Roger Ebert's Journal: "I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.
The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.
14 comments:
I think that people have realized that 3D is not good, it hurts your head, doesn't really work, and it’s frankly not that cool. Until it doesn't make money though people will still sell it. I have had many bad experiences with 3D I watched the 5th Harry Potter in 3D because that was the only ticket that they would sell me, and only the first 15 minutes were in 3D and then you were supposed to take off your glasses. It was such a scam, and a ridiculously over priced one at that. My second experience was with Avatar, and after sitting in the theater for three hours in 3D my brain felt like it was on fire. I hate 3D it doesn't work, it is a scam, and even if it did work I don't really think that it would be that much cooler. Why wouldn't I just watch theater if I wanted to see things in 3D? I totally agree with the author!
My personal take has always been that 3D hasn't never really caught on (EVER) because of something like this phenomenon, though I could never have said it as eloquently as Murch has. It seems every ten to fifteen years or so 3D tries again to rear its ugly head yet again...and again; and it never seems to last very long. Just because you make a TV that can project the newest 3D technologies this time doesn't mean it'll catch on enough to last any more than it did the last time. Murch's science explains the headaches we inevitably get from trying to watch it. I don't think this wave of 3D "madness" will be around much longer.
I walked out of the one 3d movie (read: feature film) i've seen in an IMAX theatre (not including specials at museums and the like). I was almost too disoriented to make it out of the theatre, and it took a good 10 minutes until I could see clearly and regain my depth perception. 3D movies simply don't seem to be something our brain was meant to process, and for those who argue that they bring you more fully into the work, I say that artistic material that doesn't stand up in 2d probably wasn't the best to begin with...
I'm so glad he mentioned holographic projections. I had a discussion about 3D movies with some friends a few weeks ago. We all agreed that until there are holographic movies that 3D simply isn't worth extra money, even if you didn't get a headache. I agree with Jacob! that 3D is a fad and, as Murch explained, it can never work because of the way humans see. Sadly many people buy into fads and extend their life.
On another note the video on recording various sounds, like echoes, was interesting. All the things that he discovered make movies vastly different experiences. Although our eyes can't handle what is supposed to be a more realistic immersion, our ears can hear more realistic sounds than movies previously used, without headaches.
I must admit, it was really cool to see a 20-minute 3D/"4D" films in theme parks when I was younger. I hate to beat a dead horse, but with full-length feature films, those 3D glasses simply take the realism away from the beautiful vibrant colors that are shown on screen. I was actually thinking of Brecht when I started reading the article, and Walter Murch explains it so thoroughly. It seems as if everybody nowadays complain about the 3D effect, and it baffles me that people are still buying tickets to films that provide 3D glasses for additional fee. And I agree with Becca that if a movie can't be good in 2D, they shouldn't bother producing it in a 3D format.
It is shame that so many excited consumers are about to shell out thousands of dollars on a new 3D TV. I agree with all of these comments and with Mr. Murch's analysis.
I do have this question. When we look a move screen some 40 feet away, the image in the foreground is in focus but the background often is not. In reality this is ALL 40' away. Does this also not mess with our minds in some way?
Although I think these arguments about 3D are all valid, claiming that some type of technology like this "never will" work isn't fair. This form of 3D will never work, as Murch points out in his analysis, but they may come up with some "cheat" to make the 3D doable. Ebert has a bad history of going against technology (re: his argument that video games can never be considered art), and I think this is another case of him going too far. I definitely am against this 3D trend, and although I would have said it was starting to fade, Tron: Legacy seems to have been a bit of a resurgence for the method. I'm certainly curious to see where it goes from here.
I have never had headaches or anything when i have gone to see a 3D movie but I generally feel a little weird so I guess it is that fact that 300 million years of evolution haven't prepared us for this.
My concern now is 3D televisions, a little bit of this eye altering exposure probably isn't bad in the long run but what about people who watch TV for more than an hour or two every day and what if they had a 3D TV, there haven't been any studies done on longterm effects of these but I think it would either create some issues with your eyes or further evolution.
