Ebert: I Hate 3D, And You Should Too
See Full ImageRoger Ebert is at it again, but this time, he's not specifically singling out video games. However, the fact that gaming will soon embrace new 3D technology - and that the PlayStation 3 is now a functional 3D system that will play 3D movies - makes his statements relevant.
And despite his recent claims that video games can't be art, some of you might actually agree with Ebert on this subject: can 3D be considered a 100% positive thing for movies (and for games)? Is toiling in that dimension worthwhile? Does it enhance the experience as advertised? Well, Ebert has given six reasons as to why he hates 3D, and we leave it to you to judge those reasons. The very first case he makes against the technology is an interesting one, at the very least; it's called "It's the waste of a dimension:"
"When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, 'Look how slowly he grows against the horizon'? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing."
He goes on to talk about how it "adds nothing to the experience" (what would "Casablanca" gain from 3D?), and the fact that it can indeed be a distraction. Personally, I haven't really seen enough movies in 3D to form any sort of opinion, and I've never yet played a game in 3D. However, I can understand his points and in some ways, I do think 3D is a bit silly and its effects are somewhat over-exaggerated. I'm wondering how it might be for games, though...if it's interactive, maybe it really would enhance the experience.
4/30/2010 10:34:57 AM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (103 posts)
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:35:40 PM
Political wars don't belong here.
6 up, 2 down
Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:45:55 PM
:)
8 up, 17 down
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:01:49 PM
2 up, 2 down
Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:01:15 PM
11 up, 7 down
Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:21:44 PM
8 up, 3 down
Byakko2009
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 4:44:14 AM
Oh well, it appears Ben only regulates people who scrape his ego with 2nd grade insults. If that gets priority over removing off-topic political rants, that only leave the comment sections a mess, then I've no reason to visit this site anymore. Not like there's any other reason to visit this site. The reviewers suck. Ben may have writing talent, but he's a casual gamer at best and can't even grasp the intricacies of many game's mechanics. Arnold on the other hand, is just a plain old hack; reading one of his articles is pitiful.
6 up, 5 down
aaronisbla
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 5:27:12 AM
But by commenting, wouldn't it be safe to say you added ur 2 cents? just sayin...
Also, not sure why someone who hates the reviewers of this site as well as some of the more annoying members here would continue to come back ( the main reason i don't visit forums on some other sites )
but i can agree with the first part you wrote, it would have been better to just get rid of Jawknee's comment all together cuz someone's bound to see it again and comment on it.
Last edited by aaronisbla on 5/1/2010 5:33:32 AM
5 up, 0 down
Silent_J
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:00:44 AM
Reply
Last edited by Silent_J on 4/30/2010 11:08:19 AM
6 up, 0 down
Dancemachine55
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:54:30 PM
After seeing Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland in 3D, I honestly thought the experience woulda been the same in regular viewings, the 3D just didn't add anything.
Now, games are a different story. After trying Avatar the game in 3D at a Ubisoft convention, I was pretty much convinced. The 3D picture looked much better, made some distant objects a little clearer and made you feel like something really was coming right at you. It worked far better than what you see at the movies.
With GT5 coming in 3D, I am convinced that 3D is the way to go for some things, but not everything. Broadcasting live sports in 3D is a waste of money IMO, cos it doesn't add anything to the experience. It's a gimmick. It doesn't make the sport look or feel any better.
3D should be left to movies and games that do it right. Like GT5 when approaching corners, or Avatar when flying through the world of Pandora. If it's done right, people will notice. If 3D is slapped on as a cheap afterthought like in Titans or Alice, people like will not be impressed.
4 up, 0 down
Ultimadream
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:03:23 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Shiva369
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:06:14 AM
Reply
6 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:09:46 AM
4 up, 1 down
Simcoe
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:54:13 PM
3 up, 0 down
sunspider13
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:01:02 PM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:06:22 AM
Reply
However, lately I feel like this old coot is rebelling against technology. It's pretty classic behaviour. (Yes... I spelled it behaviour. I apologize in advance. That's how we spell in Canada... also... Colour... or flavour... we're psycho here. Too many pucks to the head.) But ya... classic. For him, change is frightening. Either he can stick with what's comfortable, or he has to branch out and expand his horizons. Which would be hard.
SO, it feels like he just sticks with what's comfortable and finds opportunities to speak out against 3D, games, etc. in a way that makes him at least feel like his views are intelligent and convince others afraid of change that they are intelligent and that they are allowed to use his views as their own.
