4 ms·

Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself: Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "

Fictional dialogue between Ebert and myself: Ebert: "Stop watching that 3D movie, it's straining your eyes!" Me: "But... no it isn't and it's awesome" Ebert: "It isn't immersive! Me: "I'm feeling perfectly immersed, thank you" Ebert: "But there are all these valid but theoretical reasons why you shouldn't enjoy it!" Me: "Would you please just shut up and let me watch the movie? The aliens are about to have all the sex. In 3D!" Ebert: "Hrumph!" You can see how I let myself get the last word there, not counting Ebert's old-grumpy-man-throat-clearing. So clearly I had all the winning arguments. My point is this: All the theoretical reasoning about planes and strains are moot as far as I know. Because in the end... 3D is awesome. I love it, and I wont let any experts in the world convince me otherwise. Even Feynman wouldn't be able to... well ok, maybe Feynman. But none other!

InclinedPlane 16y ago
You might like it, but a lot of people have problems with it. It gives many people headaches. For many others it's just plain uncomfortable. For others it's a pain to wear a pair of glasses over their own glasses. And for many people the experience of 3D movies isn't much of an improvement over 2D movies.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  Ok, maybe I need to clarify my point further. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: So what?? I don't like bananas in cooked food. But I don't feel the need to lament about it or make up scientific reasons to why it should be abolished. I simply avoid eating it.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.
    - jarek 16y ago
      Stop going to the 3D showings and let the market do its magic.
      - InclinedPlane 16y ago
        Indeed. In the meantime, registering annoyance with the fad in public is a good way to enhance and focus the market feedback.
chc 16y ago
You're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly, my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are absolutely brilliant. You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the general case.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  Maybe I am missing the point. But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them. He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.
  - chc 16y ago
    Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass-market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit. There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.
    - martinkallstrom 16y ago
      It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

You might like it, but a lot of people have problems with it. It gives many people headaches. For many others it's just plain uncomfortable. For others it's a pain to wear a pair of glasses over their own glasses. And for many people the experience of 3D movies isn't much of an improvement over 2D movies.

martinkallstrom 16y ago
Ok, maybe I need to clarify my point further. I guess what I'm really trying to say is: So what?? I don't like bananas in cooked food. But I don't feel the need to lament about it or make up scientific reasons to why it should be abolished. I simply avoid eating it.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  A good number of movies are being released in the theaters as 3D only, this is what has people annoyed by the fad.
  - jarek 16y ago
    Stop going to the 3D showings and let the market do its magic.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      Indeed. In the meantime, registering annoyance with the fad in public is a good way to enhance and focus the market feedback.

chc 16y ago

You're completely missing the point if you thought Ebert was trying to tell you what you should enjoy. Your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. Similarly, my mom thinks my shaky line drawings from when I was 10 years old are absolutely brilliant. You're allowed to enjoy whatever you want — Ebert isn't arguing with you. He's talking about inherent problems with the technology that come out in the general case.

martinkallstrom 16y ago
Maybe I am missing the point. But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them. He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.
- chc 16y ago
  Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass-market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit. There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.