Ebert Says 3D Will Never Work Because Our Brains Hate It

The massive 3D gimmick the entertainment industry is trying to foist on all of us is going to be about as successful as “Smell-O-Vision,” says film critic Roger Ebert. No, he’s not just just being cranky or “anti new stuff.” Rather, it’s that our brains and eyes are simply not wired for viewing an extended series of 3D images. All the technology improvements and marketing won’t ever beat biology. Here’s why.

Ebert cites a letter sent to him by the extremely respected film editor Walter Murch:

The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the “convergence/focus” issue. A couple of the other issues — darkness and “smallness” — are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen — say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

Obviously 3D works, otherwise we couldn’t see it. But it’s hard and it gives you a headache because you’re overtasking your brain and eyes. Your eyes are focused on a flat screen 50 feet away but your brain is being told that it is 10 feet away. Your brain does not like being told this, and until we have true Star Trek type holograms, 3D is just another Hollywood ruse destined for the dustbin.

Why 3D doesn’t work and never will. Case closed. [Roger Ebert’s Journal]


Edit Your Comment

  1. david.c says:

    Makes sense … 3D is kinda cool … wearing glasses to see it is not

    And a $3 upcharge for glasses that cost .25 cents? and they want me to give them back so they can clean/repackage them and resell them again? No thanks, would rather just keep my glasses and skip the $3 charge next time.

    • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

      Most theaters do not allow you to do that; I’ve brought my own 3-D glasses, saved from previous visits, on several occasions to different regional and national cinema chains. They would still charge you the glasses surcharge, even if you have your own. :/

    • LeonardoLeonardo says:

      I think the surcharge is more for the more expensive projecting equipment than the glasses. Though, yes, even more of that is profit to the studios.

    • The Marionette says:

      You’ll get charged for the 3d version of a movie. Besides it goes towards better equipment.

    • dentam says:

      If I remember correctly, theaters have to pay a licensing fee to the providers of the 3-d technology (RealD is one, I forget the other “big” one). That extra charge on the admission ticket pays the licensing fee, not the cost of the glasses.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      All your arguments are financial instead of biological, which 1) was the topic at hand, and 2) are actual rational arguments.

      You agreed with an argument on issues that in no way deal with the actual situation.

      • Red Cat Linux says:

        I was about to disagree with you but talked myself out of it by the time I started to type. It still comes down to whether the bother and cost are worth the benefit.

        I didn’t buy a DLP television because I’m in the subset of people who can see the rainbows. So it wasn’t worth it to me. I don’t get headaches from 3D movies, and my vision adjusts nicely to it, but it still isn’t worth the added expense to see it. It doesn’t have a big enough *wow* factor.

        Hollywood is indeed attempting to gimmick up the big screen to drag us away from the likes of Redbox and Netflix. The $10 pop corn and soft drink combo was just not enough.

        • george69 says:

          get a LCD projector. Epson makes good projectors. I have two and use them as primary tv. I have a 101″ screen and when the new house is completed the theater room will be 130″.

          DLP = crap

  2. evfaithful says:

    The husband and I went to see Tron in 3D. This was the first 3D movie I had seen since I went to Disney World. It being 3D really did nothing to add to my movie experience. There were only a few scenes here and there that were kind of cool in 3D.

    If your movie sucks (script, actors, etc.), 3D cannot save it. I’m looking at you, James Cameron.

    • krom says:

      Well, I bet a lot of it had to do with the sad fact that a lot of 3-D movies bank on “in your face” shock gimmicks. I really don’t like that; I wish 3-D was used to provide things like scale and environmental cues, rather than OMG THAT HUGE THING IS ABOUT TO HIT US.

      Also, Tron isn’t entirely in 3-D, only parts of it.

      • evfaithful says:

        I thought the only parts of TRON that weren’t 3D were the parts outside of the grid or whatever it’s called.

