Ebert says the debate is over, 3D lost

Bah, vote with your dollars. 

If you like 3D movies, go and enjoy them. 

If you don't like 3D, either seek out the 2D version, or if there's no 2D option, at least take a quick moment to let your nearby theatre know that you would have watched the 2D version at their theater, but since it's being offered in 3D, you're passing on the movie.

The column is a screed on the technical limitations of "3D". I don't see it making a case either for or against consumer adoption of "3D". There was a thread started earlier in the Hi Def forums about Ebert's column. 

I still recall Ebert's psuedo-scientific argument against digital projection. No surprise he's not a 3D fan.

Most of that essay came across as pointless to me. First, I was somewhat lost by a sound engineer arguing visual science; didn't seem the right expert for the case.

And then the first half is filled with handwavium pseudoscience:

"Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image"

"something to do with the amount of brain power"

Then there's an explanation of the focus-convergence problem that about makes the case against movies as a whole: looking at the illustrations of the salt shaker and mountain vista, I found that I was having a hard time processing the image. The in focus aspect forces me to look at it, so I can't see the out of focus part. And when I deliberately gaze on the out-of-focus portion, it makes my eyes swim because I want to focus, and I can't.

600 Million Years of evolution did not prepare Neandertal Man to deal with intentionally blurred images.

Ah yes, then it truly goes out to lunch with pop-science nonsense about how we're evolved to not watch 3D movies. Oddly, he doesn't consider that man also did not evolve to look at a 40-foot screen about 30 feet away an perceive 10,000-feet tall mountains 20 miles away. Nor did we evolve to watch the world in Black and White. But somehow we've had a century of such unnatural artistry.

I'm also pretty sure that hunting the Savannah didn't prepare us to view each other as oddly colored, mis-shapen polyhedrons, but Ebert doesn't rail against Picasso's offense to evolution.

Yes, some people get headaches watching 3D movies. That's unfortunate. But 3D filmmakers seem to be getting better at mitigating those problems. Maybe it's a fad, maybe not. For the rest of us who can enjoy 3D, I hope it sticks around; it's quite fun. 

So why does Ebert have to view this not as a personal preference--, but as an offense to nature and perversion of humanity? For someone who rails against fundamentalist dogma, Ebert gets awfully fundamentalist-dogmatic about 3D.

First, he's right, it's a gimmick 

Second, so what, sometimes I want gimmicks.  Gimmicks can be fun, they might be why I go.. I mean, I went to go see "Jurassic Park" for the gimmick of seeing "the most realistic looking dinosaurs ever!"   In fact, a lot of popcorn films depend on a gimmick.

Third, there will be completely crap 3D films, and some good ones.

Fourth, I will pay to watch good ones, I will pass on otherwise.  

The only part I 100% agree with is that "converting" a movie that was designed to be in regular film to 3D is a sham, and should not happen.   It screws up the work of set designers, DP's and others who put their heart into making an outstanding product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR 

First, he's right, it's a gimmick

Have you seen Coraline? That wasn't a gimmick, that was a wholly integrated aspect of the movie's art, just as its color, sound, and character design.

3D is a "gimmick" the way "motion picture" is a gimmick (or "color" or "talkies" or any other aspect of this technological artform).

To be fair, Walter's a sound engineer and a film editor (Ebert claims "the most respected...in modern cinema" but I wouldn't know about that). So I do think he knows a bit about of what he speaks (or writes, in this case).

As someone who does suffer occasionally from headaches while watching 3D (or if I don't develop one I have trouble focusing sometimes and watching 3D requires more effort from my eyes/brain than a traditional movie), a lot of his argument makes sense.

Whether this really does signal the end for 3D, I don't know. I think the additional price point will keep it from becoming mainstream, something reserved for event-type movies like Avatar. Ticket prices are already inflated and to have to pay $2-4 more per ticket (especially for the animated ones which are targeted for families who often are on a budget) makes it an unattractive option for all movies.

And I fully agree with the disdain of 3D conversion. Only things shot natively on 3D should be shown on 3D.

People disliking 3D is reasonable.

Ebert's crusade to make us accept that 3D is an abomination to all of human evolution is unreasonable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

Ebert's crusade to make us accept that 3D is an abomination to all of human evolution is unreasonable.

Dave, I see your hyperbole hasn't slowed down.  The article simply explains why 3D movies expect our eyes to work in an unnatural way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

3D is a "gimmick" the way "motion picture" is a gimmick (or "color" or "talkies" or any other aspect of this technological artform).

Personally, I'd compare it to surround sound. Some people find it's presence much more involving and immersive, but it doesn't really affect the storytelling in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR 

First, he's right, it's a gimmick

Have you seen Coraline? That wasn't a gimmick, that was a wholly integrated aspect of the movie's art, just as its color, sound, and character design.

 

 

3D is a "gimmick" the way "motion picture" is a gimmick (or "color" or "talkies" or any other aspect of this technological artform).

Yes, and I enjoyed Coraline.  And yes, I'd still argue it's a "gimmick".  I also pointed out that in a lot of films, I expect them to live or die based on gimmicks, it's part of why I watch.   I doubt I'd find Star Wars as interesting without special effect gimmicks.

