He also gave Avatar 4 stars.
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962
The man has spoken.
:bow Roger Ebert :bow2
He also gave Avatar 4 stars.
And loved the use of 3D in it.
When it serves a purpose (Avatar), it's well worth it, and a worthy cinematic advance. When it's just there for no real reason (most other films that use it), I totally agree with him.
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962
The man has spoken.
:bow Roger Ebert :bow2
When it serves a purpose (Avatar), it's well worth it, and a worthy cinematic advance. When it's just there for no real reason (most other films that use it), I totally agree with him.
What exactly did 3D add to Avatar? Seriously, I can't think of anything in that film that needed 3D to work.
howard sterns comments about 3d >
I'll actually probably enjoy the extra pixels if it's a Michael Bay movie or something with lots of sfx but it's not like I want to be able to read the nutrition facts on the fucking product placement water bottles.Quotebut when it comes to movies, I honestly don't even see the appeal in watching them in HD.well, the story won't change, but i enjoy the extra detail.
So what you're saying is that Cameron made the 3D version of Avatar for the sole purpose of increasing ticket revenue?
as money making gimmicks go, its making a lot of money.
Not just Avatar, but Alice in Wonderland, pretty much any animated film, and the horror films that have done it have all seen healthy business. Not only that, but they've seen healthy international business. The last (and kinda shite) Final Destination movie was the highest grossing one in the series.
I know there's always going to be a movie industry. But I can't help but think that there's going to be some sort of major collapse in the future where all those massively expensive tentpole movies become unprofitable because people get tired of spending lots of money to go see shit in a shitty theatrical experience, and now they can spend even more money to see shit in 3D. I keep thinking people are going to wise up, but obviously I'm very wrong as of currently.
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962
The man has spoken.
:bow Roger Ebert :bow2
Twitter is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for social communication.
QuoteColor is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
Ebert in 1950s.QuoteSound is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
Ebert in 1910s.
only movie Ive seen in 3d was Spy Kids 3!
link?
I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion processthere's an article about his reticence to 3D-ify his painstakingly realized crap
Bay investigated shooting at least some Transformers 3 footage with 3D cameras, but found them too heavy and cumbersome for the fast pace action scenes he shoots. Bay feels the process of sending out 2D film for 3D conversion is more problematic and pricey than studios are admitting. Too often, companies selling 3D retrofitting services arrive with a sharp demo reel, but leave with a deer-in-the-headlights look when Bay gives them his own footage to convert, on a tight deadline.Great article, really. To be accurate, he's not against 3D exactly, he's very much against converting 2D films to 3D, Avatar was made with 3D in mind, Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland added it after the fact to extort audiences out of more money, which seems to be working quite well.
I am trying to be sold, and some companies are still working on the shots I gave them,” Bay said. “Right now, it looks like fake 3D, with layers that are very apparent. You go to the screening room, you are hoping to be thrilled, and you’re thinking, huh, this kind of sucks. People can say whatever they want about my movies, but they are technically precise, and if this isn’t going to be excellent, I don’t want to do it. And it is my choice.it does sound like an almost certainty that Transformers 3 will be released in 3D. As the article points out, pretty much every forthcoming tentpole film with family appeal is doing it. The studios only seem to be too happy to spend the extra cash to do it if they get to bolster their theatical window and ticket price, so why shouldn't they do it?*
I’m used to having the A-team working on my films, and I’m going to hand it over to the D-team, have it shipped to India and hope for the best? This conversion process is always going to be inferior to shooting in real 3D. Studios might be willing to sacrifice the look and use the gimmick to make $3 more a ticket, but I’m not. Avatar took four years. You can’t just shit out a 3D movie. I’m saying, the jury is still out.”
Of course I never planned on watching that stupid looking movie in the first place, let alone in 3D
Good to know that Bay has the integrity to stick to a format that can be shat out quickly.