        • pecan 3.14159265 says:

          Yeah, the reason why people may not have noticed the 3D as much is because when you’re inside the grid, all of it is in 3D so you get used to it and there aren’t so many things that are flying in your face to show how awesome (!) 3D is.

        • Red Cat Linux says:

          That was what the footprint said as the movie started. It’s just that there wasn’t enough going on in there that HAD to be 3D. The effect was minimal in most Grid scenes. Occasionally during a 3D movie I take the glasses off and don’t see much distortion.

          In Tron’s case, I would have been fine with the fully 2D version.

  3. raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

    I am notorious among friends and family for developing massive headaches when viewing long movies at the theater. I’ve taken to popping a few aspirin in advance, and I am usually fine. I have no problems with viewing 3-D movies, at least, no more problems than I do with regular flat movies. I am a big fan of the technology and it gives me no eyestrain or focus issues afterwards.

    There are folks who, due to genetics, accidents, or any number of influences, cannot appreciate 3-D movies, but they are always released in regular 2-D alongside the fancier release.

    Though with polarized lenses, it makes sense that if movies reach the point that they are no longer available in 2-D, that there be a glasses option for both eyes to have the same polarization–essentially flattening the effect.

    • jesirose says:

      Always? That’s why we had to wait until Avatar came out on DVD to see it I guess. Most of the theaters around here don’t play the 2D version of a 3D film anymore.

      • nybiker says:

        Citrix had an event (Virtual Desktops: From Wow to How) on Dec 17 to tie-in with Tron. First we sat through their virtualization information and then we got to see the movie. They showed us the 2D version. I can’t complain, though. I got to see it for free. But the multiplex theater (Empire 25 on 42nd Str at 8th Ave) did have theaters showing it in 2D. I guess it depends on where you’re at if a theater shows 3D in 2D.

  4. Supes says:

    I think Ebert underestimates human adaptability. We can train our bodies to do quite a lot that might not be biologically normal.

    • Mom says:

      Yes, we’re adaptable. To a point. I did six months of therapy with a developmental optometrist, to try to resolve some headaches I was having. Among other things, the therapy involved practicing reading those “magic eye” things, which is basically the same thing, focusing on one plane, while converging on another. With practice, I got good at it. But because it isn’t something we ever have to do in real life, I never got to the point where I could do it for more than a few minutes without getting tired. I suppose someone could work their way up to being “in shape” to watch a long 3D movie without fatiguing, but for most people, I doubt it’s worth the effort.

    • mikeP says:

      Its kinda like smoking. I dont think anyone has ever enjoyed their first cigaratte because they are definitely not used to the taste and well… smoke. I gagged like crazy on my first go at it.
      Learning to like smoking by muddling your way through is also incredibly dumb because of all the well-known health risks and downsides.

      That’s why nobody smokes in America. Oh wait…

  5. FatLynn says:

    Will the novelty wear off? Sure, but then I imagine there will be super-theaters where they add even more to the experience. Remember the Muppets 3-D thing at MGM studios? That was awesome.

    • pythonspam says:

      “That is awesome.”

      I fixed it for you.

      • KatieNeptune says:

        I think for novelty things like Muppets 3-D and Mickey’s Philharmagic the 3D is perfect because they’re short shows – vs Avatar which gave me a killer headache from going back and forth on the crazy 3Dness of it all.

        (Yes, Muppets 3-D IS totally awesome)

    • Warble says:

      I saw that like 15 years ago and I still tell people about it. I’m glad that it’s still going!

    • Bativac says:

      Oh man, the part where Kermit says they aren’t gonna result to cheap gimmicks, then Fozzie throws the pie… I laugh every time!

    • teke367 says:

      “Eveybody thinks I’m talking to them, but I’m really just talking to you”

      Favorite part.

    • gman863 says:

      You just had to bring up 3D at theme parks.

      I’m now having flashbacks of Captain Eo from Disney World back in the 1980s.

      Looks like I’ll have to increase my dose of Propofl tonight I so can get to sleep tonight.

  6. Tyanna says:

    I learned when I went to see Avatar in 3D that you have to let the screen tell you what to focus on. I remember on scene in the movie where I was trying to force something out of focus into focus, and it was really killing my eyes. It’s natural for us to do that, but the way 3D movies work you can’t.

    Since I had that breakthrough (so to speak) I’ve been able to watch, and enjoy other 3D movies without too much eye fatigue. I do hate having to wear the glasses over my glasses though. I wish there was a clip on I could attach to my glasses……oh well. *shrugs*

    • sirwired says:

      That was the biggest problem I had with Avatar too… my eyes were wanting to check out all the cool stuff in the background, and my brain “forgot” that I couldn’t actually do that.

      Now, if it had been made 3D-only, he could have filmed with a greater Depth of Field, and I could have focused on anything I wanted… (That would be a hyper-busy disaster in a non-3D movie.)

      • HeroOfHyla says:

        There was an article I read somewhere about that. I don’t remember the whole thing, but the point was basically that movies should go back to focusing more on dark-vs-light contrast rather than focus changes.

    • SixOfOne says:

      Ditto about the glasses thing. Just when I think I’ve got them situated, they slip right off. >

    • Sian says:

      Yep, this is the big secret of watching 3d comfortably.

      On a standard 2d movie, you can let your eyes wander, take in background details, etc. In a 3d movie this is a total no-no. You have to let the movie tell you where to look. otherwise you’re fighting it and you vs 60 ft projection your eyes will lose.

  7. Ilovegnomes says:

    There’s also a portion of the population who are unable to see 3D because their eyes don’t work together at the same time but their brain has adjusted to compensate.

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      That’d be me.

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Yep. It’s called monocular vision. Oliver Sacks’ new book goes into that kind of problem in depth (pun not intended). He describes one case in which a woman spent most of her life not being able to experience three dimensions but being entirely unaware as to what she was missing. Somewhat out of the blue, she gains binocular vision and she describes it as being a sensation unlike any other because suddenly her world was “whole” and full of depth. Everything suddenly popped out at her because she was able to gauge depth and shadows.

      • zyg0te says:

        You’re referring to the book Fixing My Gaze about “Stereo Sue.” IIRC she didn’t gain stereo vision out of the blue but rather from hard work with the help of her optometrist training her in vision therapy. This was when she was around the age of 50 and well past the critical period.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      I wear glasses (myopic with an astigmatism in one eye), and 3D sucks for me. The glasses don’t work over my own glasses because there’s a gap, and without my glasses I have almost no depth perception so they don’t work then, anyway.

    • RickinStHelen says:

      I can’t see the 3D movies, but have to pay for them because my kids want to see them. My fear is that they will become the norm, and I will keep paying for something I can’t see. Oh well, my daughters will not want me around soon anyway, so then I can stop griping.

  8. SofaMonster says:

    3D films feel like I’m trying to adjust to a new prescription glasses. Eye strain.

  9. MongoAngryMongoSmash says:

    I had the chance to check out Avatar in 3D on my brother’s home system. Was I impressed? Yes, to a point. Yeah, it adds a dimension and it’s cool but I did get a little nauseous. I would like to see technology advance so that movies could still be viewed on a flat screen but have the depth. Maybe it’s the cameras filming it that have to change. HD added another level of viewing and perhaps we are close to achieving the process without the gimmick.

  10. Hooray4Zoidberg says:

    Having purchased a 3D TV recently (not specifically for 3D but because it was the best 2D tv out there) my opinion is; 3D is really fun if the movie is not meant to tell a story but meant to be like a disney world ride. Comcast has some free on demand 3D stuff that’s from like 2003 which was clearly made for some sort of amusement park ride. Those are super fun to watch.

    As for story telling device I find it unnecessary and distracting. Those amusement park rides kind of work because they’re goofy and not afraid to break the 4th wall. The whole movie is about taking advantage of the technology. When you try to use it to supplement a dramatic scene or just in certain parts of your film it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

    • Ben says:

      I agree! It’s always weird to me when 3D films get praised for having 3D effects that aren’t gimmicky or show-offy. Uh, what’s the point then?

