I think 3d has a place, I just don't think it's as big of a market share as the marketers are hoping which could unfortunately kill the technology simply because they overestimated it's appeal. These aren't just Roger Ebert's opinions. They are factual, except for #8. I think a serious drama could be filmed in 3D. Hell, I think a serious drama NEEDS to be filmed in 3D without any gimmicky "pop off the screen" effects that EVERY 3d film, including Avatar has utilized to show off the tech.
The big problem it's facing is that it's not just a flavor item for people that love it can enjoy while everyone else can casually ignore. 3d is a technology that almost everyone wants but can't enjoy because it's annoying as hell due to gimmicky 3d, poor technology, stupid glasses or because it makes them physically ill. If Avatar was a medication, it would have been pulled off the market because it made so many people sick. I'm not talking about eye strain which is obviously a sign that your eyes are seeing something unhealthy. I'm talking about pure on vomit inducing sickness. This is after seeing 1 movie. Imagine the people that didn't get sick the first time but will the 2nd or 3rd time. If it's anything like Simulator sickness, it'll happen and every time it happens, it's at least 1 customer lost. If it's a father of 2 that gets sick, count it as 3 customers lost.
Quote:
|
it's odd to me that the same person wrote both.
|
It's odd that an old coot like Ebert isn't open and accepting of new technology? I kind of expected this from Ebert, I just happen to agree with him on this and not about the other.