So what does Roger Ebert think about 3D movies?

[Ichirou]

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.

Roger Ebert

[Joe Molotov]

It's cool sometimes, but the whole 3DTV thing needs to die.

[CajoleJuice]

He also gave Avatar 4 stars.

[BlueTsunami]

Ebert Real Talk errr... Real Typing.

Cameron weeping as his sub submerses not to be seen for the next decade

[Ichirou]

3D as a whole needs to die.  GS's love affair with Neytiri aside, 3D in Avatar really added absolutely nothing to the movie.  I saw it in 2D and in 3D and it was a more enjoyable experience in 2D.  It's gimmicky crap created just to lift a few more dollars out of a diminishing movie audience's collective wallet.

[Stoney Mason]

He's probably right for most instances.

I thought it was great for Avatar but in 90% of movies it will be an annoying gimmick.

[Great Rumbler]

He also gave Avatar 4 stars.

And loved the use of 3D in it.

[Raban]

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.

Roger Ebert

I agree, but I don't care that Ebert said it because

He also gave Avatar 4 stars.

And loved the use of 3D in it.

.

[Beezy]

Lady Gaga has a million YouTube hits? So does Bush wiping off his hand on Clinton's shirt after shaking hands with Haitians.

[youtube=560,345]0DtwkTS9mq8[/youtube]

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Roger Ebert is worth signing up for twitter for.

[Mr. Gundam]

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.

[Himu]

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.

Roger Ebert

[Donono]

Tomorrow parents encounter new $17.50 price for 3-D tickets, dragon poop hits the fan.

More like a burlap sack full of dragon dicks hits the fan.

[OptimoPeach]

Been saying it since the beginning

[brawndolicious]

yeah I've never seen any movie that really benefited from 3D.  Coraline looked a little more interesting that way but that's just because it was claymation.  Even for Avatar, 2D version was much more enjoyable.

[drew]

howard sterns comments about 3d >

[Ichirou]

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.

I preferred the 2D version of Avatar.

[brawndolicious]

well games are a whole nother thing since you're constantly interacting with everything on the screen.  but when it comes to movies, I honestly don't even see the appeal in watching them in HD.

[Raban]

howard sterns comments about 3d >

link?

[brawndolicious]

GS, can you explain what the artistic reasons were?

but 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.

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.

[brawndolicious]

I'm asking how did he take that idea on paper and make it work for you?  To me, it is an effect that I constantly notice and breaks my concentration on the visuals.  I don't really see why you would enjoy the movie in 3D more than in 2D.

[ManaByte]

How do you explain then how Cameron is saying that the BluRay 2D version is the best looking version if 3D was so important? 

[ManaByte]

The new 3D TVs and 3D BluRay players do the exact same 3D. That's why it's $150 per pair of glasses.

[ManaByte]

So what you're saying is that Cameron made the 3D version of Avatar for the sole purpose of increasing ticket revenue?

Duh.

And he knows that there won't be a home audience for the 3D BluRay format for at least five years so they're focused on the 2D versions TO MAKE MONEY. Fox has already said they don't plan a 3D version for home because realistic projections don't show 3DTVs and 3D BluRay being adopted in high numbers. People are just now fully adopting HD as prices are sub $1k for TVs and sub $200 for players.

[Ichirou]

ManaByte, your theory is a bit cynical but I think it's absolutely right.  It's no surprise that 3D has become the new craze as theatrical revenues have been going down (along with diminishing audience numbers).  The 3D gimmick allows theaters to make more money off of overpriced tickets and stay afloat even with fewer people actually going to the theaters.

I have no doubt that this, far above any "artistic" intent, is why Cameron made Avatar in 3D.

[ManaByte]

It's a $3-$4 extra charge per ticket. Factoring in the normal IMAX surcharge and you had to pay $16-$20 per IMAX 3D Avatar ticket. In the places where thr price got as high as $19 or $20 that's basically TWICE the cost on a non-matinee non-3D movie in the same theater.

If not for my student discount that basically gives me the matinee price it would've cost me $14 to see non-IMAX Avatar in 3D.

[ManaByte]

http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11060455825

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

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.

[Raban]

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.

Didn't this shit happen in the 80s? 3D was fucking huge and then it fell apart.

[The Sceneman]

only movie Ive seen in 3d was Spy Kids 3!

[Bloodwake]

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.

Roger Ebert

Hell, if you want to know why 3D is a waste of time, look at how IN THE HISTORY OF FILM IT FAILED AT LEAST TWO OTHER TIMES.

Good enough reason.

3D movies are the Nintendo Wii of film. It's just a gimmick.

[demi]

Twitter is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for social communication.

cajole annihilated

[Cravis]

3-D comes and 3-D goes. The original Creature from the Black Lagoon was released in 3D. That was in 1954. Then we saw 3D become popular again in the early 80s. Mostly shitty part 3 sequels had it i.e. Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th Part 3 (this one gets a pass since Jason got his hockey mask in it).

I still can't wait for Jackass 3D. Steve-o will shit all in your face, literally.

[Herr Mafflard]

[youtube=560,345][/youtube]

[Bloodwake]

More proof that 3D is a gimmick:

Nintendo announced the 3DS this week.

LMFAO.

[Ichirou]

Color is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.

Ebert in 1950s.

Sound is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.

Ebert in 1910s.

Silly Polack, 3D has been around forever and failed repeatedly to take off, unlike those two particular innovations.

[Saint Cornelius]

only movie Ive seen in 3d was Spy Kids 3!

jesus I had a blinding headache after sitting through that.

[drew]

link?

dont have one

i listen to the entire show

[treythemovie]

So back to the main point of this thread...

If it wasn't obvious enough already, Ebert's later twitter posts make it obvious that he is solely commenting on How to Train Your Dragon. Specifically this part:

Note: The movie is being shown in both 3-D and 2-D. The 3-D adds nothing but the opportunity to pay more to see a distracting and unnecessary additional dimension. Paramount has threatened theaters that if they don't clear screens for "Dragon" despite the current glut of 3-D films, the studio won't let them show it in 2-D. This displays real confidence in 3-D.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100324/REVIEWS/100329994

Of course I never planned on watching that stupid looking movie in the first place, let alone in 3D

[Ichirou]

No, it's obvious he's talking about 3D in general.  If anything, Avatar is the EXCEPTION.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

hey, when's the last time Micheal Bay and Roger Ebert agreed on anything?

I shoot complicated stuff, I put real elements into action scenes and honestly, I am not sold right now on the conversion process

there'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.

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.”

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?*

*because the audience backlash hasn't begun yet and they can't see into a possible future where one would occur.

[ManaByte]

Of course I never planned on watching that stupid looking movie in the first place, let alone in 3D

Chris Sanders' last movie was one of the best animated movies...ever. So I'm willing to give his new one a chance.

[AdmiralViscen]

Good to know that Bay has the integrity to stick to a format that can be shat out quickly.

[Ichirou]

Good to know that Bay has the integrity to stick to a format that can be shat out quickly.

Bay has no integrity.  They'll pay him a couple million more and he'll do whatever the studio wants.  Sort of like when he backed a Blu-Ray release of Transformers only to backtrack and say he was happy it was HD-DVD exclusive a day later.