Baraka_Guru

Okay, so a 3-D option is fine for kids movies, animation, action, adventure, thrillers, horrors, certain documentaries, and other fun-fun sort of films.

But when it comes to drama, I could see it as a distraction and it being unnecessary, adding nothing as Ebert claims. Of course, I myself see film as a kind of derivative of storytelling already. I don't see why we should make it worse.

Then again, I'd like to add that if the 3-D experience can be made more seamless (say, as realistic holographic images not requiring glasses), then I can see it being more acceptable in general. It would make film more akin to seeing a stage play in terms of "3-Dness."

There's nothing wrong with the third dimension in my view; it just shouldn't be an unnecessary distraction.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot