Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D Movies
Antonio E. Gonzalez
gratuitous use; gotta love how he covers it point-by-point:
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110>
"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.
That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show
business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest
payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other
hits. The year's top three films�Alice in Wonderland, How to Train
Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans�were all projected in 3-D, and
they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may
induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's
you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and
cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do
many movie lovers�even executives who feel stampeded by another
Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless
when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case,
point by point:
1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION.
When you look at a 2-D movie, it's already in 3-D as far as your mind
is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as
he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, "Look how
slowly he grows against the horizon" or "I wish this were 3D?"
Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third
dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less
convincing.
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they
"need" 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What
would Fargogain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION.
Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some
objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice
this. We shouldn't. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in
focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D
the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field
be in sharp focus. I don't believe this is necessary, and it deprives
directors of a tool to guide our focus.
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show
in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading
ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very
minor eye problems�for example, a muscle imbalance�which under normal
circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael
Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an
unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental
effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a
professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of
Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees
things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the
brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you
see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way
that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article,
Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience
experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic
stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his
systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are
"intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to
the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in
illumination." Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast
majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts
(fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format
threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don't know what a foot-lambert is,
join the crowd. (In short: it's the level of light thrown on the
screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don't mistake a
standard film for an IMAX film, or "fake IMAX" for original IMAX.
What's the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger
screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and
do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are
called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.
6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS.
These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial
opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and
infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some
studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors
that if they don't show a movie in 3-D, they can't have it in 2-D.
Although there's room in most projection booths for both kinds of
projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as
soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors
being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital
manufacturers?
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D.
Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors
are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but
doesn't charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay,
or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you
think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children
are tutored by advertising and product placement to "want" 3-D. In my
review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: "Explain to your
kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in
3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and
let me tell you, it looked terrific." And it did. The "3-D" was
hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar.
The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders.
Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into
3-D, called it "cheeseball," adding: "You just snookered the movie
audience." He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions
would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE
HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D.
Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred
Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D
at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children's films,
animation, and films such as James Cameron's Avatar, which are largely
made on computers. Cameron's film is, of course, the elephant in the
room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen,
which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It's
used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in
2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest
all-time grosser is Cameron's Titanic, which of course was in 2-D.
Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a
technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and
spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography
and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing
executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a
surcharge.
Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create
a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D
Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true
IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and
unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.
Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it's worth
recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he
personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D
will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do "fake 3-D" better
than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is
wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to
return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more
milk.
I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin
Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese
announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an
orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he
has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D
to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film
prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the
concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will
"approach" the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of
the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and
3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with
the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric
artist standing in the cavern might have.
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO
TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC
SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can't be
had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home
digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences
has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may
narrow that gap as well.
What Hollywood needs is a "premium" experience that is obviously,
dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at
all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I've been praising a
process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses
existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and
provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film
is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest
speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies.
Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48
projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is
dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard
measurements used in the industry, it's 400 percent better. That is
not a misprint. Those who haven't seen it have no idea how good it is.
I've seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull's
Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a
window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would
simply forget about 3-D.
I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of
life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output
away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and
Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward
the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more
traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises,
and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the
instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of
executives possessed. It's all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a
projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films�every
film�and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen.
The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a
premium viewing experience they can't get at home. But they're betting
on the wrong experience."
--
- ReFlex76
Porky Pig
And it takes away the acclaim from other films. Add CGI to that as
well for annoyances. In short, overrated. I'd rather watch "The Diary
of a Wimpy Kid".
Porky Pig
Plus I agree wiuth all of Mr.Ebert's own comments, such as his
critiques of 3-D of a way of life, the praise of James Cameron and
Martin Scorcese as directors who know film, the extra admission, and
betting on the wrong expierence. Makes me really respect Mr.Ebert as I
never had [given his praise for Disney's Hunchback flick ten years
plus ago, for one.] [Though he praised the abomination that starred
ME, Space Jam, though! Oh well, he's forgiven with this piece.]
