Ebert Hates 3D

I think I agree with most of what he says. Although I think the novelty of 3D movies can be pleasing sometimes. But it's hard to imagine movies like Annie Hall being in 3D.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110/page/2

I agree that 3D is not a requirement.  I enjoy it myself.  I saw Avatar, UP, "How to train your Dragon", Monsters vs Aliens, and well... mostly CGI movies in 3D and they look wonderful.  It isn't a requirement but the idea is for me to be happy.  And if 3D makes me giddy, why not see it?

The surcharge I can also understand.  Not just the projectors but those glasses.  They cost money and probably quite a bit too.


But this is human technology:
We don't advance because it's better, we advance because we want to.  We strive for something new, something more.  3D has been done many times before but now we finally have the ability to make it much better than the old "red and green" glasses.  That's progress for progress's sake.

Well you view it as progress. I do not and see it more as a folly than a technological innovation. I think that Ebert's best point is that '3D' movies are a misnomer. Movies on a flat screen are still 3D. Humans process spacial dimensions using brain functions. The surface of the eye light hits is essentially 2D. Looking at a flat movie screen is not much different from looking out a window. It would be weird if 3D glasses where made that turned windows into a '3D' experience.  

It's a cool novelty. Ebert needs to chill.

Yeah, but you and I have the choice not to watch these. But it's Ebert's job to watch these and give serious thoughts about them. I think he has a right to state an opposition to them.

Well you view it as progress. I do not and see it more as a folly than a technological innovation. I think that Ebert's best point is that '3D' movies are a misnomer. Movies on a flat screen are still 3D. Humans process spacial dimensions using brain functions. The surface of the eye light hits is essentially 2D. Looking at a flat movie screen is not much different from looking out a window. It would be weird if 3D glasses where made that turned windows into a '3D' experience.  

True, but if we ignore it, then we'll never get to holographic technology.  Imagine if you could have your screen appear in thin air instead of having to open your laptop?  Or your keyboard appear so you could type anywhere at any time?

The desire must be there and to build that desire you make 3D movies that appear to come out of the screen even though they don't.  This generates interest.  Currently the glasses are the big problem that companies are pouring research into.  If they can remove the glasses and have a movie screen or TV actually project a 3D image they'd make billions. 

Ebert is lucky to be alive still. 

3D, a gimmick which will run it's course in about 6 months or so, especially that faux 3D which makes it look like a pop-out picture book. Avatar worked in 3D because it was filmed with 3D in mind

Roger Ebert can suck a bag of dicks.

I hope he dies soon so people will stop justifying their shitty tastes in movies with his increasingly shitty reviews.

I hope he dies soon so people will stop justifying their shitty tastes in movies with his increasingly shitty reviews.

This x100.

it's hard to imagine movies like Annie Hall being in 3D.

I convinced a friend that they were going to release Schindlers List 3D.

Quote from: grogberries on May 01, 2010, 02:00:37 PM

it's hard to imagine movies like Annie Hall being in 3D.

I convinced a friend that they were going to release Schindlers List 3D.

You have friends?!!!?

Roger Ebert can suck a bag of dicks.

Not anymore he can't.

I dont think his jaw works much anymore.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 02, 2010, 08:52:49 AM

Quote from: grogberries on May 01, 2010, 02:00:37 PM

it's hard to imagine movies like Annie Hall being in 3D.

I convinced a friend that they were going to release Schindlers List 3D.

You have friends?!!!?

Who said anything about plural?!?!?!?!

I have never seen a movie in 3D. I was still gobsmacked when I went to see avatar. 3D is not a necessity to make a movie enjoyable, interesting, or pretty. It's a bit like making a perfect fillet Mignon and then serving it with ketchup.

Quote from: Dino Piranha on May 02, 2010, 08:08:42 AM

Roger Ebert can suck a bag of dicks.

Not anymore he can't.

I dont think his jaw works much anymore.

That picture has given me many a sleepless night.

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

>Implying 3D is supposed to be a rare and awesome feature to movies that you think only deserve to have it.

Quote from: Baseball4Life on May 03, 2010, 05:15:50 PM

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

>Implying 3D is supposed to be a rare and awesome feature to movies that you think only deserve to have it.

wat

to certain movies*

Quote from: Areweonfiya on May 03, 2010, 05:22:55 PM

Quote from: Baseball4Life on May 03, 2010, 05:15:50 PM

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

>Implying 3D is supposed to be a rare and awesome feature to movies that you think only deserve to have it.

wat

It's an internet thing. If you understood it, you probably wouldn't have any faith left. So you're better off not getting it.

I have never seen a movie in 3D. I was still gobsmacked when I went to see avatar. 3D is not a necessity to make a movie enjoyable, interesting, or pretty. It's a bit like making a perfect fillet Mignon and then serving it with ketchup.

It's more like making a perfect fillet mignon and serving it with a blowjob.

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

no it isnt 

Quote from: Baseball4Life on May 03, 2010, 05:15:50 PM

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

no it isnt 

It's called an opinion, to which I'm entitled to.

Quote from: Dino Piranha on May 04, 2010, 02:09:51 PM

Quote from: Baseball4Life on May 03, 2010, 05:15:50 PM

3D is losing it's "specialness" with it being apart of just a bout every new movie -_-

no it isnt 

It's called an opinion, to which I'm entitled to.

no you arent 

Opinions are for fags. Facts are where it's at.

Opinions are for fags. Facts are where it's at.

Oh, I'll try this with facts, then.


3D movies are different from non-3D movies. Which is pretty different. As movies are entirely subjective, there is no difference in any measurable variable which one can say improves or degrades the movie-going experience. Therefore, the argument is needless.

Opinions are for fags. Facts are where it's at.

ily