erik lundegaard

The 10th Reason to Hate 3-D

Roger Ebert gives us nine reasons “Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should, Too)” in Newsweek magazine. Here's a 10th reason from me. Maybe it's encompassed in one of the others, such as “It Adds Nothing to the Experience” or “Have You Noticed That 3-D Seems a Little Dim?,” but it seems important enough to stand alone:

It makes the movies seem SMALL.

I noticed this while watching “Up” in 3-D last year. By creating volume for the 3-D image, it seems to shrink it. The characters don't seem as big, the canvas doesn't seem as wide. It's no longer bigger than life. Maybe you need 2-D to seem bigger than life. Maybe that's what bigger than life means: two dimensions. I preferred “Up” in 2-D, when the colors, per Roger, seemed glorious, and when my imagination, per Roger, provided that third dimension.

Roger's is a good starting point to a counter-argument that no one in Hollywood will listen to. Because they have 2.7 billion reasons not to. Because they think “Avatar”'s success was built solely on 3-D, which is something they can control, rather than expert storytelling and attention to detail, which they can't.

Tags: ,
Posted at 06:47 AM on Tue. May 04, 2010 in category Movies  


Reed wrote:

Right! Because, if you think about it, it is effectively putting the "screen" farther away from your face. At least your brain thinks it's farther. This makes it feel smaller at the same time. I saw Avatar at an I-MAX, and it seemed like a normal screen. I can't fathom watching it on video would work, even on a big flatscreen.
Comment posted on Tue. May 04, 2010 at 12:01 PM
« Review: Robin Hood (1991-BBC)   |   Home   |   Morons, Crooks, and the People Who Saw It Coming: Assessing Credit on the Subprime Mortgage Disaster »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard