Do 3-D movies suck?
Roger Ebert: “Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in “Raiders of the Lost Ark?” Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake.”
Actually, yes. I’ve viewed many 2-D movies and wished they were in 3-D. Pretty much any Chinese kung fu and sword fighting movie comes to mind.
You can read Roger Ebert laying out his argument for why 3-D movies suck right here. He’s essentially saying that it goes contrary to our evolutionary instincts and that no movie can be better in 3-D than it is in 2-D. Of course, I wholeheartedly disagree with this reasoning. One easy criticsim of Ebert’s stance deals with his insistence that the 3-D effect is “distracting”. Well, isn’t it arguably just as distracting when you watch a film in 2-D that was originally designed for 3-D? Don’t all those yo-yo shots bouncing towards the camera hurt that very same film when not viewed within the context of their original intent? And if so, then how can you argue that the 2-D version of that same film is superior to the 3-D version?
Another Ebert quote: “The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we’re seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion.”
I don’t get this statement at all. It’s pretty silly on the face of it. Let’s put aside the fact that he hurts his own argument by using words and statements like “halfway at least” and “sort of” in his own statement, but I wonder how many people out there really believe that what they see on a movie screen is really happening? I understand the point of view that feels movies are rooted in a viewers understanding of real world events and actions and that that is how we access films as we view them. That’s a valid argument. But to say that 3-D “destroys the illusion” is no more valid than saying a CGI Transformer “destroys the illusion” of reality in a 2-D movie. I remember seeing the Terminator 3-D “ride” at Universal Theatres and was enthralled by it. It didn’t “destroy the illusion” of the film world for me just because I saw a T-800 shooting bullets that were whizzing by my head.
When 3-D is done effectively, it can be an incredible tool to enhance the movie experience. I don’t know about you guys, but when I instinctively duck my head when something flies towards my face, that means I’m pretty much inside that 3-D world. If Ebert is correct, that the technique “destroys the illusion” of reality, then why would I even react in that manner? Ebert’s article, to me at least, comes across as more “Grumpy old man who just doesn’t get it” than a well thought out argument. What do you guys think? Feel free to post your comments.
Oh, FYI to Roger Ebert in the event that he is reading this: I would have LOVED to see that boulder chasing Indy in 3-D!
Filed under: Commentary
Jeff said:
I don’t have any really formative experiences with 3D movies or any special affection for them. However, I don’t appreciate Ebert’s “my position is right, now everyone get onboard” attitude. These are movies, they are art & entertainment… sometimes it might just plain be FUN to see something in 3D.
So… what, if you go have a good time with your kids watching Spy-Kids 3D… Ebert thinks you’re a dumbass or something?
MaT said:
I don’t think Ebert is saying you are a “dumbass”. I think he’s arguing that 3-D films are simply inferior to 2-D films because of his “destroys the illusion” line of thought. Ebert is coming at this from a scholarly, philosophy, and aesthetic sensibility, not a “movies are just fun” angle.
I went and saw Spy Kids 3D because of the 3D aspect of it
I’ve never even seen the first two
Fake Larry said:
That “grumpy old man” should get it, since 3D films were invented when he was a kid.
I just watched him on another horror movie documentary. I think they should stop having him on horror movie documentaries.
Jeff said:
Ebert’s “destroys the illusion” argument is stupid. There was this guy on Destructoid’s video game podcasts who was always railing against cutscenes and other things that “took him out of of the game.” Anything that broke the illusion of his video-gaming experience would set this guy off.
I wanted to smack the guy. I’m like: Dude, sooner or later you’re going to glance down and see that you’re holding a little plastic joystick with colorful buttons on it, at which point I guess you’ll have to chew yourself out for destroying the illusion by taking your eyes off the screen for a moment.
The experience IS an illusion. Movies ARE illusions. I can totally “get into” a movie, get scared by what I’m seeing, be exhilirated by what I’m seeing… but I don’t ever go on some wacky brain-trip where I actually believe I’m in the world of the film. If 3D can be used to make a movie fun in a different way, then I’m all for it.
Shawn@horrorcommentary said:
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter if a movie is in 3D or not, we could have the best movie ever and it’s still going to be good in 3D or not 3D. I’m all for 3D but I wouldn’t go see a movie that I knew was crappy just because it was in 3D.
MaT said:
well there is some validity to a “destroying the illusion” argument. For example, when we reviewed The Mist, we noted that the badly done CG tentacles helped take us out of the movie and the frightening moment the filmmakers were trying to convey. So i can understand the illusion argument to a point. Stuff can be done poorly.
But what Ebert fails to realize is that a lot of 3D stuff is done well and doesn’t destroy the illusion at all.
Ronin said:
I’ve never seen one good movie made for 3D. Not one.
jackie said:
I think certain styles of movies are definitely great in 3-D. Yeah, I’m saying I enjoyed F13:3-D and even the terrible ending of Freddy’s Dead.
I’d love to see more cartoons in 3D. The ‘exhibit’ at DisneyWorld is pretty fun.
Arson Cuff said:
3D doesn’t usually do anything for me
Changwa Steve said:
By Ebert’s reasoning, if you could somehow re-shoot Casa Blanca as a 3D film it would no longer be a good film. That’s clearly retarded. Good content is good content, 3D or not.
Ebert asks, “Why do 3D movies suck.” A better question might be, “Why have so few good films been shot in 3D?”
Probably for the same reason so few good games have been developed for the Wii. The industry still sees 3D as a gimmick that they can rely on to sell weak content to their customers. If people will go to see a 3D film just for the effects, where is the motivation for filmmakers to craft an interesting plot or write engaging characters?