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      Agreed. I can’t even see 3D for reasons I state below, but I can’t magically predict which parts of the movie are in 3D based on whether something is clumsily coming at you with sound effects.

  11. PanCake BuTT says:

    Why do cats look soooo cool with shades on ?

  12. ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

    I can’t see 3-D due to my strabismus. I don’t usually have the particular form of depth perception necessary for the 3-D illusion employed here to work. I have depth perception, but I use other cues, and not stereopsis. I can “force” the illusion, but it’s tiresome and not worth it. Sometimes, if my friends are set on seeing something in 3D, I go along with it. I waste a few extra bucks so that they’re not put out. I just watch it in 2D.

    IMAX, on the other hand…

  13. LeonardoLeonardo says:

    Eh, while I agree that 3D is mostly a gimmick (albeit an often-cool one), a lot of this smacks of the kind of stuff a previous generation of old coots would warn about: you’ll go blind from starting at that screen all day/sitting too close to the TV/etc. Plus, the fact that he *wrote him a letter*.

  14. Red Cat Linux says:

    Not only is it destined for the dustbin, it’s already been there.

    Is no one else old enough to remember the LAST 3D craze in movies? The tech wasn’t done cooking yet then either, it got dustbinned/mothballed, and now Hollywood has gone dumpster diving and it’s been re-tread for the current generation.

    I have only seen one movie where I felt it added to the experience, and then, it has only a handful of scenes.

  15. QuantumCat says:

    I get nauseous and headaches from 3D movies. I’m sure a number of factors are at play here, but I would cry if they ever stopped offering non 3D versions of movies. Of course, my friends love 3D movies so I end up seeing them in 3D anyway. :)

  16. Tim says:

    Wait … don’t we see in 3D all the time? Or at least most of the time … when we’re not looking at screens and all.

    • MuffinSangria says:

      Because of my geeky science background this has always bugged me.

      Everything we see is in 3-D. “3-D” movies are just an optical illusion and apparently they couldn’t come up with a better name. “2-D” movies are 3 dimensional, the size of one of the dimensions is just very small.

      • raydee wandered off on a tangent and got lost says:

        The annoying Technicality Geek in me says that all movies are already in 3-D because otherwise we would just be looking at a giant painting. A flat movie is Length by Width by Time.

        (this is the same geek that states that the glass is always full; half of its contents just happen to be air.)

        • MuffinSangria says:

          That’s what I was saying, all movies are in 3-D already. However, it’s length, width, and depth, not time. No matter how small, there is depth to a movie, the thickness of the light particles. Something can be a 3 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional object, but it is still 3 dimensional.

          Until it’s proven that we can easily move both forward and backward in time, I’ll never start to even consider it as a dimension.

    • jesirose says:

      The last paragraph explains it well.

      […] Your eyes are focused on a flat screen 50 feet away but your brain is being told that it is 10 feet away. Your brain does not like being told this […]

      When we see REAL things they are where our eyes think they are. When we see 3D images they aren’t where we’re looking.

  17. TooManyHobbies says:

    I can’t believe that the Wikipeida article doesn’t mention Bugs Bunny – in one of his time travel cartoons, he read the paper and it has a headline “Smell-o-vision replaces Television” and a subtitle “Carl Stalling sez ‘It’ll never work'”

  18. krom says:

    Well, while it will give us older folk headaches, younger generations will adapt to it more readily, and their brains will learn to dissociate focus from convergence.

    After all, any correlation between focus and convergence that our current brains — that is the brains of people above age 25 or so — have is due to the fact that we’ve never had to do otherwise, very often, until recently. And as we get older our own learned correlation is harder to un-learn. Our eyes and brain were still developing when we learned to see.

    Roger Ebert isn’t a biologist and neither is Walter Murch, so they should both probably STFU on using armchair biological arguments to defend their own problems with 3D. Do babies come out of the womb able to correlate focus with convergence? IANAB but that would be where I’d start asking.

