Gimmicky as 3D may be right now, this is just typical "get off my lawn" trolling. His arguments boil down to:<p>1) We got along fine without it before, so adding it would be somewhere between worthless and a net loss artistically.<p>2) The early implementations available now are still awkward.<p>3) People make money from it.<p>His same arguments can be applied pretty much point-for-point against introducing sound or color, or creating TV at all. Or print. If the Epic of Gilgamesh was only told in person and passed down through oral history, well by golly, that should be good enough for us. Anything more is just cheapening the art!
I think it's a fair critique despite the inflammatory title. He's not really opposed to 3-D, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of good filmmaking.<p>There's a goldrush going on right now in Hollywood to cash in on the premium for 3-D ticket sales before the novelty wears off, which means we'll have a lot of fake or lower quality 3-D films. The 3-D craze really only kicked into high gear last year when Avatar was released. I imagine that a lot of the titles currently being released were intended to be 2D.<p>I'm looking forward to what the future will bring. I'm sure the technology will continue to improve and the filmmakers will continue to become more effective at using the third D.
The real problem with 3D is that all (real, not CG) cameras have a depth of field - a certain range over which the image is in focus. This is great in a 2D film to focus the audience's attention on something, but the 3D setup just begs the user to focus on what they think is important, so you end up focusing on some fuzzy object instead of the subject. In other words, depth of field replicates the fuzziness of your peripheral vision, but 3D asks you to look into and around the scene. It's a view mechanics uncanny valley - and I don't think they can fix this as long as there are flat screens.
I saw Avatar. Criticisms of the plot aside, I loved the 3D. I wanted to see it with my partner. But when I talked to her about it, she said that 3D films make her nauseous.<p>So now, it seems like every movie coming out that is possibly even worth seeing is in 3D. I can adjust to the experience, but my partner can't, and this is a problem because going to the movies is one of the few options we have for a quick date away from the house and baby.<p>Like Ebert, I'm fine with 3D as an option. But I hope it doesn't become the dominant form for decent movies. I'm hoping that the studios continue offering the alternate non-3D option for each movie they release.
My experience: the glasses make the movie darker, feel bad in front of my glasses and I try to focus on 3D objects desperately. I end up enjoying the film less.
I think a major problem with 3D right now is that you don't really know what you're paying for. Are you getting a movie where some real effort was put into the 3D, or are you getting a half-assed version? The (increased) price is the same.
what about a spherical globe made of touch screen glass video monitors displaying inside out video streams, and it has just the double size of one's height, as to make a displayed horizon within the sphere where someone is inside, without glasses. it can react to steps and jumps, or even "create gravity illusions" with some hydraulic pistons, creating the ultimate immersive experience ever. Then would be relevant to have minority report's UI inside a sphere like this one i just proposed. :)