

Roger Ebert: 3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension - hernan7
http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

======
mixmax
Movies are a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Give me a good radioshow any
day instead of all this newfangled motion picture business. I may be an old
man that's been around forever, but I'm always right, and here's why:

1\. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you listen to a good radioshow it'a
already a moving picture as far as the mind is concerned. Adding one dimension
artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2\. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall the greatest radioshow
experiences of your lifetime. Did it "need" pictures? A great radioshow
completely engages our imaginations.

4\. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. AS motion picture equipment was being
introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters
interviewed two leading scientists. "There are a lot of people walking around
with very minor eye problems for example, a muscle imbalance which under
normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally,"

6\. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW MOTION PICTURE EQUIPMENT. These
projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from
radiostations to the huge cost of new equipment and the loss of marketingshare
they are sure to see.

Now get off my lawn kid.

~~~
sonofjanoh
You might be old but not always right...and here's why

1\. If one wants to create a world per his imagination why not let him and let
him share it? Why listen to the radio when you can read the book or the script
and leave your imagination do the rest. Even debates are better on screen as
body language tells way more than the grunts and sighs that can only be heard.

2\. It adds a lot to the experience. You will be seeing someone else's
imagination and that can be different than yours.

4\. Yes it can. You still have radio if you experience this. Height can give
you nausea too and that's why it needed a bunch of people without these
"affections" to erect the first skyscrapers which you can benefit from and
marvel at.

6\. If no money is being made of a technological advancement then it gets
forgotten and abandoned. Radio was a big business too and still is.

~~~
eru
Why did you write this reply?

~~~
bryanh
I believe the correct response here would have been "whoosh".

------
joegaudet
I couldn't agree more with this guy, as former film maker, enthusiast, I've
found the 3D movies to be a range of uncomfortable to distracting. Most
importantly 3D is used to distract from the fact that the stories are 1D and
disinteresting. Avatar... terrible movie.

You know what the best form of immersion is, a compelling story, and
characters that make me care about them. The movies that I love have filled
that role without the use of fancy 3D cameras, and giant blue cats.

If you were even to look at films in the same genre, 2001 : a space odyssey
would be a perfect example. It used special effects to convey a sense of
futurism, and to keep you locked in the world Kubrick created, but they
weren't the center piece, the center piece was always the story (as an aside,
I think the effects of 2001 still look more photo real than avatar).

As always my 0.02 dollars.

~~~
tom_ilsinszki
Just imagine a movie, where 3D is not used as a distraction, but in harmony
with the movie; and where the story is complex and beautiful.

The only question is, which movie will it be.

~~~
brianto2010
> _"...which movie will it be."_

Not which movie, but _how to create such a movie_. _How_ would 3D effects
harmonize with a movie? _How_ would 3D add to the "complex and beautiful"
story?

After solving _how_ , we can answer "which".

~~~
sesqu
I haven't actually ever seen a 3-D movie.

That said, I do think detective stories or other slow-pace movies could
genuinely benefit from 3D. The first few would be hopelessly distracting, but
eventually people might come to accept the concept, and then you'd be near
equal ground with the protagonist. A room full of distractions, some of which
the characters draw your attention to; A man on his deathbed, occupying only a
corner of the bed and unable to reach the water clearly under a meter away; A
couple wandering the streets at night, afraid of thugs until they dodge into a
warm and sheltering tavern. I think these kinds of movies could genuinely
benefit from a more immersive environment ...eventually.

edit: more likely, by the time people can make such movies, the technology
will be commonplace enough that no one will notice, except maybe to complain
about how they didn't take _proper_ advantage of it.

------
macrael
I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I felt 3D really added to the experience.
Avatar came close, and there were times when it was really cool, but there
were also times when I turned my head or something didn't line up right and 3D
took me out of the movie. Maybe a part of that is that right now the tech is
immature, but I know that every time I've paid for 3D it's felt like a ripoff.

Ebert's point on focus really hits home for me. When you are watching a movie
in 3D it feels like I should be able to focus my eyes anywhere I like, instead
of accepting the focus the director has chosen in traditional movies. When I
want to look at something in the background in a 3D movie, I expect to be able
to focus on it. So either all 3D movies need to be filmed with really high
depth of field, or 3D will always feel broken.

~~~
sonofjanoh
I'm really curious how people reacted when sound was introduced...then color.
Nowadays everyone seems to be a critic and anything you give them they see a
drawback to it and sometimes this behavior feels just too forced.

It is turning into: back in the days thing... When actors were actors not
animated characters etc. Remember back in the days the frame-rate was given by
the projector fellow's hand steadiness and now we can control it. It has to
start from somewhere. As for me, Sony did some cool engineering to make Avatar
possible and Cameron financed this awesome project. For me that is a winner. I
enjoyed the 3D experience a lot.

~~~
frossie
I am old enough to remember when our households transitioned from a B&W TV to
a colour TV and I absolutely guarantee you that that the reaction was one of
unalloyed joy. No "bah-it-looked-better-before" in sight.

The difference is that in B&W you have no idea if the grass is a lush green or
a parched brown, whereas in real life you make that determination in an
instant.. The problem with 3D is, as Roger Ebert points out, that your brain
_already_ derived the 3D based on a 2D image. So the improvement is
incremental, if that.

The real issue is whether 3D has a real potential in gaming, where gameplay is
frequently first-person, as opposed to movie, where the experience is almost
always third-person.

Or, to put it another way, if _you_ can't turn the camera around, you don't
need a 3-D environment.

~~~
chipsy
Speaking as a game dev, the current 3D still isn't good enough for games,
IMHO. As you said, it's incremental.

It is the case that game design sacrificed precision control to get the 3D
look+feel when it was first introduced: for example, 3D platforming
essentially has not progressed beyond Mario 64, and that game is still
somewhat uncomfortable to "pick up and play" despite all its refinements; the
extra dimension just makes everything far more complex. Adding the glasses
helps regain some of the depth cues that make complex movement difficult, but
then we're dumping on even more equipment, and gaming is already more complex
than it needs to be for most audiences. A full solution would need to be
convenient and unobtrusive.

~~~
eru
Yes, 2D jump-and-runs tend to work better than 3D ones. At least gameplay wise
--you can have a 3D look, but still confine your gameplay to 2D (or 2+1/2D, if
you have layers or so). However I feel that first person shooters really
benefit from 3D.

(And I admit that controlling a first person shooter in 3D with a mouse and a
keyboard is more complex than most people are comfortable with. It's a skill
that I needed to learn, too.

On the other, a certain level of experience and skill is also necessary to
enjoy games like soccer or chess.)

------
RevRal
Once again, Herzog is my man:

 _And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings
in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me
that nothing will "approach" the audience, and his film will stay behind the
plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and
3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the
paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist
standing in the cavern might have._

That sounds awesome.

Even though it was great fun watching Avatar in IMAX and in 3D, I can't help
but cringe at all the wasted plastic used for the glasses.

~~~
pavlov
There are several competing theatrical 3D systems: RealD, Dolby 3D, XpanD.
Their technologies are completely different: respectively polarisation,
wavelength multiplexing, shutter glasses.

Only RealD uses cheap disposable glasses. In Dolby 3D and XpanD, the glasses
are fairly expensive to produce, and thus are recycled (collected from the
audience after the show, washed and redistributed).

Americans seem to overwhelmingly prefer RealD, while Dolby 3D and XpanD
dominate in Europe. Anyone surprised? :)

~~~
antirez
In Italy Dolby 3D is the only one I saw used. You get the glasses when
entering inside the cinema, (they are washed with a special disinfectant in
order to kill viruses and other bugs), and then after the show you give it
back to the cinema guy.

It's fun the first two times, just to try, but the plain cinema is much
better, with better colors and a lot more relaxing. The good thing is that
since the 3D mania there are no problems in fining available sits in the
non-3D rooms.

------
lmkg
I think the biggest limitation of 3D, that is not shared by sound or color or
other cinema technologies, is that it has limited ability for the director to
stylistically alter the scene. It's limited to faithful and accurate
reproductions, and that limits its ability to be used for artistic purposes.

Color can be used, and more importantly altered, to adjust the audience's
perception, by giving characters and scenes psychologically/culturally-loaded
color pallets. Smaller and more nimble cameras allow for all sorts of
cinematographic shenanigans that subtly manipulate the audience's view by
playing with the background while maintaining the foreground. Sound allows an
actor another channel to convey emotion, and allowing spoken words instead of
text allow for more interactive dialogue, which presents greater options for
showing the relationships between characters. Sound also allows for narration,
which allows the juxtaposition of exposition and demonstration.

The point of all of this, is that all of these technologies give the director
additional tools with which to communicate, and using those tools, there are
ways in which the cerebral stimulation or emotional impact of the film can be
enhanced. Even the most gratuitous of CG effects can be used to good effect,
even though 95% of CG is used for bigger and more impressive explosions. E.g.,
Children of Men makes excellent use of cinematography and CG enhancements, in
order to add to the emotional impact of scenes and to add craptons of cultural
allusions to the background.