Mind you, there are plenty examples of 'change' that can be harmful, but I hardly think "video games as art" or 3D technology fits the bill.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 4/30/2010 11:13:10 AM
2 up, 0 down
Underdog15
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:14:49 AM
1 up, 0 down
Simcoe
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:04:44 PM
0 up, 1 down
little dreamer
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:07:29 AM
Reply
7 up, 8 down
Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:20:44 AM
7 up, 24 down
Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:24:22 AM
21 up, 2 down
aaronisbla
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:52:02 AM
I agree with Highlander, keep that sh** away from here.
Last edited by aaronisbla on 4/30/2010 11:54:22 AM
10 up, 0 down
bOnEs
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:07:30 AM
Reply
i am not on board with 3D and i hope i never am... none of the 3D movie experiences are all that great to be honest... they feel like a cheap gimmick... at least with avatar, the 3D was just there... other movies that use 3D, use it for cheap thrills and "in your face" visuals that really don't do it for me...
i am not on board with 3D... i see no benefit to seeing my games in dimension... i too feel like it takes away from the experience rather than draw you in like a good movie or games does... i get this feeling that 3D will be used to cover up mediocre games just like it does for movies...
pass...
Last edited by bOnEs on 4/30/2010 11:08:04 AM
3 up, 2 down
Mysterio Spyder
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:28:44 PM
EXACTLY! well put. I don't plan on reinvesting in ANOTHER NEW TV technology this soon 3D or not. I'm perfectly satisfied with what I see now, I've ALWAYS hated 3D because of the stupid glasses.
2 up, 0 down
Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:13:22 AM
Reply
5 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:23:39 AM
Reply
Think about this for a moment though. We humans have stereoscopic vision. If you look into the distance, you might as well be looking at a 2D backdrop. Apart from the geometry of perspective and depth of field with your eye's focusing power, your stereoscopic vision is useless at any significant distance. It's only up close that the depth perception provided by stereoscopic vision becomes available. The only reason we need stereoscopic vision is to provide that depth perception. But beyond a certain point, depth perception is based purely on the perspective, and not the stereoscopic vision. The brain takes care of marrying these two fields of vision together so we don't think about it, and it's seamless to us.
3D in a movie cannot be such a subtle effect, it has to be more dramatic. Things are supposed to pop from the screen, it's entertainment. But in reality the difference between a 2D presentation of something and a 3D presentation (on a screen) is really not that much, unless it's over done to kind of wave a flag saing "It's 3D - see!?".
Now, 3D is all fine and good, if it's 3D as in holographic, so I can move around and my view changes as my position changes, that's different to the passive experience of watching a movie in 3D.
I agree with Ebert on this, 3D for movies is nearly pointless. For games, perhaps less so, though I do agree that depth of field and depth perception of natural vision are very different to that experienced in a 3D game environment. I foresee a lot of headaches and motion sickness.
7 up, 0 down
erislocker
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:29:11 AM
Reply
i watched couple of other 3d movies.
what excited me wasn't really the 3D... it was the story and the execution.
i read eberts blog about his 3d hate. i wouldn't as far as he does, but i sort of see his point.
mostly though, it's just a very immature technology. so i'm going to wait a yr or 2 to join in. sure i like tech stuff, and 3D sounds awesome in theory, but after reading eberts comments, it made me think and i tend to agree. the greatest movie going experience wasn't really the 3D effect.
furthermore, if a movie sucks in "2D" but rocks in 3D, what does that say about the story?
for now, i will wait and refer to the cheap-red/blue glasses...
1 up, 0 down
I_defenestrate
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:37:04 AM
Reply
I kid!
Last edited by I_defenestrate on 4/30/2010 11:38:26 AM
2 up, 0 down
isaya85
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:38:32 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
kraygen
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:48:28 PM
2 up, 0 down
Lotusflow3r
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:42:51 AM
Reply
It's the nail in the coffin for mainstream Hollywood cinema who do all with an IQ of 12 and for money.
It's turning the cinema into a damn amusement park.
I don't agree with his games can't be art theory but, with this, he is bang on.
Independent cinema is the way to go. I went to a movie premier not long ago to watch one of the most profound, important and heartfelt pieces of art i have seen in a long time.
I chatted to the director after he did a panel discussion with a critic from the Guardian (whom the director destroyed due to the critics terrible, dumb questions, much to audience amusement...he hates them critics!) and we spoke of the dumbing down of just about everything!