    But my suspicion is that, like all other activities, watching 3-D is something that is harder to adapt to as one gets older. Both Ebert and Murch are in their mid-60s. Kids in their tweens and teens will almost assuredly not have the same trouble with adapting. Can Ebert text like a teenager? Can he ride a RipStick? Point is, what grown ups often can’t do, kids often can do with no trouble. Sad perhaps, but true; and I suspect 3-D is no different, especially once 3-D TVs (and enabled programming) are common in homes.

  19. Mold says:

    How about movies worth seeing? Maybe there is a market for 3-D Portman flicks….

  20. msbask says:

    I just saw The Green Hornet in 3D. Had I known the theatre was only showing it in 3D, I might have stayed home. As it is, I came home with a headache. Of course, the headache could’ve just been because it was The Green Hornet, not the 3D. We’ll never know.

  21. neilb says:

    Hey, Ebert: Humans have not evolved to sit in one place for long periods of time staring at a 2d screen either. In favor of Ebert’s theory, we seem to be able to do the 2d thing very well, physically (even though it may lack an adaptive context; perhaps we do it too well–leading to catatonic staring and physical degradation). I just don’t buy that 2d is necessarily better than 3d based upon evolutionary context. Neither is.
    I get the point of there being a unique physical challenge at play here, but the process of observing a 2d screen at precisely the same distance for hours on end is a leap of artificiality that we take for granted and 3d is not taken for granted.
    I think I could come up with more evolutionary justification for staring at a 3d environment (e.g., observing a prairie for prey) than for staring a 2d one. However, there is none for sitting and staring at any image for hours–2d or 3d.
    – Personal note: I like it for the kitsch, but have not seen 3d used in any way that meaningfully aids the storytelling capability of a film. I also REALLY like Ebert’s theory for the fact that it brings up a fascinating interaction between our bodies and behavior.

  22. padarjohn says:

    I feel sorry for all of you who don’t seem to enjoy 3D. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed every 3D movie I’ve seen (I thought Tron 2 was awesome :-P ) and I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve watched on my 3D TV.
    I think maybe people are sitting too close. The focus thing really shouldn’t be a problem. Our eyes aren’t spy satellites with no depth of field. After a certain distance everything is equivalent to infinity.

  23. TheDude06 says:

    Rober ebert did not write that!!!! Walter murch did. and he is a MUCH better reference than ebert on the matter. this guy edited apocolypse now, the engish patient, ghost, and a little 3d film you may have heard of called “captain EO”

    • MMD says:

      RTFA. Ebert wrote an article in which he cites Murch.

    • dru_zod says:

      Murch certainly knows his stuff. He’s a great editor and a pretty darn good writer too. I read his book “In The Blink of An Eye: A Perpective on Film Editing” in college and he has some really interesting ideas about why film editing works. If he says we aren’t wired for 3D movies, I’m inclined to believe him.

  24. MrEvil says:

    I could have done without the 3D with Tron Legacy. Only a couple scenes were really well done. And the trailers were better done than the film…and that’s just sad.

  25. AllanG54 says:

    I have a problem with 3-D because one of my eyes is 20/15 (far-sighted) and the other is about 20/100 (near-sighted). So, while I don’t get headaches or anything like that, the 3-D effect doesn’t always work for me.

  26. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    I saw Avatar in 3D…twice, with 2 different groups of people bound and determined to go.

    I have to admit that I liked the movie, despite the fact that you could discern the entire plot of the movie about 5 minutes into it.

    …but the 3D stuff – meh. And mind you, this was at a huge Imax theater, built specifically for 3D moviegoing. There really was nothing about the 3Dness that impressed me…and a lot of the times, it was intrusive and annoyed me. I really do not understand the big deal that has been made of it…at the very best maybe it didn’t detract from the movie too much.