SolomonW
> It is driven largely to sell
> expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on
> already expensive movie tickets
Actually to the movie house it is either get for 3D $5 to $7.50 more
compared to stay with 2D and get nothing.
In these days of utorrents, most 2D pictures can be seen before the release
in the movies. To see a 3D movie most people have to go to the movies.
nick
The pirated 2D version is still going to be available though. The
appeal of 3D right now is whole families are going--whole familes
aren't going to be watching pirated movies for the most part. Like
Ebert said, they got snookered into seeing the converted Clash of the
Titans when the 2D version looked fantastic (he's right, it did).
This is why 3D is a dangerous economy. What happens if parents start
thinking that the 3D experience isn't worth all that extra money
they're paying for something that might not be a whole lot better?
Iron Man 2 is coming out in a few days and you think anyone's going to
be going, this is good but it would look so much better in 3D?
Probably not. Hollywood is rolling it's dice on what could turn out
to be a fad and gimmick. Maybe not. Maybe they're right and it is
the future but I'll only be convinced once they do sell something like
Up in the Air or Hurt Locker in 3D and the process enhances the
film.
I agree with Ebert 100 percent.
moviePig
> ...
> <http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110>
Nitpicking Ebert:
----" [3-D] is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness."
That's merely luddite and doctrinaire. I do trust that Ebert will be
first to acknowledge that 'serious, grown-up' film when one does
appear...
----"When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides
toward you across the desert ... [our] minds use the principle of
perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially
can make the illusion less
convincing."
That 'illusion' merely exploits 2-D's ability to conceal actual depth,
and thus to surprise us when it's revealed. Such visual ambiguity is
akin to puns and rhymes in language ...and can indeed be delightful.
But who's to say what sorts of interesting composition future poets of
3-D may invent? (...or how David Lean might've used a 3-D camera to
portray Lawrence's return from desolation?)
----"Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did
they 'need' 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations.
What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?"
No, they sure don't make 'em like they used to. And never did.
----"Current [3-D]digital projectors are intrinsically [dim]. Half the
light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results
in a 50 percent reduction in illumination."
This and other technological objections are valid, but addressable.
(E.g., projected screen-brightness automatically increases with
smaller screens.) The question is whether 3-D's viable enough now to
bootstrap the inevitable advance.
----"Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so
displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D
at its New York opening."
Afaik, Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense, not of adapting to new
cinema technology. It's not surprising his first and only effort
would fall short of masterpiece quality. Note, too, Hitchcock often
kept audiences suspended in murky uncertainty; e.g., he *could* have
shot DIAL M in color...
----"I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way
of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio
output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy."
Audiences, not studios, have always driven the direction of expensive
films. Sure, it's nice that true indie artists have increasingly been
able to hitch a ride ...but, frankly, I doubt the advent of 3-D will
exclude those guys for long, as lower-cost, higher-quality equipment
is already beginning to appear.
(Plus, he doesn't mention *my* pet dealbreaker about eye-flipping 3-
D. Overall, though, it's a good and typically candid Ebert article.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
nick
> On May 1, 1:38 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----"Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did
> they 'need' 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations.
> What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?"
>
> No, they sure don't make 'em like they used to. And never did.
>
3D movie. Andy Warhol's Frankenstein. A mid-80s re-issue. I caught
it at a matinee where clearly parents hadn't noticed the restrictice
rating or more likely they weren't bothered by the ratingt, so as the
movie went on, I was treated to the John Waters-ish spectacle of angry
parents literally grabbing their children and dragging them from the
theater until the theater was almost empty. They must have thought it
was some kind of Frankenstein family film. But then this was a town
where parents took their children to midnight screenings of Dawn of
the Dead. That was alright but Warhol's Frankenstein was just too
deranged for the little ones.
Obveeus
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Nitpicking Ebert:
>>----" [3-D] is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness."
>
>That's merely luddite and doctrinaire. I do trust that Ebert will be
>first to acknowledge that 'serious, grown-up' film when one does
>appear...