The director was none other than Christopher Morris (One of the most influential media personalities in UK history who dislikes popular culture and is a satirical and artistic genius) with his new film, Four Lions.
Was this profound film in 3d? I don't think so!
Instead it was loaded on the best special effects of all! Emotion, heartfelt, painfully funny, haunting, awe-inspiring....an effect that stays with you long after the credits.
I cannot remember the last time Hollywood even achieved just one of these effects.
What effect does it best? An explosion coming out the screen....or an effect on your life or heart?
I know where i am.
Last edited by Lotusflow3r on 4/30/2010 11:54:11 AM
4 up, 0 down
laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:33:25 PM
Consider a racing game, wouldn't it be so much cooler to be driving extremely fast while stuff like trees, traffic, etc. zoomed in a blur right past your head.
2 up, 0 down
Hezzron
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:47:48 AM
Reply
However, I believe he's right about 3D....as the technology stands now.
4 up, 1 down
aaronisbla
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:57:15 AM
Reply
2 up, 0 down
maxpontiac
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:00:16 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:10:29 PM
Reply
However this one paragraph just has me rolling on the floor laughing. Well, actually there are several paragraphs like this in the papers being filed.... Anyway
"By engaging in the conduct described above, Sony has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class and is required, in equity and good conscience, to compensate the Plaintiff and the Class for harm suffered as a result of its actions."
They repeatedly claim that Sony has been unjustly enriched by selling the PS3 with OtherOS but then removing OtherOS. Now I know that it's legalese to some extent, but guys, Sony is still selling the PS3 at a loss, and in fact every OtherOS capable system lost Sony between $300 and $75 depending on the model. So, far from being enriched, Sony has in fact lost money. When calculating the 'enrichment' that Sony is supposed to have engaged in, I can't help wondering whether the court will ignore that simple fact.
It's hard to be enriched by something that actually costs you money to provide.
6 up, 4 down
Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:16:21 PM
5 up, 1 down
Jawknee
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:17:50 PM
Also, doesn't Sony have us agree to the agreement that says they can change anything they want in the firmware at anytime? Seems to me this guy has no case and it should be thrown out asap.
5 up, 5 down
bridgera
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:32:35 PM
"It's hard to be enriched by something that actually costs you money to provide."
I'm sure that will come up, but then so will the following:
They aren't making money off the consoles, they made (and are still making) plenty of money off of Blu Ray licensing.
It was an investment that paid off by winning against HD DVD.
To win that, they had to sell Blu Ray Players. One of the methods used in selling the PS3 (also a Blu Ray player) was by advertising Other OS on magazines, public statements clarifying it wasn't a game console, etc, etc.
So ultimately they became enriched off of licensing Blu Ray which occured as a result of PS3 sales.
"Also, doesn't Sony have us agree to the agreement that says they can change anything they want in the firmware at anytime?"
That's refered to as an "Unconscionability Clause", which is in the suit and won't hold any weight in court.
Last edited by bridgera on 4/30/2010 12:35:00 PM
6 up, 3 down
JackC8
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:55:35 PM
Last edited by JackC8 on 4/30/2010 12:57:04 PM
4 up, 3 down
Highlander
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:11:33 PM
Do you think that all the different license agreements that are used now still contain language that can be so easily dismissed with the "Unconscionability Clause" argument? Want to bet whether that was the first discussion Sony had with their own attorneys prior to removing Other OS?
BTW BluRay continues to function with the PS3 even if you do not update to the latest PS3 firmware. The question that no one has an answer for is whether the lack of an up to date system firmware will prevent future BluRay discs from playing. It seems that is not yet tested and it is difficult to argue a loss based on a future unknown. There may in fact be a way to allow the update required for BD playback without updating the system firmware. In which case the argument that the PS3 somehow causes a kind of indirect enrichment through BluRay loses even more steam.
I still firmly believe that this case will fail.
The point of my comment though was simply that Sony gifted purchasers of those early PS3s $300 in free hardware with their PS3 purchase. They were not enriched by those sales. You would also have to prove precisely how much of that 'enrichment' was due to OtherOS functionality.
Whether Sony talked about the OtherOS feature or not is not in question, did they rely on it as a marketing tool to sell PS3s? Having it mentioned in a magazine article isn't sufficient. You have to show that the feature was more than simply an extra, but was in fact a specific part of the marketing of the PS3.
3 up, 2 down
laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:47:42 PM
Then again I guess after reading the article about the new chips in the slim it would be impossible since people think that will allow the console to break even. Thats just mind blowing for me though since I thought otherwise
0 up, 0 down
bridgera
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 4:45:09 PM
I philosophically disagree with that viewpoint.