I agree with the notation of 3D being somewhat inferior. it is a form of spectacle in entertainment used as a roose in order to try and fill the seats. since the beginning of its wide usage in cinemas in the 1950's it has been a used as a counteraction against slumping ticket sales and a feature to lure moviegoers away from the tv and to the theatre.truth be told it is nothing more than that . an additional "special Effect" to raise interest. in its form of story telling device . i feel 3D actually does everything but add believability to the film and commonly creates a campy look to the cinematography of a motion picture. leave 3D for the theme parks why don't we!
A great note. I have never been a fan of 3D, but I have never known that there was such an interesting (and practical) scientific basis to how our brains and eyes process it. I have noticed the new proliferation of 3D movies in the theatres and on imax. There are even 3D televisions you can buy for your home! That seems like a major waste of money to me, which is why I never plan to buy one.
But as practical as Walter Murch's observations are, it doesn't matter to most of the American movie-watching populace. 3D movies are "cool" and "realistic" and apparently make enough money to continue to drive the demand for them. I expect the craze won't die out soon, but I hope it dies out eventually.
I'm always really excited by all the hype surrounding 3D movies. It would seem to enhance the experience for children's movies because who wouldn't want their favorite characters popping out at them from a screen?! But when 3D is actually implemented, it falls very short. Most of the film remains on a 2D plane, while certain elements "pop out" at you. It doesn't live up to the hype at all. In the end, it's still an image that doesn't really seem any more real than the 2D screen. Am I going to say we should stop using 3D? No. If a company is looking to make money then that's fine. But 3D does not really help for artistic effect.
First off, I am completely annoyed that this article sites Wikipedia. It only hurts the article to use a site of little merit and looked down upon as a reliable, hard source. I in no way doubt this sound designer is important and may be everything Wikipedia says he is, I am dubious of his actual validity simply because the lack of validity the writer of the article uses for his research. Otherwise, I completely agree that 3D just doesn't work. When 3-D was more utilized to pop out in front of an audience member, making the action feel inches away from you, using the blue and red glasses, was not perfect but a fun gimmick, especially in 4-D theaters. The new way of 3-D is rather exciting and full of great potential but it still has not reach a level of "finish" that makes it worth the price you pay for it or that exciting of a commodity. To begin, when you pay to see an IMAX 3-D film you only recieve 25% or so scenes in 3-D. That's not really enough of a reason to wear the glasses for two hours or pay the extra five dollars. In addition, it is distracting when the film switches between 2-D and 3-D despite how well the film is able to mask it. I have seen 3-D TVs as demos in Best Buy and noticed they are better than the theater experience but they still only work with the right shot, the right scene, and the right show. Hollywood is simply obsessed with 3-D these days because they found a new gimmick to draw in audiences and are playing around with how to further utilize the tool in more affective ways while we, the audience, pay for their venture.
I feel like most people realize that 3D movies aren't all they're cracked up to be. With few exceptions, 3D movies generally don't enhance any theatergoing experience for me. I would say the only positive experience I've had with it would be when I saw Coraline, which was not randomly released in 3D as so many movies seem to be today. Instead, Tim Burton took time to find imagery that expressed itself well in 2D but was enhanced by a 3D perspective. In either case the experience was pleasant, but as I said that was a special case. 3D could be a useful tool if directors used it as an artistic medium rather than a means to get more money.
The fact that your eyes have to focus on two different points seems to point out the rout of the issue with 3d films. humans have not evolved in a way that allows them to perceive 3d movies without a large mental strain. it seems that 3d films could be effective as only one shot which was taken from the exact distance the viewer is from the screen. Beyond this somewhat ridiculous possibility it seems that 3d film, at least as it exists now cannot provide the realistic experience it promises. I do not, however, believe that the technology will never exits.
Nic Marlton
Post a Comment