3D Movies Might Not Be As Bad As Roger Ebert Claims

[Low Key]

I'm taking my girl to see Tron 3D on saturday. Thanks for the buzzkill, Escapist.

The 3D in Tron was absolutely horrid. I mean, if you really want to watch the terrible story, at least do it in 2D. Some parts of the movie aren't even in 3D. And the parts that are exhibit that cardboard cutout effect, and the cutouts that aren't the center of focus are blurry.

Honestly, no post production 3D movie will ever be good. The effect is cheap and actually makes a movie more painful to watch. Here's hoping something like Avatar will come along again.

Sure is opinions in here.

 

[Sampler]

The main thing that gets my goat about "3D movies" is they aren't 3D - we've had three dimensional movies since there inception - they have a height, a width and a time line.

These movies are four dimensional by adding a sense of depth.

 

[(LK)]

The error in attribution is Engber's, not yours, but Mike you might want to point out in the article that the scientific arguments Ebert presents aren't actually his own. They're quoted from a letter Ebert received from film editor Walter Murch. Murch is the one making those assertions about 3D's shortcomings with respect to human perception.

I think Ebert knows better than to criticize 3D from an angle other than art or cinematography (since those are his field of expertise) and wouldn't, on his own, attempt a biology or physics-based critique of the technology. That's why he let Murch's comments on that subject speak for themselves, and simply quoted him.