While I see no reason that a 'grown-up' film can't be shot in 3D, I also
agree with the idea that it won't *really* add anything to the movie. Of
course, I don't think that the 3D is really adding anything to the kids
movies, either. Avatar and How To Train Yoyur Dragon were both good movies.
The 3D DID NOT make them good.
>That 'illusion' merely exploits 2-D's ability to conceal actual depth,
>and thus to surprise us when it's revealed. Such visual ambiguity is
>akin to puns and rhymes in language ...and can indeed be delightful.
>But who's to say what sorts of interesting composition future poets of
>3-D may invent? (...or how David Lean might've used a 3-D camera to
>portray Lawrence's return from desolation?)
I wait in anticipation of the first 3D scene of smoke wafting in a room
while a slowly turning electric fan casts shadows onto a dingy wall.
>>----"I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way
>>of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio
>>output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy."
>Audiences, not studios, have always driven the direction of expensive
>films.
Indeed...and 'Oscar worthy' has seldom had anything to do with popular.
> Sure, it's nice that true indie artists have increasingly been
>able to hitch a ride ...but, frankly, I doubt the advent of 3-D will
>exclude those guys for long, as lower-cost, higher-quality equipment
>is already beginning to appear.
Agreed. If 3D becomes the norm for everything, the artsy fartsy crowd will
pump out 3D versions of miserable people leading depressing lives without
delay.
>(Plus, he doesn't mention *my* pet dealbreaker about eye-flipping 3-
>D. Overall, though, it's a good and typically candid Ebert article.)
His main point is valid...3D is a gimmick to rake in money...and the desire
of all those involved to make money is pushing this gimmick to the
forefront. If it wasn't about making money, the theaters would allow people
to go into a film with their own 3D glasses, not demand that they repurchase
the same item again and again for every film.
moviePig
(I took my 10-year-old to Cronenberg's THE FLY He was fine, but we
got hostile stares from random movie-stunned adults afterwards.)
Well, in reluctant defense of your theater patrons, fucking life in
the gall bladder does seem a bit stronger than decapitation by
whirlybird ...unless the kids can tune in to the former's humor (which
would've required a lot of prep work for even my 10-year-old).
moviePig
This time around, I don't recall theaters mentioning the 'purchase' of
glasses ...but, rather, you get them for "free", and are merely
requested to recycle. Imax, btw, only lends them to you.
(First time around, yes, there was even a boutique market for the
things at your local optician...)
Goro
> On May 1, 1:38 am, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntEGM...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > <http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110>
>
> Nitpicking Ebert:
> (Plus, he doesn't mention *my* pet dealbreaker about eye-flipping 3-
> D. Overall, though, it's a good and typically candid Ebert article.)
>
I think much of these lines of reasoning could also be applied to DD
5.1/7.1/9.3 etc etc.
Also, recall that Kurosawa refused to film a movie in color until
DODES'KA-DEN, but would have been a bad idea to abandon use of color
film as it was being introduced?
While I'm not a fan of 3D right now, I have no objection to innovation
regardless of reason. We won't really know what 3D WILL add, until it
adds it. This could be 10yrs down the line... or maybe there really
is nothing, still this type of thing reads like something a Flatland
citizen would write about Spaceland.
-goro-
Obveeus
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
3D glasses are not 'free' when the price of a 3D movie has been bumped up
several dollars from typical 2D movie prices.
moviePig
Yes, that's what I mean: there seems to have been a shift in marketing-
emphasis.
RichA
> gratuitous use; gotta love how he covers it point-by-point:
Agreed. 3D as it is is just another half-baked gimmick aimed at video
game addicts and others with short attention spans.
moviePig
...and way too early -- if indeed it's ever the right time -- to be
making timeless pronouncements about aesthetics. E.g., I personally
have little doubt that Kubrick would've tried to make 2001:ASO in 3-D
(...but no doubt whatsoever that he'll spin massively in his grave if
anyone even thinks of a retrofit).
calvin
> ...
> Afaik, Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense, not of adapting to new
> cinema technology. It's not surprising his first and only effort
> would fall short of masterpiece quality. Note, too, Hitchcock often
> kept audiences suspended in murky uncertainty; e.g., he *could* have
> shot DIAL M in color...
