This time I agree with Ebert: 3D sucks
This time I agree with Ebert: 3D sucks
Apr 30
I wrote a few months ago about why I thought 3D movies were crap; but that was before Avatar came out, so I was writing with some degree of optimism. Now that Avatar has come and gone I can safely say that I’m still not on board for 3D. A higher degree of immersion doesn’t negate a boring script or lazy world-building.
If you don’t know who Roger Ebert is, then … you’re missing out on a lot. You could call him a film critic, but you could also call him an unmitigated genius, a pioneer in the technique of criticism. His reviews are often insightful and sincere and leave you feeling like a blind child stumbling through the woods of cinema in comparison.
Ebert recently weighed in on video games, and stirred an absolute storm of controversy in gaming circles by declaring that games aren’t, and never will be, art. In that case I disagreed with him, partly because, for all his powers, I know prescience isn’t one of them, and further, he doesn’t ever seem to have played a game younger than Pac-Man or Space Invaders, so what the hell does he know? My opinion of Ebert suffered a little.
Now, however, my faith is restored. With his usual gentle but powerful rhetoric, he’s gone to great lengths to elaborate on the futility and silliness of the current 3D craze in Hollywood. Specifically, he pinpoints a few key niggles I have with the format: Hollywood seems to be using the 3D projectors mostly for kids’ films (Pixar, Dreamworks, Avatar) or ‘event’ films (Alice In Wonderland, Clash Of The Titans, Avatar), with no consideration for, you know, ‘good’ films (he cites Hurt Locker, Precious, Casablanca, you know, the usual artsy fartsy stuff).
Another niggle he pinpoints is in the business side of 3D. Here in Australia 3D movies only cost a dollar or two more than their 2D counterparts (depending on whether or not you already own the glasses), but Ebert points out that in the US, cinemas are charging $5 – $7.50 extra, which seems borderline criminal (especially if the movie’s Clash Of The Titans). How much of Avatar‘s gross was based solely on the cost of 3D tickets? Not enough to knock it down a peg in the coveted ‘Richest Movie Ever’ runnings, but enough to gouge a few percentage points out and dent the mountain of dosh Jim regularly bathes in.
The final niggle Ebert raises that I find particularly accurate is the overbearing eyestrain caused by 3D. It’s bad enough that we’re all in a dark room with our eyes locked onto a single bright screen for two hours; now you want to shove a centimetre of dark plastic between my face and said screen? Ridiculous. Pile on the fact that the brain has to work overtime to tweak muscles into working to get the 3D right, and 3D seems physiologically implausible as a long-term format overhaul.
Ebert goes on to suggest another alternative: 48 frames-per-second film and projectors. Apparently this quadruples the film image and provides a rock-solid, smooth-as-silk, eye-popping picture. I can’t vouch for this as I’ve never experienced it, but I’m rather attached to 24fps traditional film because it’s, like, filmy, you know? Plus 48fps film would double the reel length of a film and provide untold nightmares for the poor old projectionists running the films.
We’re currently knee-deep in a 3D renaissance; many of the big studios have moved behind the new-old format, and even some ‘good’ directors are trying their hands with the fancy new double-cameras. We still need time to evaluate the impact and merit of 3D cinema, but for now, things look doubtful. Check back with me again in 5 years’ time.
I totally agree with you and Ebert, but I see no cause for concern. The reason for that can be deduced from your own writing:
“Specifically, he pinpoints a few key niggles I have with the format: Hollywood seems to be using the 3D projectors mostly for kids’ films (Pixar, Dreamworks, Avatar) or ‘event’ films (Alice In Wonderland, Clash Of The Titans, Avatar), with no consideration for, you know, ‘good’ films (he cites Hurt Locker, Precious, Casablanca, you know, the usual artsy fartsy stuff).”
Exactly this shows that 3-D is just a fad. Movies like Hurt Locker don't need the third dimension, just as Casablanca doesn't need the colours. Movies didn't kill the theatre and nothing will even kill reading. I haven't seen a 3-D movie yet in which the thrill of watching the thing in 3-D hasn't evaporated in ten minutes and hasn't become an annoyance in 45 minutes. And so thanks to that, now I actually plan on avoiding 3-D movies unless I really *really* want to see the film. The enticing novelty has become a “keep-away” factor. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who thinks like this.
