Roger Ebert attacks 3-D Movies and makes some really good points.

[televisionarchives]

Roger contributes to his PBS show " Ebert At The Movies". This weeks show talks about 3-D . I won't make any comments on it yet because many of you should watch it. But , Roger really nails it when it comes to why it's not needed . I will post more after you have all seen it.

 

[dfergie]

Won't watch... Roger has been harping on 3D for awhile...

 

[televisionarchives]

For you 3-d fans you should watch. They have different opinions about 3-d from the two host. Roger just gives his opinion . Also , you get opinions from a older movie viewer and a younger movie viewer.

 

[JAG72]

I guess you don't want to give us a link to the video?

 

[teachsac]

Not interested in anything Ebert says.

S~

 

[televisionarchives]

I guess you don't want to give us a link to the video?

I have no problem doing that but it's not online. Roger does have a website and I believe after about a week they post it on that site.Ebert Presents At The Movies: Reviews, Critics, Shows
Some PBS stations carry his show

And don't forget guys, you get more then his opinion . Pro and Con.

 

[mike123abc]

Well it was not Ebert except for just one small segment.

Essentially:

Poorly done 3D is just to make money, find out before you shell out the bucks for 3D if 2D would be better.

Really only films shot with 3D cameras do a good job. It is a horrible butchering to remake the film in 3D via post processing.

Even if it is shot in 3D, it will not make a bad movie any better.

Kids like 3D...

It boils down to just a few films really are worth 3D. Ones that were shot in 3D, and had plans for 3D.

 

[HiDefRev]

Ebert

Not interested in anything Ebert says.

S~

k:

 

[televisionarchives]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/06/30/3d.tv.slump/What he and others have predicted have come true. 3-D is starting to struggle.As a general rule I have found that kids love 3-D. And film buffs that I have talked to hate it.. And some movies look so good on Blu-ray like Rango. It looks like 3-d without the glasses.

 

[tnsprin]

Roger Ebert on Captain Eo

Some interesting things in the segments. As much as Roger is known for criticizing 3-d, a segment shows him reviewing Captain Eo back when it came out. At that point of time he had a lot of good things to say about 3d as used in that venture.

 

[Ghpr13]

I been in long "discussions" on AVS about 3D, both in the movies and for at home. Without repeating or getting into another debate on the pros or cons of 3D in it's latest form, IMO, how good a 3D movie is boils down to the same old saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." If the movie is made from the beginning as 3D, and it's a good movie, it'll be a good 3D movie.

Ghpr13

BTW: I'm so mad right this morning, because my wife stopped my recording last night episode of "At the Movies". The one that this thread is about. So now I'll have to find it on the web.

 

[dfergie]

The best 3D to me adds depth, depth that no regular HD film can add ...

 

[gadgtfreek]

If every 3D film in the theater was done like Tformers 3 and Tron, WOW.

 

[televisionarchives]

If people keep going then 3-D will survive. But it doesn't look good right now.
As someone pointed out Roger Ebert did say he liked the Caption EO film but his review was about the attraction itself I believe.
My personal opinion is the same as watching a great black and white movie compared to a bad color film or the other way around if you know what I'm talking about. . It's always the content of the film. I felt from the start that 3d wouldn't last and is nothing more then a novelty. What I found alarming is that the studios talked about only making 3d movies in the future. Yikes

 

[gadgtfreek]

Im on the fence how itll end up. Ive stopped watching them in home. I intend to watch any interesting movie, NATIVELY shot in 3D, at the theater for the time being. All these dumbass conversions will be watched in 2D.

 

[teachsac]

3D now accounts for 20% of the total Box Office. Up from 11% last year.

S~

 

[gadgtfreek]

Would that not be skewed some by it being out more this year, AND it costing more?

 

[televisionarchives]

Would that not be skewed some by it being out more this year, AND it costing more?

I would think so . When I went to Cars 2 I checked out the 3d version of the same movie. The 2d theater was packed. The 3d one was about 30 percent full.

 

[gadgtfreek]

When i caught the Bayformers Tue night premier, it was about 70% packed for a 9:20pm, and only 3D was open on Tue night. I just wonder how many more screens 3D is showing on now, as opposed to last year. I mean is it a war of attrition?

 

[mike123abc]

The 3D novelty is wearing off. Now, people think twice about going to 3D or paying the extra $$ to take the kids to a 3D movie.

Some movies are definitely 3D winners. Avatar, Transformers, etc. do a very good job of it.

A lot of films are just 3D rip offs. Just having a computer mess with the film to make it look like 3D.

I predict there will be 3D films for quite a while, but 3D conversion of 2D films will drop off. Once people stop paying to see a film conversion, it will no longer be worth the price. All the screens and projectors are in place, 3D will stay around, but I wonder if they will eventually have to stop surcharging for it?