Gimmicks and film making go hand in hand.   A gimmick isn't a bad thing, it's just a "this is what is different that makes us different" that sits outside of the story.   Coraline could have been filmed with 3D as a "gimmick" but it was the storyline that determined whether it was good or not.   (Frankly, I hated Coraline and found it to be a bitter, meanspirited kind of film, so there the 3D effect didn't help it). 

If you actually read the article (and, I admit Ebert does go overboard) the fundamental problem is our eyes are not intended (or, trained) to focus at one point and converge at a different point.  That is required for 3D movies to work.  Our eyes ARE intended to see in color and see motion and our ears are specifically designed to discern sounds from multiple directions.  So the comparison to color, moving pictures and surround sound is a little absurd.  Excessive surround is a fault in execution, not the basic concept.

Possibly our eyes can be re-trained to focus and converge at different points, but until that, there is a fundamental problem with 3D.  This article was very informative, since it explains something I never ever realized was going on.  I knew there was a lot of eye strain, I just didn't know specifically why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR 

First, he's right, it's a gimmick

Have you seen Coraline? That wasn't a gimmick, that was a wholly integrated aspect of the movie's art, just as its color, sound, and character design.

 

 

3D is a "gimmick" the way "motion picture" is a gimmick (or "color" or "talkies" or any other aspect of this technological artform).

Yes, and I enjoyed Coraline.  And yes, I'd still argue it's a "gimmick".  I also pointed out that in a lot of films, I expect them to live or die based on gimmicks, it's part of why I watch.   I doubt I'd find Star Wars as interesting without special effect gimmicks.

 

Gimmicks and film making go hand in hand.   A gimmick isn't a bad thing, it's just a "this is what is different that makes us different" that sits outside of the story.   Coraline could have been filmed with 3D as a "gimmick" but it was the storyline that determined whether it was good or not.   (Frankly, I hated Coraline and found it to be a bitter, meanspirited kind of film, so there the 3D effect didn't help it). 

Fair enough on "gimmick". To me, "gimmick" has connotations of trickery or worthless, misleading features. (I think of def'ns 2&3, but you go with #1: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gimmick). And to put too fine a point on it: I thought Monsters vs Aliens and Partly Cloudy with Chance of Meatballs used 3D as "gimmicks": they were poor movies that tried to mask their inadequacies with 3D. Coraline, Toy Story 3, Avatar I thought used 3D as part of the artistry. As movies they stand on their own, but their excellent use of 3D (like color, sound design, and scoring) makes them even stronger. To watch them without 3D is to remove an important part of the creative intent (but of course doesn't ruin the movie; I still enjoy Coraline on Blu-ray).

While not crucial to the conversation, you lost me here:
"Yes, and I enjoyed Coraline"

"Frankly, I hated Coraline"

So you liked the viewing experience, but didn't like the story?

Ebert may be right about 3D ultimately failing to be anything more than a recurring fad. I don't know. And he only needs to state:  For physiological reasons, that we currently estimate to be caused by mental confusion between disagreement of focus and convergence points, some people get headaches watching 3D video and since this seems insurmountable 3D video will ultimately fail to catch on.

I've not read the article, just what's been discussed about it. The title of the article itself is so arrogant that I was too put off to bother reading it. His opinion is fact because he says it is...right.

I enjoyed the look and style of Coraline.  I really didn't like the storyline, which I thought was really not to my liking.   I don't take a gimmick as being a bad thing, I think everything has some sort of gimmick as a way to get us to enjoy it.  I guess I just think of most things as a bit of gimmickery to make a product stand apart.  It's not good or bad, unless the gimmick itself is bad.  Jaws 3D was a gimmick that sucked.  Avatar was a gimmick that worked.  Final Fantasy the movie was a CGI gimmick that didn't work.  The Polar Express was a CGI gimmick that did.

Matt, we just don't see eye-to-eye on animated movies. I loved Final Fantasy, but can't bear to watch Polar Express.

But I understand your point. 

Electronic House had a rebuttle to Ebert's article:

 Here is a link to the entire piece

Yeah, for those complaining about our brains not being able to 'keep up" with the various focus points demanded by 3D, has anyone ever watched a subtitled movie with lots of subtitled dialogue?  It's a skill (to keep up) you can develop if you enjoy foreign language subtitled films, and the same goes with watching 3D films.  Geez.  Ebert has been going off the deep end trying to get people to see things his way, and his way only, and I just don't care for his opinions on a lot of things lately, and his campaign against 3D is one of them.

The payoff for being able to easily read subtitles is that you're able to watch and understand movies that you otherwise would not be able to.

For me, the payoff for developing the "skill" to watch 3D films is pretty unsubstantial.  I personally don't percieve having to work any harder to watch a 3D film, and even then I don't see the payoff of 3D.  It's akin to reading subtitles on a film that's already in English.

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.

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

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

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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun 
  Geez.  Ebert has been going off the deep end trying to get people to see things his way, and his way only, and I just don't care for his opinions on a lot of things lately, and his campaign against 3D is one of them.

[quote]I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. 

This letter is from Walter Murch,... the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema.[/quote]

Yeah, that's just like, Roger and Walter's opinion, man. 

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

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.

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.

Quote:

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.