    Having said that, and granted Ebert’s notes above, I have to wonder if anything will really be all that worthwhile until a truly holographic “movie” can be made. Not a 3Dish mishmash coming from a truly 2D screen as we have now, but honest-to-goodness 3D stuff appearing in 3D space as a hologram.

    I’m not gonna hold my breath waiting for it though.

    • Red Cat Linux says:

      That was the one movie that I was happy to have seen in 3D. It’s really just a handful of scenes that make the technology shine, but that’s more than the other recent 3D offerings I’ve seen.

  27. Mike says:

    I love Ebert, but he is wrong on this front. We already have a generation of kids that have been raised on 3D children’s movies, they are getting 3D games at home and they are now coming to expect all entertainment to be in 3D.

    But you always need to follow the money. Studios continue to spend millions on 3D movies, and theatres make a killing on the ticket prices. Also, 3D tvs are getting cheap, right now you can get 3D tvs for as little as $700.

    The only thing I hate about 3D movies is that people think that just because a movie is visually stunning you don’t have to make the story good. Screw that, there is no rule that says you can’t have a great looking movie AND a well-written story. I hate any movie that can be described as a “popcorn flick.” Don’t waste my time with shit stories just because you spent millions on the effects.

    • BayardMozie says:

      Yeah, kids are being raised on 3D, etc. etc. But no matter how familiar you can be with 3D, the point of the original article is that today’s 3D is not compatible with human brains and eyes, and therefore fatigue, eyestrain, headaches etc. are unavoidable. Todays kids may not always seem like it, but they still have human brains and eyes.

      • CookiePuss says:

        I’m sure there’s a drug we can put the kids on to keep their headaches and eyestrain at bay. Maybe every 3D product should come with a free script for Oxycontin and watch the 3D games fly off the shelves. :P

    • Lisse24 says:

      I’m a teacher, and I can say for certain that today’s kids are /not/ raised on 3D. Yes, they go to 3D movies on occasion, but they still go to 2D movies and don’t find them boring or useless. 3D games – Well, I’ve never once heard my kids bring up 3D gaming, and I’m the teacher who had a discussion with them on Call of Duty this morning.
      When we watch a current events story on 3d movies and their ill effects most students seem to agree that 3D hurts their eyes and can cause problems.
      I know this is not scientific, but it’s enough to make me doubt your claims.

    • AnthonyC says:

      Don’t get me wrong, I love a good action or sci-fi or fantasy flick, but I completely agree- effects can’t make up for a crap story for more than an hour or so.

      Really, though, most movies, and most times, have been bad. The classics are few in a sea of old, bad, forgotten movies. I don’t know if there is any net movement towards bad stories, or just biases in my memory.

      It holds for video games to- better graphics notwithstanding, Dynasty Warriors 6 can’t hold a candle to Chrono Trigger.

  28. Evan says:

    Isn’t focusing on multiple planes how we go through our lives every day? I just looked at my mug, then out the window, then at my monitor, then down the hall. Our eyes are constantly refocusing, I don’t understand which part he’s saying is unnatural.

    • erinpac says:

      In real life what appears a few inches away usually is. You aren’t constantly trying to focus 10 feet in front of the image you are actually looking at.

  29. outlulz says:

    I didn’t know Ebert was also an eye doctor.

  30. ovalseven says:

    Don’t forget about Feel-Around. That one failed too.

  31. erinpac says:

    Are the TVs any better than the 3-D theaters anyways?
    I’ve never really gotten the theater 3-D hype… it always just looks blurry. I can tell what’s supposed to “stick out”, but it doesn’t really. It’s a step above magic-eye.

  32. cloudedknife says:

    so, does the fact that I DON’T get headaches or really any discomfort at all sitting through a 3d movie mean that my eyes and brain are better than yours?

  33. IThinkThereforeIAm says:

    Maybe it’s a little against the popular opinion here, but

    I think a “well done” 3-D movie is worth the time. I am not a kid anymore (unfortunately), but I think that when a movie does not rely on the cool-factor of 3-D (i.e. it stops being a gimmick) 3-d actually adds to the movie experience. (Avatar, How to train your dragon, just for starters)

    I imagine a few decades ago the whole “color picture” had similar arguments about… or the “talkies”, if you want to go a little farther back in time.