By contrast, I don't see how 3D can be used to alter or enhance reality in a
way that has meaning. It's largely limited to faithfully reproducing a real or
realistic scene. You can make something appear closer or further than it
otherwise would... I don't see the use case.

This is not to say that it can't be done. I'm not a film maker, and I'm
obviously not aware of the full scope of what can be done. Maybe there is some
crazy mind-bending case, and I'd love to see it. I love it when technologies
are pushed beyond their boundaries to good effect. But I honestly don't think
that there are ways to push the envelope of this technology. I think it's
limited to realistic reproductions of reality. With that limitation, the film
maker cannot use 3D to communicate something that he could not otherwise have
communicated.

The only thing that additional mechanical accuracy adds is "immersion," which
isn't really useful outside of escapist fiction. I, personally, am not very
excited about the idea of more effective escapist fiction. Obviously, all new
technical achievements in film lend themselves to bigger better escapist
fiction, and often get invented for those use cases first. I have no problem
with bigger better escapist fiction because I can just choose not to watch it.
But, unlike other technical advancements in cinema, I don't think 3D has use
outside of escapist fiction, which to me, makes it a rather lackluster
achievement. It advances the craft of filmmaking without advancing the art.

[e]: I don't believe that 3D is entirely without potential. I'm outlining why
I'm skeptical.

------
jerf
I agree, but for totally different reasons.

Consider how 3D works... no, not the cameras and projectors, the _brain_. It
is "well known" that the brain detects how far away something is by measuring
how much the eyes have to cross for the two images to converge. What seems to
be much less well known, though it is obvious with elementary geometry, is
that the breaks down as you get further and further away, as the difference in
angles becomes smaller and smaller. And it's only a few tens of feet.

Beyond that, you brain uses numerous context clues to assemble a 3D image of
the environment; one big one is occlusion, for instance; a thing that is
visibly in front of another thing is clearly closer.

3D technology can only really use the eye-difference thing. Conventional 2D
technology is already perfectly good at all the other clues. (Try playing a 3D
game sometime and simply _trying_ to see it in 3D; you may find that it's
perfectly possible and merely a perspective shift much like seeing the vase or
the face in the classical optical illusion.) Consequently, you end up with an
effect where everything is either taking place on a very small stage in front
of you, or still stuck to the background in totally normal 2D. In the worst
case, the background is a visible plane, like a skybox.

There is no way around this limitation. It's fundamental.

A space fight, which sounds like it would be awesome in 3D, is actually
_fundamentally_ a 2D thing, when it comes to projection technology. If _any_
bit of the space fight is within you 3D-binocular-vision range, you're
probably already dead. It may look awesome, but simultaneously, it is going to
look like a toy, intrinsically, because if it is in 3D, it is equally
obviously a space fight between two spaceship toys taking place about twenty
feet in front of you.

I'm not saying there's no place for 3D, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.
Someday, I suspect we'll look back on this series of 3D movies as slightly
more sophisticated than the ones from decades past, but only slightly,
committing all sorts of "blindingly obvious" scale errors and other such
things.

------
aufreak3
For me, "How to train your dragon" was the most enjoyable 3D experience of all
the 3D films I've seen - Avatar, Alice, Clash, HTTYD. The 3D didn't get in the
way, and it really enhanced certain parts to the extent that I'd miss it. I've
seen this film twice!

Coming to think of it, colour films are pretty useless too. What extra
enjoyment do you get from colour films that you can't get from B&W films? Any
hitchcock, chaplin, etc. fans here?

"IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE." - That's plain BS. It does for me.

"IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION." - Maybe, but so is Eastman color. We're still
figuring out the _art_ of it ... and making great progress imo.

"IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES." - Even normal film can cause epileptic
attacks. So what?

~~~
alextp
Color, when used by a good director, adds a lot of subtle semantic content to
a movie. See some old Almodovar movies, or maybe Kieslowksy's Three Colors
trilogy, or even The Matrix. Color adds information that wasn't already there
in black-and-white, just like movement and sound adds a lot of information
that weren't already there in comic books.

~~~
aufreak3
I was being sarcastic with my colour related remarks. The point being that a
"new" dimension can feel pointless initially. Its as strange to think of 3D as
a "new" dimension as it is to think of "colour" as one.

------
yason
Well, I think 3D has no place in the cinema. Films have been and films are an
art form consisting of two-dimensional moving pictures. You can't change that,
just as you can't say that a three-dimensional computer image is just a form
of painting, just 3D.

However, I think that the 3D is a new art form of its own, and it's only at
its developing stage at the time. 3D may not be the right medium for what we
consider good _films_ as the 3D projections are not of the same art as
traditional cinematic films. We will see what experiences the 3D turns out to
produce, but it's probably going to find other uses than emulating films.