"I firmly belive this case will fail"
You are entitled to that opinion, I don't want it to fail, because I don't want other companies selling me software, then changing features and terms of that software and license post sale. If MS prevented me from going online because I didn't do a Windows update that disabled any given advertised feature, I'd have a problem with it.
You think a company should be able to legally do that. I disagree with you completely on that position.
"Do you think that all the different license agreements that are used now still contain language that can be so easily dismissed with the "Unconscionability Clause" argument?"
The clause in reference was Unconsciouable, and that clause will be dismissed immediately. Clearly not all clauses in EULA are Unconsciouable, but that one obviously was.
"Want to bet whether that was the first discussion Sony had with their own attorneys prior to removing Other OS?"
So what's your point? That Sony doesn't do anything illegal? Sony has already lost Class Action Lawsuits in the past because they broke laws on products they sold.
They probably did a cost/benefit analysis, figured out how much that illegal action would cost them, and went with it.
"The question that no one has an answer for is whether the lack of an up to date system firmware will prevent future BluRay discs from playing."
Yes, it will. "...It will prevent new BluRay discs from playing as new Blu-ray discs can disable the Blu Ray drive entirely if they contain an AACS Host Revocation List that affects the old software version."
"The point of my comment though was simply that Sony gifted purchasers"
If I pay $500 for it, it's not a gift, selling at a loss really doesn't matter, it was apart of their marketing strategy as explained above.
"You would also have to prove precisely how much of that 'enrichment' was due to OtherOS functionality."
No you actually don't. The legalities of false advertising, breaking various state/federal laws are not dependent upon how much the company made.
"Having it mentioned in a magazine article isn't sufficient."
The cover of a magazine that specifically lists: PS3, OtherOS, Linux, you would say isn't sufficient advertising?
You are completely wrong on a magazine cover not being considered a sufficient advertisement.
Advertising isn't defined as however you want it to be.
Advertising as defined by the FTC:
"any form of public notice however disseminated or utilized."
... that includes Magazine covers.
"You have to show that the feature was more than simply an extra, but was in fact a specific part of the marketing of the PS3."
Yes, and that is no problem, so I show them the MAGAZINE COVER, the press releases, the VIDEO of Phil Harrison saying
"...one of the greatest features about the about the PS3 is the install OtherOS feature. It won't be Vista, it'll be Linux."
Then I'll throw in a clarification made by Phil Harrison:
"The PS3 is a computer, we do not need the PC"
I'm not trying to persuade you Highlander, as you clearly support companies removing advertised features from products post purchase.... That's why you come up with all of these excuses defending Sony's actions rather than trying to find a way to help the guy that felt he got screwed.
I write this so that anyone reading your post isn't fooled into thinking nonsense such as magazine covers not being sufficient advertisements of features.
Last edited by bridgera on 5/1/2010 4:46:31 PM
1 up, 1 down
Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:15:19 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Superman915
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:31:56 PM
Last edited by Superman915 on 4/30/2010 12:32:21 PM
4 up, 0 down
bridgera
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:20:20 PM
Reply
His statements reminds me of the great (false) quote
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."... So close the patent office.
Ebert doesn't see that this 3D technology is a stepping stone... towards move awesome 3D stuff.
You make the product, you learn how to improve it, a few iterations later, you have projected holograms, that allow you to see more information that would not be available in a 2D image.
He's probably that guy thinking "why would you ever need a cell phone when you have a radio?"
4 up, 1 down
Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:25:14 PM
Reply
I don't care for 3D. It isn't going to make any bad movie any better.
3 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:29:28 PM
3 up, 0 down
tes37
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:30:51 PM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
Craigo
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:31:51 PM
Reply
3D games I'm not too sure about. But give it 12 months.
3 up, 0 down
Alienange
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:56:38 PM
0 up, 0 down
JackC8
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 12:59:31 PM
Reply
I'll stick with my low budget independent stuff, thanks.
2 up, 0 down
Imagi
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:19:19 PM
0 up, 0 down
MadKatBebop
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:07:37 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
NeoHumpty
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:13:06 PM
Reply
2 up, 2 down
maxpontiac
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:15:30 PM
Reply
Good stuff.. LOL
5 up, 0 down
Imagi
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:21:35 PM
Reply
4 up, 0 down
Scarecrow
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:40:12 PM
Reply
But the costs is too much...
