News: Roger Ebert Hates 3D

Roger Ebert Hates 3D

I'm particularly interested in his point about 3D being darker.  I saw Avatar in 3D with 2 different projection systems: RealD 3D and 3D at the Arclight Dome.  Both times, throughout the film, I snuck a peak over my glasses and saw the colors and exposure at the saturation and brightness I thought the DP (haha) intended.  It looked beautiful.  The colors were more saturated and I could see important story information in the shadows.  When you're losing over a stop of light transmission through those glasses, your eye is unable to "open up" any further to compensate.  I'm curious if anyone saw a 2D and 3D version and noticed these subtle, but important differences.  A side by side comparison would be nice.

To add to that, was the Avatar viewing experience actually made better by it being in 3D?  Doubtful.

8 Comments

Ok,

1st time: At the Arclight. Don't know witch 3d it was but it was dark and they made you wear these huge red glasses.

2nd time: In 2D at some theater. Brighter, but the movie felt flat. There was a difference. The forest and flight scenes didn't have that depth.

3rd TIme: In Real 3D. It was sharper, brighter. Much better quality that the arclight showing.

4th TIme: IMAX. Probably our favorite version out of all of them. It was sharp, bright, and had the best sound by far out of all showings.

5th Time: At home in 2D. I don't mind watching it like this but I would prefer it in 3D.

For movies like avatar, 3D should be required if it's going to be viewed. There is something missing in the environment that doesn't engross you as much when it's only looked at in 2D.

We saw How to train your dragon yesterday and we can't imagine seeing that film in 2D. It just won't work I think. 3D makes a huge difference in that film.

My guess is that 3D is going to be used just like cgi animation is now: when it makes sense. cgi animation studios like pixar, dreamworks, etc.. only animate things that make sense to have in cartoon cgi. They don't do period dramas, horror, war, etc.. because that is better left for live movies. Same would go for 3D. 3D would be the focus of adventure, action, cgi cartoons, sci-fi, but would never be used for films like Precious. Ebert should probably reserve his rage until a film that totally didn't need 3D comes out.

We saw How to train your dragon yesterday and we can't imagine seeing that film in 2D. It just won't work I think. 3D makes a huge difference in that film.

wish i could see in 3D. I'm one of the 2% that is blind in one eye from birth. Can't even imagine what 3D truly is. Those of you that see like normal people do not truly understand how blessed you are and you often take so many things for granted.

My friend told me that when he saw Avatar in 3D it was more of an "experience" than watching a movie. I saw the 2D version and it was a beautifully done film

It's definitely much darker. Taking your glasses off isn't exactly a great comparison to what you're missing, though, since it's obviously printed/projected brighter to compensate. But the bigger point stands: with current 3D technology, we trade so much of what cinematography is just for stereoscopy, which to my eye is one of the weakest depth cues. Shadows, camera movement, perspective--that's where the real depth comes from.

Mauro Fiore ASC, DP of Avatar, said that when he was researching 3D, Citizen Kane was the best 3D film he came across. Buck, you're totally right; it's entirely in lighting and composition that you can suggest depth.

Citizen Kane had depth cuz everything was in focus on wide lenses, just like 3D has to be. Interesting film to reference.

On Sean's point about Avatar not needing to be 3D, I couldn't agree less. That movie was made for 3D and I don't think I'd be into it at all in 2D. Not even Giovanni Ribisi playing himself again, a little more angry than usual, can keep me into it. But the 3D definitely made it a novelty roller coaster ride that I enjoyed.

Buck, where can I see some of your work?

I am one of the 15% of people who get headache watching 3D movies - so unfortunately, I do not enjoy watching them. I have to agree with Robert's arguments as well as with you, Buck!

"Raul"- Got a video deck that plays one-inch reels? :)

Someone said "We saw How to train your dragon yesterday and we can't imagine seeing that film in 2D. It just won't work I think. 3D makes a huge difference in that film."

I can't imagine seeing it in 3D.

I wish i could see in 3D. I'm one of the small percentage of people that is blind in one eye from birth. Can't even imagine what 3D truly is.

Those of you that see like normal people do not truly understand how blessed you are and you often take so many things for granted.

My friend told me that when he saw Avatar in 3D it was more of an "experience" than watching a movie. I saw the 2D version and it was a beautifully done film

My whole world is a real time moving 2D movie.

Share Your Thoughts

  • Hot
  • Latest