------
axod
Why does society repeat the same mistakes?

    
    
      1950s - first big 3d boom
      1980s - second try
      2010s - third try
    

Each generation seems to want to try exactly the same stuff even when it
failed the last time. I guess maybe in 2040 it'll work well :)

~~~
jessriedel
People kept trying to make flying machines without success for a long time
too...

~~~
axod
Considering that 2D movies have almost all the 3D cues needed for our brains
to interpret them as 3D, I'm not convinced '3D' movies actually make that much
sense. It's certainly not comparable to 'flying' vs 'not flying' anyway IMHO.

~~~
jessriedel
Oh, I haven't seen any movie that makes 3D worthwhile. It's just that the
argument "people tried it before and failed" is not even a little convincing.

------
tom_ilsinszki
In Chaplin's autobiography there is a part about the first movies that weren't
silent. Everyone was used to silent films, and even Chaplin felt, that speech
might hurt his character. I agree 3D movies are different, but they are here,
and it is very probable that they will stay. So instead of telling people why
3D sucks, you could ask this: How can filmmakers improve 3D experience?

------
blue1
Once upon a time, when Netscape added the BACKGROUND attribute and FONT
element, we obtained web graphics of the geocities variety.

Good expressive results for new technologies take some time to be discovered.

~~~
scott_s
I bet the first color movies looked like little more than a gimmick, too.

Now, I did see Avatar in 3D. I was curious. I was also underwhelmed, and I
agree with all of the technical limitations everyone has mentioned.
(Particularly the darker picture). But I'm not naive enough to claim I know
what will happen in the future.

~~~
DannoHung
The Wizard of Oz is generally beloved all these years later.

------
Murkin
I couldn't disagree more with this guy.

Maybe he should take a peek at 100 years ago.

It was said that movies are the bane of society. Instead of the immersive
story telling of books. Here, moving pictures replace the imagination and
wisdom of stories.

It always takes time to learn how to use a new technology. And it takes time
for the market to be full enough when "just using the new tech" is no longer
enough.

I am hopeful that they will learn how to use 3D to add depth to the story, not
their pockets.

~~~
Rauchg
He makes good points though. Avatar did cause dizziness for me, for example.
And at times I had a hard time focusing my eyes on the right things to get the
3D effect. I surely hope it's not the future of movies!

~~~
AndrewDucker
I hope the option of 3D is the future of movies. I want to be able to choose
to see movies in 2D or 3D.

------
Raphael
Amen to higher frame rates. If you haven't played a video game at 90+ fps yet,
you don't know what you're missing.

~~~
naz
Video games are different. For the most part there is no motion blur so your
brain perceives juddering. Film doesn't have this problem.

~~~
plorkyeran
The point would be to remove the need for disgusting amounts of motion blur in
films.

------
dcurtis
Ebert is kind of missing the point.

This discussion shouldn't be about 3D, it should be about motion pictures more
closely approaching the experience of reality. Sure, 3D technologies today are
kind of crappy, but it's part of the technological evolution process.
Eventually, we're going to have movies that feel so real you can't tell the
difference between the movie and reality. That is the goal. Fake 3D is just
the first step, I think.

(When the first motion pictures were displayed for audiences on large screens,
they also caused nausea and dizziness. In some theaters where the images
projected were exceptionally large, people were even provided with vomit bags
like on early airplanes. The technology improved and overcame these
drawbacks.)

~~~
gdee
You're describing theater with special effects and JIT scene changes. I thing
it's a fabulous premise and I've been thinking the same about the supposed
destination of 3D movies.

------
Jun8
_It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom
of directors to make films as they choose._

I fully agree with him _at this point in time_. I think once 3D gets more
mainstream young directors will find ways to make use of this new medium.

A lot of the points that Ebert raises are similar to ones raised when sound
was beginning to be added to the films in the 1920s
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_film>). For example "Sufficient playback
volume was also hard to achieve"Current problem is that Hollywood uses 3D just
to project inherently 2D designed movies on screen, except for some shock
scenes where a snake comes at you, etc. This limits its use to juvenilia or
"blockbusters" like Avatar. That doesn't mean it's always going to be that
way.

It's interesting that a sort of Innovator's Dilemma biases people who are in
the movie making business. For example, Chaplin saw little value in talkies:
"Chaplin firmly believed that “silent film's message reaches the entire
spectrum of ‘intellectual and the rank and file’"
([http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Charlie-Chaplin-
and-...](http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Charlie-Chaplin-and--
Talkies-/695199)) and his sentiment was shared by many actors and producers.

