Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D Movies

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.

This right here is the crux of the issue.

9 Comments

  1. Mike Shields April 30, 2010

    Clearly, he’s never seen The Incredibles. Lack of Live action doesn’t preclude lack of story.

  2. Anna Tarkov April 30, 2010

    As you can see, he saw it and loved it: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041104/REVIEWS/41006004/1023 His point is about 3D movies vs. 2D, not live action vs. animation.

  3. Mike Shields April 30, 2010

    And so is mine. Specifically, a good story should be able to be told whatever the preferred medium, and that includes 2D vs. 3D.  His quote, article, whatever it is that you posted, is a limited view of where the industry is going.

  4. Anna Tarkov April 30, 2010

    You completely misunderstood his point and no, I don’t agree that a good story can be told no matter what the medium is. Would Casablanca have been told just as well as an animated Disney film? Would Gone With the Wind been told just as well as a silent black & white movie? Of course not. So his point, to clarify again, is that 3D can have its place, but it shouldn’t be used arbitrarily and shouldn’t be movie studios’ focus.

  5. Mike Shields April 30, 2010

    Clearly, I’m being too subtle. I know where the industry is going, and he doesn’t. All movies will be shown in 3D within five years. That’s the reality. He needs to understand that. I’m simply stating that your strawman arguments are invalid. The movies you mention would’ve worked no matter how they were told, simply because the stories are strong. Or, put succinctly, had Gone With The Wind, been made 70 years later, it would look entirely different. And still win Best Picture.

  6. Anna Tarkov May 1, 2010

    I’m sorry, but saying Roger Ebert doesn’t know where the film industry is going is like saying Steve Jobs doesn’t know where personal computing is going. Ok., maybe it’s not quite on that level, but it’s pretty darn close. Also, who knows, he might agree with you and also believe that all movies will be 3D in 5 years. But that doesn’t mean he has to like it.

  7. Mike Shields May 1, 2010

    That may have been true five years ago, but it isn’t anymore. He’s trying the shape the industry he loves with the statement he made, and while he may not like it, he’s going to have to live with it, unless he’s going to retire, and leave the industry completely. Otherwise, he needs to adapt to the changing industry he helped form, or become irrelevant….

  8. Anna Tarkov May 1, 2010

    I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. 5 years isn’t that long to wait.

  9. Mike Shields May 1, 2010

    Actually, that’s a conservative estimate based on several factors, all of which are out of my control. It may come earlier than that, actually. M

Comments are Disabled