And I feel it's a gimmick (wasn't it already done in the 1980s?). Seriously, I don't think games will benefit from it. But who knows, we'll see
1 up, 1 down
Sol
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:45:39 PM
Reply
I may try it because I have an open mind, then I'll make a decision. But it isn't one of my highest priorities... I still gotta get the PS3 first (and HDTV, etc.).
0 up, 0 down
Mavfan321
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 1:57:46 PM
Reply
1 up, 1 down
RadioHeader
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:15:39 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Temjin001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:30:44 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
InBlackestNight
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 2:56:03 PM
Reply
3 up, 1 down
InBlackestNight
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:09:46 PM
Reply
3 up, 0 down
Deleted User
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:19:17 PM
Reply
I'm not sold on Video Games either, but if 3D could actually be USED some way, and not just be a surface thing, it might be neat. Until then, I think its a worthless addition.
0 up, 0 down
FlyingKickPunch
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 3:53:08 PM
Reply
4 up, 1 down
Gamer Girl Gemo
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:36:19 PM
Reply
I'm an original type of person who doesn't like to give up the oldies - pry it from my dead, lifeless fingers type - but it's not bad to have something new out there. And video games aren't art? I must've missed the article for that one.
All video games are IS art. What are all the characters made out of? Raw computer graphics from scratch? There's a reason why they have artists on their team.
This guy, honestly, needs to think some things over and look before he leaps. I think he also needs to get the stick out of his butt... I can hear him chewing on it from here.
5 up, 0 down
FullmetalX10
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 4:51:43 PM
Reply
Anyways, the man does have good points, especially the '3-d is the newest hollywood fad' argument, which I really agree with. Almost every damn movie comin' out these days is in 3d, even if they totally don't need it(still need to see kick-ass, good movie, no 3d).
Yeah, I won't need 3d any time soon, until they've found some way to cancel out the headache beams I receive from watching 3d...
1 up, 0 down
NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:11:47 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
FlyingKickPunch
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 5:57:35 PM
2 up, 1 down
NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 9:59:38 PM
1 up, 0 down
Superman915
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 11:11:13 AM
EPIC.
1 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:12:59 PM
Reply
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 4/30/2010 6:13:09 PM
0 up, 0 down
laxpro2001
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 6:49:54 PM
Reply
N00b - stick to what you know... which is nothing
1 up, 0 down
TEG3SH
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 7:25:26 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
NiteKrawler
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:01:21 PM
0 up, 0 down
TEG3SH
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 5:23:45 AM
0 up, 0 down
FlyingKickPunch
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 1:30:57 PM
0 up, 0 down
Milonakis
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:07:16 PM
Reply
2 up, 4 down
Dancemachine55
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 8:58:31 PM
Reply
But 3D slapped on as an afterthought is a gimmick, and one that few people may get into.
Why didn't they just cut out the middle man and go straight for holographic projection technology in the home? No silly glasses and 3D is achieved better than ever!!! Leave flat screen televisions in the 2D realm where it belongs?
I have a feeling this will be the biggest tech blunder of the decade. Millions wasted on a gimmick. Anyone agree or disagree?
1 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:51:08 PM
Reply
And if it's done right & it works well, then I'm all for it & I'll get it.
And if not, then I won't
But.....I'm still going to wait for the 2nd gen 3D before I make a move in order to see what changes or upgrade have been done to it.
Hopefully by that time, there's some 3DTV's out then that don't need 3D glasses.
0 up, 0 down
TonyRob
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 11:47:47 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
___________
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 3:31:28 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Mounce
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 10:52:47 AM
Reply
2. 3D is a gimmick due to the fact that this technology will be improperly used and isn't ready for the world yet, so for now we don't need it. There is also the simple problems for people like me where I already wear god damn glasses, you know how damn weird it was going into a movie theater and wearing TWO glasses? The 3D glasses being thick and clunky nerdy-huge pieces of plastic slightly holding at the tip of my nose? They have to implement the 3D glasses some other way for people who already wear glasses.... liiike, hmmm, idunno...something simple like 3D-Glasses Clip-ons. So they just slide over the lens....DANG! Such hard thinking! Got a headache now.
1 up, 0 down
RebelJD
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 8:07:08 PM
Reply
You know, there are circuses, fairs, broad way shows, Vegas shows, live performances, etc. All forms of entertainment that not everyone enjoys but nevertheless are fun and enjoyable.