Maybe I'm not following you here, but 'Dial M for Murder'
was and is in color.
calvin
> ... Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred
> Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released
I always heard that 'Dial M...' was not released in 3D because
the 3D fad had died out sooner than expected. Can we really
trust Ebert's alternate explanation here?
Captain Infinity
calvin wrote:
I don't think we can trust Ebery on *any* issue anymore. He'll say
anything for attention now that he's turned into a repulsive freak that no
one wants to look at.
**
Captain Infinity
nick
but the extra dimension of word balloons and comic book drawing
wouldn't have made it any better.
I think if Kubrick was alive right this minute, we're still maybe ten
years away from 3D getting to a point where he'd be comfortable with
it.
But I did see the trailer to the next Resident Evil today and that is
the sort of thing I want to see in 3D.
moviePig
That's in keeping with Ebert, who think it's all resident evil...
(And my money's on PIRANHA 3D...)
Thinking further about 2001:ASO, it's true that Kubrick made use of
2D's depth-uncertainty for his visual metaphors. E.g., in his famous
cut from femur to satellite, they must briefly seem the same
"size" ...and, it's important that we not be sure how big the star-
child's orb is vs. the earth, moon, and sun. Still, Kubrick did push
for Cinerama, as well as break much new f/x ground. Hard to imagine
him letting Imax AVATAR out-tech his own ultra-future vision, comfort
be damned.
moviePig
No, I walked into a wall. I remembered it as b&w...
Obveeus
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:8ae8e957-397c-4d99...@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>On May 1, 1:39 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> On May 1, 9:15 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>> > ...
>> > Afaik, Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense, not of adapting to new
>> > cinema technology. It's not surprising his first and only effort
>> > would fall short of masterpiece quality. Note, too, Hitchcock often
>> > kept audiences suspended in murky uncertainty; e.g., he *could* have
>> > shot DIAL M in color...
>> > ...
>
>> Maybe I'm not following you here, but 'Dial M for Murder'
>> was and is in color.
>
>No, I walked into a wall. I remembered it as b&w...
Maybe you were dreaming?
Obveeus
'Shift'...as in something that shifty people would do.
Goro
> On May 1, 1:39 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 9:15 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > Afaik, Hitchcock was the Master of Suspense, not of adapting to new
> > > cinema technology. It's not surprising his first and only effort
> > > would fall short of masterpiece quality. Note, too, Hitchcock often
> > > kept audiences suspended in murky uncertainty; e.g., he *could* have
> > > shot DIAL M in color...
> > > ...
>
> > Maybe I'm not following you here, but 'Dial M for Murder'
> > was and is in color.
>
> No, I walked into a wall. I remembered it as b&w...
>
Maybe you recall watching it in a past life... when you were a dog?
-goro-
moviePig
Wiki:
"The 1954 film was shot with M.L. Gunzberg's Natural Vision 3-D camera
rig. This rig was notable for being the same rig that started the 3-D
craze of 1953 with Bwana Devil and House of Wax. Intended originally
to be shown in dual strip, polaroid 3-D, the film played most theaters
flat due to the loss of interest in the 3-D process in conjunction
with the time of its release. In February 1980, the dual-strip system
was used for the revival of the film in 3-D at the York Theater in San
Francisco. This revival did so well that Warner Brothers re-released
the film in the single-strip system 3-D version in February 1982."
moviePig
'Dial M For Mealtime' does sound familiar...
calvin
I saw that 1980 dual strip 3D presentation in Atlanta, though
the above implies that it was shown only in San Francisco.
In my post quoted above, however, I was referring to the
original 2D release.
moviePig
Yes ...and Wiki seems mostly to contradict Ebert.
SolomonW
> The
> appeal of 3D right now is whole families are going--whole familes
> aren't going to be watching pirated movies for the most part.
In this day of big screens at home, I doubt this?
calvin
How perfectly Jewish.
Mr. Hole the Magnificent
> 4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES.
> AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show
> in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading
> ophthalmologists. "There are a lot of people walking around with very
> minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal
> circumstances the brain deals with naturally," said Dr. Michael
> Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an
> unfamiliar visual experience, and "that translates into greater mental
> effort, making it easier to get a headache." Dr. Deborah Friedman, a
> professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of
> Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees
> things at a slightly different angle. "When that gets processed in the
> brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you
> see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way
> that your eyes and your brain are." In a just-published article,
> Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience
> experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.
This.
SolomonW
Professional idiot
nick
Part of the whole moviegoing experience for families is getting out of
the house, fooling around in the arcade, buying popcorn, the whole
thing, and that can't be replicated at home. Look at the numbers.
It's the home entertainment sector of Hollywood slumping right now,
not the theaters. (That's where I'd argue that pirating is the real
problem. Not with theatrical run pictures--when the best you're going
to get from a camcorded dupe is a "reference copy"--but down the road
when DVD releases and On Demand are being eaten alive by DVD quality
bootlegs.)
About watching 3D at home . . . when you see a 3D movie at the theater
you're a captive to the image. You're sitting in the dark watching a
huge screen. But most of the time you won't be getting that at home.
So how does onscreen 3D compete with the real life 3D it's surrounded
by when it registers with the eye? Is it disorienting? Or is it
something you're not bothered by?
moviePig
What!?
calvin
> On May 1, 11:33 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On May 1, 10:26 pm, SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 1 May 2010 05:16:15 -0700 (PDT), nick wrote:
> > > > The
> > > > appeal of 3D right now is whole families are going--whole familes
> > > > aren't going to be watching pirated movies for the most part.
>
> > > In this day of big screens at home, I doubt this?
>
> > How perfectly Jewish.
>
> What!?
When I first read the line above, I wondered why
the question mark at the end, and then was about
to post about it, when I read the line again,
including the question mark, and it hit me what
a perfectly inflected Jewish utterance it is, right
out of my closest experience of Jewish conversation,
Woody Allen movies.
After posting, I noticed that the person's name is
'SolomonW', so my take on his post may have been
correct.
Now, you can either accept my posts here in their
literal innocence, or you can declare me to be
anti-semitic for posting about Jewish talk and names.
Your choice.
moviePig
You're choice. (Notice I ask questions before launching nuclear
missives.)
calvin
I'm choice what?
You have previously declared me to be racist
for not voting for Obama, and homophobic for
being against same-sex marriage, so naturally
I expect a charge of anti-semiticism here. It's
what you do.
calvin
> You have previously declared me to be racist
> for not voting for Obama, and homophobic for
> being against same-sex marriage, so naturally
> I expect a charge of anti-semiticism here. It's
> what you do.
I left out sexist for being against late-term abortion.
Racist, homophobic, sexist, and anti-semitic; that's me.
moviePig
Given such a wide smorgasbord, perhaps you can easily supply a cite or
two. Your effort should certainly enlighten one of us...
calvin
> On May 2, 10:37 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On May 2, 9:53 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > You have previously declared me to be racist
> > > for not voting for Obama, and homophobic for
> > > being against same-sex marriage, so naturally
> > > I expect a charge of anti-semiticism here. It's
> > > what you do.
>
> > I left out sexist for being against late-term abortion.
> > Racist, homophobic, sexist, and anti-semitic; that's me.
>
> Given such a wide smorgasbord, perhaps you can easily supply a cite or
> two. Your effort should certainly enlighten one of us...
Though memory serves, I couldn't find the cites if I tried.
But why bother anyway? Simply being conservative
and voting Republican brands me with all of the above,
in the mindlessness of liberal Democrat voters. Just
ask Keith Olbermann and any of his crowd.
moviePig
Indeed, "memory serves". It serves intent.
And you're right: you couldn't find the cites if you tried. As to
"why bother", well, you're right again... because facts only retard
certainty. Just ask [insert here some irrelevant tv-personality as a
diversionary lightning-rod].
calvin
I should have just left your "What!?" unanswered.
The next time I make a non-pc comment that someone
is likely to misconstrue, I will just leave it out there for
the jackals to growl and snarl over.
moviePig
*Not* right. You should have answered it, and merely omitted the
breast-beating.