CriterionCast

Roger Ebert Hates 3-D, What About You?

The changing landscape of cinema seems to be at the footsteps of 3-D. Personally, I foresee in the next 10 years, a new golden age of cinema. A technology that expands the communal experience of movie watching. There has been a long debate over 3-D as a viable way to expand the medium and artform of film. With the advent of James Cameron’s “Avatar” as a successful model for Hollywood and why every movie should be in 3-D.

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Roger Ebert has written a op-ed piece for the weekly publication. In this piece titled, “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)”, Ebert expresses his concern for the technology and why he feels it is going to waste in the Hollywood lifestyle. Furthermore he describes that he “Cannot imagine a serious drama, such as Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker, in 3-D.”

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

Ebert makes a good point. Do movies need to be in 3-D to be successful? Hollywood seems to think so. Up converting “Clash of The Titans” last month was a perfect example of the big studios attempt for a money grab. People are going to see a movies such as “Clash of The Titans” and “The Last Airbender” anyway, why not squeeze a few more dollars out of them. Big studios can just deliver piss poor renditions of film images and the consumers will just eat it up. Has this nation and moviegoers simply been sold this sentiment?

Roger Ebert has, recently, been the target of the online movie community with his rather scathing one star review of Matthew Vaughn’s “Kick-Ass”. Ebert states “I know, I know. This is a satire. But a satire of what? The movie’s rated R, which means in this case that it’s doubly attractive to anyone under 17. I’m not too worried about 16-year-olds here. I’m thinking of 6-year-olds”. Online film critics like Harry Knowles expressed “I suppose you’ll never really just get KICK-ASS’¦ You’re no square in my book. But you may be in danger of being a ‘˜grown up’.” I tend to agree with Roger Ebert, only that I feel Vaughn should have pushed the ideas of “Kick-Ass” further.

I do encourage our readers to read both Roger Ebert’s op-ed piece for Newsweek and his review for Matthew Vaughn’s “Kick-Ass”. Both are very well written and do have insight on what we are watching and why we are watching them. Highly recommended reads! The questions and ideas raised are fascinating and well worth your thinking.

Cinema has been long tied to money, profit and art. It is probably the only artform where money is the clear mark for success. Every week we play the box office game, which movie will make the most money over the weekend. In this way, cinema has become a sport. Movies, studios and moviegoers duking it out every week for a clear cut “winner”. “Transformers 2: The Revenge of The Fallen” was the highest grossing movie of 2009. Does that make it an important piece of art and will be heralded as such? Did studios see this film as a missed opportunity to make more money by converting it to 3-D?

Does Roger Ebert get the point of the changing face of cinema? Is he “in danger of being a grown up”? Is Ebert right about the future of 3-D and Hollywood?

Rudie Obias

5 comments

  • i agree half-whole-heartedly with ebert on this issue. until i can see an actual, well-made, engaging film in 3D that doesn't skate by on the pure fact that it has that extra dimension i am definitely not going to be spending my money on seeing them. the glasses, the the shitty stories, the darkening (which is totally true), the headaches (which you don't have to be 70 to experience), and the distracting “realistic” action all get in the way of the plot and the enjoyment of the film for me. however, i am a grown up and don't go for the kinds of movies offered in 3D as it is. over the years i have subjected myself to it and have immediately been full of regret…AVATAR being the straw that broke this cinephile camel's back. if a film i want to see is offered in both 2D and 3D i will absolutely choose the former.

    to say this is the future is to say that i will no longer enjoy going to a theater, and that saddens me. that being said, i don't believe it IS the future in any wide-spread form though. if so, put me in the freezer with walt disney and thaw me out when films go hologram or 3D without eyeglasses and i can be happy again.

    i wouldn't have seen transformers 2 either way hollywood. :)

  • I have enjoyed a couple movies in 3D; “Avatar” and “Up” come to mind. In both cases I remember being frustrated while watching them that the process kept me from fully appreciating or even assessing the filmmaking on display. Composition becomes murky and edits are harder to appreciate. On the one hand I'm too inside the movie to assess it objectively, and on another there is an omnipresent low-grade distraction keeping me from fully engaging with it — like a radio playing during a ballet.

    It's probably telling that when I finally saw Avatar in 2D it was revealed to be not at all cutting-edge visually and a very long sit.

  • i agree half-whole-heartedly with ebert on this issue. until i can see an actual, well-made, engaging film in 3D that doesn't skate by on the pure fact that it has that extra dimension i am definitely not going to be spending my money on seeing them. the glasses, the the shitty stories, the darkening (which is totally true), the headaches (which you don't have to be 70 to experience), and the distracting “realistic” action all get in the way of the plot and the enjoyment of the film for me. however, i am a grown up and don't go for the kinds of movies offered in 3D as it is. over the years i have subjected myself to it and have immediately been full of regret…AVATAR being the straw that broke this cinephile camel's back. if a film i want to see is offered in both 2D and 3D i will absolutely choose the former.

    to say this is the future is to say that i will no longer enjoy going to a theater, and that saddens me. that being said, i don't believe it IS the future in any wide-spread form though. if so, put me in the freezer with walt disney and thaw me out when films go hologram or 3D without eyeglasses and i can be happy again.

    i wouldn't have seen transformers 2 either way hollywood. :)

  • I have enjoyed a couple movies in 3D; “Avatar” and “Up” come to mind. In both cases I remember being frustrated while watching them that the process kept me from fully appreciating or even assessing the filmmaking on display. Composition becomes murky and edits are harder to appreciate. On the one hand I'm too inside the movie to assess it objectively, and on another there is an omnipresent low-grade distraction keeping me from fully engaging with it — like a radio playing during a ballet.

    It's probably telling that when I finally saw Avatar in 2D it was revealed to be not at all cutting-edge visually and a very long sit.