"Avatar? More like Avatarded, amiright!"

Is it me or is Roger Ebert just getting more awesome in his old age? First there was that heartbreaking/life-affirming Esquire article, now there’s this: a point-by-point breakdown of why 3-D movies totally blow in Newsweek. The elderly Chicago Sun Times critic is finally living up to that kinda forced tough-as-nails image he was cultivating for a while (dude’s kinda a soft touch – just two weeks ago he called Death at a Funeral the “best comedy since The Hangover“). In the first paragraph Ebert sums up his argument:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

I say “Amen.” Though I don’t jibe with all of Ebert’s movie reviews (he also said A Christmas Carol was “an exhilarating visual experience that proves for the third time Robert Zemeckis is one of the few directors who knows what he’s doing with 3-D,” which really calls everything into question), I’m glad somebody’s leading the crusade against my least favorite current movie trend.

Avatar? More like Avatarded, amiright!

  • “Avatar? More like Avatarded, amiright!”

10 replies on “Roger Ebert Hates 3-D”

  1. Whoa…OK sorry if I haven’t seen Ebert in a long time so this might sound as if I’ve been living under rock (sorry I hate television), but WTF happened to Ebert?!

  4. I love that Ebert feels no need to be consistent. He allows himself to hold contradictory opinions. Because he’s a human being and doesn’t need to make sense.

    And he’s the best troll ever. Look at what he did to all the videogame nerds.

  6. I saw Avatar four times in a variety of presentations:

    1) Circularly polarized 3D.

    2) Digital 2D

    3) LCD shuttered 3D (Thanks, Living Room Theaters!)

    4) Good old film (Thanks, Clinton Street Theater!) 2D

    First, Avatar is the most visually impressive movie since 2001.

    Second, the 2D version knocks the socks off the 3D.

    Third, 3D is a subtractive process: a certain amount of INFORMATION gets projected onto the screen; 3D immediately throws half of that away by cutting access off to one eye at a time; then it throws half of what is left away by absorption in the glasses. Ebert is right: not only is 3D darker, its contrast is lower, its saturation of color is less.

    Fourth, it is a gimmick, just like stereophonic sound. Pay more; get a whole lot less.

  9. Were not any impressive movies, visually or otherwise, in year 2001.

    Kubrick and Cameron are great con artists, sure; we should be grateful to have them. Visual masters both, with vastly different takes on the same individuation process for vastly different audiences. Times have really changed.

    Filmed by Bike followed Avatar at the Clinton: fun, but not impressive, even though friend Ayleen deserves great credit.

    You try to make a movie–any movie. And let us know when you have mastered front projection matte processing, in-camera effects, and motion-capture. Ever tried editing?

Comments are closed.