    And IMAX 3-D – the only reason I ever visit a movie theater anymore – everything else is almost as good at home on your flat-screen from a DVD. And, consequently I believe this is why this wave of 3-D will not go away – movie theaters must have something over your home-theater. I think, this is it.

  34. nutbastard says:

    This is highlighting the flaws of theater style polarized 3D, all of which can be addressed (rather trivially) if the glasses themselves contain 2 displays and a bit of optics.

  35. damageddude says:

    I don’t like 3D because I wear glasses and find it annoying to wear 3D glasses over my regular glasses. As the movie progresses I find that I start to get a headache as the glasses move around. I also don’t like being charged $3 extra for each 3D showing for a movie that could have been just as nice in 2D, but that is another story.

  36. rdclark says:

    My experience matches Ebert’s. But other people’s don’t. (My wife and son both like 3D and suffer no ill effects from it.) So one difference between Ebert and me is that I don’t generalize from the specific, but he does.

  37. GTB says:

    I can’t stand 3D. Especially since it’s become a fad to release everything in 3D, whether it was intended for the medium or not. It’s also become a crutch, used as a gimmick to try and sell a film that otherwise couldn’t stand on its own merit.

  38. ArmyCats says:

    This article is a lie because if the movie is the perverted kind of action romance, my brain will like it VERY VERY MUCH!

  39. Mock says:

    The odd thing is that watching 2D movies and television does the same thing … it expects us to force-perspective map 3 dimensions to a display that is essentially flat. Never before in human history were we faced with that challenge, either.

    Or think about the fact that early photographs, films and TV were monochromatic. Unless we had a case of extreme color blindness, accepting this black-and-white image as “real” was really stretching our noggins a bit. It did not take long to accept.

    I respect Roger Ebert, but don’t agree with those observations. In this case, the world that may be passing him may be one he is willing to accept. After all, his life, his abolute being is intertwined with the art of film. The again, he might just be right.

  40. Cetan says:

    Not really buying this 3D gimmick. Thanks James Cameron for launching the 1000 ships in this case.

    I’m fine watching normal 2D movies, 2D TV, playing with my 2D laptop and 2D Nintendo DS.

    I’ve not been impressed with 3D effects either. The only time 3D has moved me, is this old Jurrasic Park in 3D theme park, when the T-Rex lunges at the audience.

  41. Levk says:

    I will wait for holographic tv that just seems much more better

  42. Alessar says:

    I have absolutely no problems or discomfort watching 3D, and I have to put the glasses on over top of my existing glasses. What doesn’t work is the post-processed films that use rotoscoping to create 3 flat layers. It’s simply so fake looking I don’t know why they bother. It kind of sort of worked in Alice in Wonderland for me just because it was like a cartoon dimension, but I could have done without. On the other hand, I thought Tron was a wonderfully immersive experience and I felt I was sucked into that digital realm along with the protagonist. (I saw it on a true IMax screen with high quality loaner glasses.) I also enjoyed the action sequences in the latest Resident Evil film; again, native 3D and not rotoscoping.

  43. Wei says:

    “And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before.”

    Magic Eye. I’ll bet he can’t see them.

  44. spamtasticus says:

    Small point that most people don’t know about, there is another reason that compels the studios to release movies in 3d. There is no way to put a 3d pair of specs on a hidden video camera. When you see the screen without the glasses it is all messed up and blurry. This therefore makes it impossible to film the movie and release it illegally with any sort of resolution.

  45. gc3160thtuk says you got your humor in my sarcasm and you say you got your sarcasm in my humor says:

    I can’t handle 3d. It makes my head hurt and I vomit. I’ve been told they also could give me seizures. Either way I really avoid them and I don’t think I’m missing out on anything.