So I don't think 3-D is bad – is not important enough to really be bad. It's just a new way for the studios to make more money, more crap films and some people to have a cheap thrill. Meanwhile, the good stuff happens elsewhere, unaffected, as always.
I reckon you're right — I usually ignore 3D after 10 minutes and get sick of it after 45, good call. Most films released in 3D are also released in 2D, on 35mm prints; I think if there's the option to see a movie in 2D, I'll probably take it.
3D just sucks because it will harm your eyes, gives you fatigue and headaches, and has obviously lower picture quality compared to 2D. Eyes are not made for stereoscopic viewing, since they naturally try to refocus anything that they perceive to move out of the screen plane (because in nature, things would actually come closer or get more distant). However, in a movie theater all images only *exist* in the screen plane, and only in this plane are they in focus. So your eye is constantly torn apart from wanting to refocus the “closer” or “farther” objects, and going back to the screen plane for the most focused image. It’s a dilemma no “RealD”, “Imax3D”, “Disney3D” etc can resolve. In the long run, you might ruin your eyes, and whatever happens to a generation of children subjected to this from a young age only god knows.
Apart from damaging your eyes, the 3d picture quality is undeniably lowered. Objects that appear very close to you are often chosen by the director to not be pulled in focus. So however hard you stare at them, you are not able to focus on them even though they “seem” so close. This is another headache-inducer. With the current low framerate of movies (24fps) you can see strobing in 3D movies whenever the picture moves fast enough. Looks downright ugly! Moreover those “advanced” 3D glasses dim the picture a great deal. Avatar is truly spectacular in 2D with beautifully shining colors for all those neon-hued animals and plants — however, it becomes gloomy in comparison in 3D. Ghosting effects (= faint double images) are also routinely present in 3D movies whenever there is any ever so slight reflection on the actual lense surfaces of your 3D glasses. Ugly as hell! And all these compromises for what exactly? Why do we put up with all these unnecessary reductions in picture quality? Just to give a cheap 3D-thrill to adolescents of the video-game generation? Don’t tell me you REALLY were not able to tell foreground from background in any good old “traditional 2D” movie… To educate you a little bit: Your BRAIN *already* infers depth from perspective, so you don’t need being hammered with additional confusing visual “3D data” to get the picture. This will just screw up your visual cortex in the long run. What’s worse, in some recent movies, the 3D effect is even TECHNICALLY incorrectly applied to the original material (f.ex. Clash of the Titans, or Piranha 3D). Then things look downright unrealistic and artificial: Things that should be in the back appear in the front and vice versa! Congratulations for yet another headache-inducer! Well, if ever Hollywood has gone in the wrong direction, then it was the crazy media blitz they did for 3D. “The future of the movie-going experience”… Don’t make me laugh. Yes, but only if you want cross-eyed children with permanent vision problems in the “future”. Otherwise better forget it quickly. Did you know that the studios are actually *paying* the theaters to install the new 3D projectors. Did you know they *threaten* the theaters not to give them the 2D version of a movie, unless they also show the 3D version. That speaks volumes about their confidence for the so-called “moviegoing experience of the future”. It appears that agressive enough advertizing for a product can indeed brainwash a lot of people to think it’s “cool”. Amazing that it works even though they are being sold visual garbage. Welcome to the brave new world. Over and out.
What you say is undeniably true. Which is why I’ll always take a 2D film print over the 3D alternative any time it’s available.
I wonder if it sucks. Various steps that are involved in 3D animation are character sketching, character modeling, scene building, texturing, lightening and camera setup, rendering, lightening and camera setup, rendering, editing and mixing etc.
jabliny
For me, one of the worst parts of this 3D revolution is that soem films are only being released in 3D or with a limited 2D release, thereby removing choice from the customer.
I want to see Saw 7 when it comes out, I don’t expect it to be amazing but I’ve stuck with the series and will catch the final installment. Trouble is, a 2D release is going to be very limited to select cinemas meaning my local cinema is going to charge me twice the usualy cost of a ticket and onyl let me watch it in 3D. the only other choice I have is to not see the movie.
The only consolation is that 3D has never stuck aorund mroe than a couple of years at most and will hopefully dissappear, but sadly the damage will have been done…
Ash Pryce