Bravo. I'm glad someone in an movie industry speaks out against it. I'm getting tired of seeing every hyped upcoming movie trailer stating 'now in 3D'.
I mean, I don't really HATE 3D all that much and if it helps the atmosphere of the movie (How To Train Your Dragon for example) then I don't care. But now it seems every movie needs to be made in 3D even (or especially) when it's not required.
I recently saw the new Disney 'Tangled' trailer and when it ended saying 'In 3D', I just wanted reach out on my monitor and shake it, screaming "WHY!? WHAT'S THE POINT!"
"[O]ne of the reasons why I'm a little reluctant about 3D at the moment [is] because I find it, as a viewer, impossible to forget that I'm watching a film. I think until they can find a way around that, it's going to be problematic."
I have never seen a better case of "qft" in my life. I've watched a total of 3 movies in 3D:
Beowulf: It was interesting, but just felt gimmicky.
Coraline: It worked well for this movie, I'll admit.
Avatar: Barely even noticed it, meanwhile it was hard to watch the movie itself, thankfully I had already seen it in 2D before this, so it didn't hurt the movie for me.
In all three cases I felt that I was too distracted looking for 3D effects to just watch the movie. After-all, I paid an extra $3 for this, so I might as well see the difference. The only problem though is that what I gained in nifty 3D effects I lost in not being able just sit and watch. Perhaps there's something to be said about animated films though, as I will admit that Coraline worked fairly well in the format.
It's interesting to see an industry expert talking about it though. I could tell you on any day of the week that I don't like 3D movies over-all (or at least, that it's a gamble at best), but it's interesting to see some of the technical details behind it too. I never would have guessed, for example, that a 3D movie is actually lower quality than the 2D version.