I started reading this article that Roger Ebert wrote about 3D movies and how he doesn’t like them. I totally agree with him, not because of him, I actually have thought about the popularity of 3D a lot lately – how it is more like a new way for cinemas to earn money and attract people to the movies. I know from my own experience that I get headaches while watching 3D – I mentioned that I watched Alice in Wonderland in March (it was 3D). Maybe the reason why I didn’t like the movie as much as I like other Burton’s movies – the headache and the uncomfortable glasses which I had to wear with my own glasses – it was unpleasant.
I don’t really care for 3D and it bugs me that I don’t really have a choice, all the movies that are in 3D are in 3D only – so I guess I wouldn’t be as mad if I could still go to the movies and watch 2D if I want to. So I wasn’t surprised of Roger Eberts concerns, he has been around for a while and a fan of the classics – as am I. So what, that I am young and used to the era of computers and technology – I still love to watch movies that are 2D.
And if you want to read an article by a well respected man in Hollywood who has addressed the same dislike I have, go ahead:
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.
0Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110
Leave a Reply