do enjoy the 3D viewing experience in its current form.


Personally, I get nauseous when I tried playing the first-person-shooter video games in the 80s and 90s (the ones with movements via strafing/etcs, like in Wolfenstein, I know I'm really outdating myself with such examples), and guess what, I just don't play them. Problem solved. I didn't expect the video game industry to cater to me not being able to enjoy FPS-style video games. BTW, I have checked out the 3D videogaming from Sony, and it's pretty neat, though I doubt I'll do much of that sort of thing in the future.

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

Ebert is right. This new 3-D craze is a bust.

 

[SilverWook]

The fat lady hasn't sung quite yet. Wake me when they actually stop making and releasing 3-D films, not before.

 

[Thomas Newton]

I thought 3D worked pretty well for Despicable Me. Three scenes stood out:


1. The rollercoaster scene, where 3D greatly enhanced the feeling of being on a rollercoaster (although, thankfully, not to the "this ride is going to dash me into the ground and kill me" extent).


2. The spaceship "landing" (where the 3D did seem like a gimmick).


3. The credits, where the Minions mocked just about every 3D film that tried to compete on how far into the audience it could stick an object. (Wait for the umpire Minion to get upset with the others, and launch himself THROUGH the filmstrip with the aid of a cannon.)

 

[Henry Gale]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun /forum/thread/308215/ebert-says-the-debate-is-over-3d-lost#post_3776474

 

[Aaron Silverman]

How's that 2.0:1 "Univisium" AR workin' for ya, Henry?

 

[Dennis Castro]

Weren't "talkies" considered to be a fad? I remember reading somewhere about how people thought it didn't even make sense to have talking in a film. That it was just a "gimmick" and it wouldn't last.

 

[JohnRice]

Yes, Ebert is over the top in his reaction, but did anyone here actually read and comprehend what the fundamental problem is? This was an informative article because I never knew why 3D movies cause eyestrain. They require your eyes to focus and converge at different points. It is a valid problem. There is no other situation in life where this happens. The whole "gimmick" issue is a completely different argument. And it has absolutely zero correlation to reading subtitles. That is something you can learn to be comfortable with. They do not require you to focus and converge at different points.


It is completely subconscious that when your eyes converge to an object at 5 feet, they also focus at 5 feet, not at an entirely different distance.

 

[Sam Posten]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/3/14/

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

Yes, Ebert is over the top in his reaction, but did anyone here actually read and comprehend what the fundamental problem is? This was an informative article because I never knew why 3D movies cause eyestrain. They require your eyes to focus and converge at different points. It is a valid problem. There is no other situation in life where this happens. The whole "gimmick" issue is a completely different argument. And it has absolutely zero correlation to reading subtitles. That is something you can learn to be comfortable with. They do not require you to focus and converge at different points.


It is completely subconscious that when your eyes converge to an object at 5 feet, they also focus at 5 feet, not at an entirely different distance.

The problem 3D does have with subtitles is that, in non-English speaking countries that don't dub their movies, but subtitle them, the subtitles are on a separate "layer" of the image. So in a movie theater, where you obviously can't turn off the subtitles like you can at home, the subs come at you in 3D. It's incredibly annoying, especially when you don't want to focus on them.