------
tallanvor
There are several things that bother me with the current 3D craze.

First - and I'll admit this makes me biased - I'm blind in one eye. This means
that it doesn't matter what technology they use, I'm not going to be able to
see the movie in 3D.

Second, the only movie I tried to watch in 3D (in the last 10 years), was
Coraline. It was a great film, but having to wear the glasses meant the film
was very dark.

Third, I've yet to talk to anyone who didn't come out of the film without
either a headache or at least a somewhat spacey feeling. The technology
strains your eyes, and while I don't believe it causes any lasting damage, it
still leaves you worn out after the film. Or maybe my friends and I are just
too old.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you have to wear special glasses,
3D movies aren't likely to be considered a normal part of going to the movies.

------
AndrewDucker
I disagree. I've definitely seen movies where 3D added to the experience. Was
the 3D vital? No. But then neither was the colour - the films would still have
been good in black and white, but the colour added to the experience.

Sure, it can be done badly, but that's hardly the fault of the technology.

------
evo_9
There is some merit to his comments. I recently watched Avatar in HD at home
with my gf 5 and 8 year old. Both said they liked it more because it was
'clearer and brighter'. When I pressed the 8 year old he said that he thought
he could see more detail in the background.

------
ktf
People said the same thing about sound. And color. And widescreen. And so on.

Attack the films themselves, not the medium. It's only going to be as good as
the artist who uses it. Don't fear new technology, even if you are an over-
the-hill critic.

~~~
andrewvc
I agree, this reminds me of how people would get up in arms about 2d artwork
created on a computer.

Sadly, many people confuse craftsmanship for art, this leaves people who like
things the way they are angry, and those who want the new shiny drooling over
crappy art that happens to use new tools.

This all brings to mind Duchamp's 'Fountain', and various people's reaction to
it. It's amusing how some debates never end.

------
jcl
_What Hollywood needs is a "premium" experience that is obviously,
dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all
ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I've been praising a process invented
by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but
shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is
absolutely jiggle-free._

I'm not sure why Ebert thinks this technology will draw moviegoers out of
their homes. Many HD TVs and console games run at 60 fps. High-fps movies
would leak into the home far faster than 3D has.

------
psyklic
Personally, I agree with the author -- tickets were too pricy BEFORE "3-D"
came around.

However, my friends all love 3-D. They say it provides something they can't
get from a DVD, and they'll gladly pay for it.

~~~
_delirium
That's what's driving it, I think: the industry is looking for, "what can we
make that the consumer can't replicate at home easily?"

It's interesting, though, that this has been one of their answers for
literally decades: there was a big fad of 3d films in the 50s. Will be
interesting to see if this one turns out to be any more long-lasting.

------
JoeAltmaier
Its called "simulator sickness" and occurs in a fraction of the population
when your inner ear and eyes disagree on your motion. Fun for some, total
nausea for others.

------
decklin
One of the things that I like about a movie is if it makes me think about
who/what the camera is. Is it a character? A god? Part of some piece of
architecture? ...etc. Does it control time/linearity, or does time control it?

The idea of implicitly giving it a pair of eyes a few inches apart kind of
ruins that for me. Why fake biology if you're ever going to make a jump cut?
Most of our visual grammar depends on things actual eyes can't do.

------
lkozma
"Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension."

Totally agree with the author. Actually our minds use a whole set of cues
besides perspective to estimate the third dimension and stereopsis (used in
"3d" movies) is just one of them.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_perception>

------
JoeAltmaier
I certainly think a great 3D movie CAN be made. Imagine a WWII fighter-plane
movie in 3D! Heck, even Avatar did some cool things with it. Blame the
director - sending things out of the screen into the audience because you CAN
is just poor cinematography. I'll wait until the next generation of more
artful 3D films, then decide.

------
JasonD9
I wonder if there were critics expressing their displeasure with color movies
when black-and-white movies were the norm? I could see some of the same
arguments working. "When you see a black-and-white film your mind
automatically adds color", "It adds nothing to the experience", "It can be a
distraction".

~~~
pavlov
Absolutely. Some European film critics held this view until recently.

I recall one of Finland's former leading critics, a man who used to teach
cinema history in the country's leading film school, listing his favorite
films of all time in 1996, when the art form turned 100. His list included a
single color film, and he made special note of that: "This film demonstrates
that it's possible to create a film where color is not a distraction but an
essential element."

------
jessriedel
This is the very first thing I noticed in Avatar:

>Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D.

------
jcromartie
3D seems to have one trick: throwing things at the screen to startle you.

------
sandal
If only we could bring back smell-o-vision...