3-D baby! (:
1 up, 0 down
TonyRob
Saturday, May 01, 2010 @ 9:10:48 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Caanimal
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 2:15:16 AM
Reply
Stuff like what is happening now w/ 3D has happened every time some new form of entertainment or art (and remember, "Art is in the eye of the beholder") has appeared, some people have been against it. It has happened w/ every new style of painting, with every new style of music, when TV came along, when movies started being made, when movies moved from black & white & silent to color w/ their own audio; this is just the latest in the long line of evolutionary steps for entertainment and art. It isn't one person's place to judge what is or isn't art, that should be left up to the individual, and for mr. ebert to say "this is what I say and YOU ALL MUST listen" is really showing just how over inflated his ego has gotten and what a big head he has.
The “six reason to hate 3D” are all highly situational and have no grounds in my opinion.
1. “It’s a waste of a dimension”, WTF does this mean??? Watch the “trumpet plant” scene from Avatar in 3D then in 2D and tell me which one is “less convincing”.
2. “It adds nothing to the experience”, this is pure OPINION. And who the **** said they were going to go back and redo old movies in 3D, that would be a bad move on the part of Hollywood. If anything they would have completely remake the movie, not just pull it off the shelf and turn it into 3D (which I don’t think is how it works). I seriously doubt that movie companies are going to start going back and "up-dating" movies into 3D,(or I at least really hope they don't try it) so no one has to worry about their "beloved classics" getting "ruined".
3. “It can be a distraction”, using an OLD photography trick, one I learned in my high school photo lab class, is not actual 3D, it’s layering or pseudo 3D or 2.5D as it’s also called. Video Games and other forms of entertainment (even paintings) have been doing this for a LONG time, a prime example (in video games) is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. With true 3D the individual shouldn’t be seeing a “layering effect”.
4. “It can create nausea and headaches”, this is purely on the individual. As stated I have seen 3 movies in 3D and have yet to have either of these things happen to me. If they do happen then I would stay away from further 3D movies, but I wouldn’t call them a “total waste of time” for everybody.
5. “Have you noticed that 3D seems a little dim”. Ummm nope, sure haven’t. And what he describes in the paragraph just sounds plain stupid… If light intensity is divided between the eyes then you should be able to look at the sun w/ one eye covered and absolutely nothing would happen, but we all know that isn’t true.
6. “There’s money to be made selling new digital projectors”. Uh yeah, money makes the world go round you know… Everybody likes to make money, and those who make digital projectors sure as heck don’t make them for sh*t and giggles, they make them to make money… Although, if what he claims about studios saying theatres can’t have the 2D version if they don’t also get the 3D one are true that is some major BS on the movie studios, but still not a reason to hate 3D IMO.
I agree w/ what others have said about not everything having to be done in 3D, do it too much and it will lose some of its appeal and “magic”, if done correctly 3D can add a lot to an experience and hopefully those in Hollywood realize this before it gets to the point that 3D saturates the movies and ruins the experience. With as many companies, both movie companies and TV manufacturing companies, that are backing the current 3D I do not see it going anywhere soon.
1 up, 0 down
realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 4:41:28 AM
Reply
that is my gripe with 3D, if they ever develop a 3D tech that requires no glasses (or head gear of any kind) kudos.
As for now I will enjoy all my entertainment glasses free thank you very much.
0 up, 0 down
TonyRob
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 8:15:41 AM
Reply
0 up, 1 down
realmadpuppy
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 12:28:13 PM
Reply
The gripe is mine and shouldn't effect any other persons feelings toward 3D.
Like I said, if they ever come out with 3D that requires no head gear I will be glad to enjoy it like everyone else.
0 up, 0 down
TonyRob
Sunday, May 02, 2010 @ 6:08:24 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
ThePoetRazel
Tuesday, May 04, 2010 @ 5:35:18 AM
Reply
Nothing but nit-picking at limitations in the tech that will be gone quickly, as the technology advances further and claims that what we have already is good enough. Why invent phones when we can talk? and so on.
Truth is, even with tricks of the mind a 2d image cannot equal sights in reality. Why do people still go to the zoo when they can watch nature documentaries?
His points are a cheap justification of a conclusion reached before he even thought about the subject. I'd rather look at the facts and then make a judgment. So far, i don't see 3d as particularly adding much, but it certainly doesn't take away.
Oh, and hate? yeah, that sounds like a rational mind is giving this opinion.
0 up, 0 down
Jawknee
Reply
Friday, April 30, 2010 @ 10:46:43 AM
Man Im getting tired of this a**hat. Some one should take his key board away for awhile.