4 ms·

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 immersi

by Murkin 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
extension 16y ago
I like that Ebert made it clear that he is not generally opposed to technological innovation in the arts, he just doesn't see much artistic use for 3D. Had I been around when movies were invented, I'm sure I would have been inspired by the possibilities. Likewise with sound and with color, each of which added a whole new dimension to film. Does 3D inspire you creatively? Can you see more than one or two clever experiments before it becomes just an extra layer of butter on the popcorn?
gojomo 16y ago
It always takes time to learn how to use a new technology. Is 55 years enough? Because that's how long it's been since the boomlet in 3D movies in the early 1950s. The 3D technology then -- linear polarized images -- was only slightly different from the circular polarization dominating today's 3D offerings. The special effects -- especially computerized -- that can give 3D some extra sizzle have improved and become more cheap. Audiences are wealthier and more novelty-seeking. But 3D still involves downsides that aren't needed for most storytelling -- making some people ill or distracted, lingering focus issues, shrinking the number of angles/seats in a theater that give a good view, increasing production costs, washed out colors. I expect 3D to continue oscillating in popularity over the years, at a slightly higher background level of use, but never becoming the usual/majority format. (Or, by the time 3D does become dominant, there will have been such major advances in displays that movies are no longer displayed on giant screens, but sent to each viewers' eye-mounted heads-up display, or neural-visual interface.)

by Murkin 16y ago

Rauchg 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.

extension 16y ago

I like that Ebert made it clear that he is not generally opposed to technological innovation in the arts, he just doesn't see much artistic use for 3D. Had I been around when movies were invented, I'm sure I would have been inspired by the possibilities. Likewise with sound and with color, each of which added a whole new dimension to film. Does 3D inspire you creatively? Can you see more than one or two clever experiments before it becomes just an extra layer of butter on the popcorn?

gojomo 16y ago

It always takes time to learn how to use a new technology. Is 55 years enough? Because that's how long it's been since the boomlet in 3D movies in the early 1950s. The 3D technology then -- linear polarized images -- was only slightly different from the circular polarization dominating today's 3D offerings. The special effects -- especially computerized -- that can give 3D some extra sizzle have improved and become more cheap. Audiences are wealthier and more novelty-seeking. But 3D still involves downsides that aren't needed for most storytelling -- making some people ill or distracted, lingering focus issues, shrinking the number of angles/seats in a theater that give a good view, increasing production costs, washed out colors. I expect 3D to continue oscillating in popularity over the years, at a slightly higher background level of use, but never becoming the usual/majority format. (Or, by the time 3D does become dominant, there will have been such major advances in displays that movies are no longer displayed on giant screens, but sent to each viewers' eye-mounted heads-up display, or neural-visual interface.)