Draven is right on all counts. There's no interstitial space in a 3D movie, so it's not like it's replicating actual vision. It's a novelty, and novelty certainly has its place.

After Avatar I had no interest in seeing another 3D movie, and I still don't. It counter-intuitively removes me from the experience rather than immerses me in it. (Must have something to do with wearing two pairs of glasses at the same time, among other things.)

When 3D movies enable you to walk into the picture plane and look around for yourself, then I'm in, or when, as others have mentioned, when the depth smoothly goes back into the picture plane, then I'll be more interested.

I don't really need the spear to come out of the screen and poke me.

The title of this thread is the headline of Ebert's blog. It is also his opinion. I don't see how "case closed" is not an opinion. It's a strong opinion, sure, but it still falls into the realm of opinion.

"Case closed" means there's no further argument to be made. It implies that any dissenting opinion is incorrect.

I have zero interest in 3D. It's an expensive gimmick solely designed to make money - not make better or more enjoyable movies.

I'm not going to wear a pair of 3D glasses over my regular glasses to watch underwhelming 3D - at a premium price, no less. I'm certainly not going to wear those bulky 3D glasses at home to watch 3D content! (I did check out a 3D demonstration at Best Buy and it was really lame - 3D images that hardly looked better than a freaking ViewMaster!)

The electronics manufacturers, movie theater chains, and movie studios all wanted a new cash cow - something to ramp up revenues. New technology for the electronics manufacturers to sell, a new format to re-re-re-release catalog titles on for the studios, and a new gimmick to help theaters generate more revenues (hoping on more ticket sales at an even higher price). It's a scam, more or less.

It only means that no further argument will persuade HIM. It's still an opinion. He's not stating a "fact" like George Washington was the first President. He's stating that 3D doesn't work. That's clearly an opinion. He backs it up with some fact and speculation by Murch, but we're obviously in the realm of aesthetic judgment here.

I happen to agree with him, but that's beside the point. He also declared that video games can never be considered art, which I disagree with. He tends to frame his feelings in pretty absolute terms, but they are opinions. He's a critic, a professional opinion-giver.

I like someone who doesn't qualify everything he says with "IMHO". If you think 3D is the cats pajamas, then proudly say so, as if it's a fact, because it's your fact.

3D is the cats pajamas. AND the bees' knees. In fact, my whole life is lived in 3D. That's how serious I am.

Funny you should say that, because I recently read an article by Ricky Gervais that had this sentence with which I wholeheartedly agree:

"You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts."

You're wrong!!1!

I was 13 when I saw my first 3D movie. It was 27 years ago (shit, seems like yesterday), it was and still remains the only time that I ever saw a movie released in 3D in the theaters. That movie was IMHO the very terrible Jaws 3-D. Let's put it this way, if I were ever to see another 3D movie before I die it would be too soon.

And although I didn't read the letter written by Walter Murch (I don't need to, because I already know 3D sucks) all I need to say is; Amen Murch, Amen brother!

I remember seeing a film on a curved 360 screen in a theater where you just stood in the middle. That experience was more immersive than anything I saw in Avatar and it was over 30 years ago... 3D isn't an immersive experience for me, it just makes me go "oh, that was cool" which essentially take me out of the movie.

I gotta agree with most of you in this thread. It's really not worth the extra price.

And it's even worse outside the US where ther rarely is a 2D alternative. Ever seen a 3D movie with subtitles? Now that's distracting at the point of almost ruining the experience.

Unless 2D is phased out altogether I will never see a 3D movie in a theater again.

Can't stand it.

I saw Tron Legacy in fake LieMax 3D and enjoyed the fuck out of it. It was bright and looked amazing. I saw it a second time in a Real3D projection and it looked like utter shit. The Real3D glasses made the picture look waaaay too dark. Plus i noticed more of the shutter effect. It was distracting.

I have no problem paying extra for fake imax if the movie is in 3D. Not if its in 2D.

don't be too excited. it's a stripped down version w/o lossless HD audio. it's only DD 5.1.

RealD is horrible by comparison to the other 3D methods out there, I actually think that will be the ultimate downfall of the format.

Which should sound great on my 6 year old (refurbished) 5.1 Onkyo HTiB

Am I wrong to not trust anyone's opinion of today's 3D in cinema if they normally wear glasses, and then the 3D glasses over their normal glasses? I normally wear contacts, and to me, there's a big difference in viewing experience if I'm wearing my glasses in addition to the 3D glasses when viewing a "properly" shot 3D film, versus just wearing contacts and the 3D glasses.

Not only should you not trust their opinion, you should give that nerd a wedgie!

When I was a kid I had a View Master and some of those round things that had pictures on them that you were supposed to put in the View Master, including one for the Flintstones and one for 101 Dalmations. I never knew that you had to keep both eyes open when you looked into it. So, as a kid, I never experienced the 3-D effect. No one ever told me you had to keep both eyes open. And it never occurred to me to do so. I think my entire life has been colored in some way by that failure as a nine- or ten-year-old.

(When am I going to learn to open the other eye? )

You know what's been MUCH more impressive than 3D to me? Extra image resolution - think the IMAX sequences in Dark Knight. That vividness pulled me into the film much more than any 3D sequence ever could. That, along with greater frames-per-second, is what can better enhance a theatrical experience, far more than 3D ever can by itself.

You're confusing your sources. Walter Murch says 3D sucks. Roger Ebert says video games can never be art.

Roger Ebert is a film critic.
Walter Murch is a film maker.

They both think 3D sucks though. Resident Evil 3D must have been hell for him.

I was talking about Ebert. The original post is an opinion piece by Ebert about why 3D sucks. He quotes a letter from Walter Murch within that article, but the article is Ebert's. If you scroll back and read what I was responding to, etc, it should be clear who I meant when I wrote "he" and "him". [p.s. Murch is an editor, but I suppose filmmaker will do, generally]

This sentence is at complete odds with reality, almost comically so. Only one word is needed to refute it (along with pretty much the entire article). Avatar. I mean, yeah that movies 3D presentation alienated the HELL out of the world.

The fact of the matter is pretty much every single movie that has used 3D in 2010 has been either terrible rush conversions or lousy 3D due to lousy directors (Kosinski in Tron Legacy).

And the movies that DID do proper 3D? Jackass and Resident Evil? They not only performed well, but outperformed their predecessors.

Trying to pass off the tech already due to 2010 is ignorant at best. Just another silly crusade from Roger Ebert, much like is "games aren't art" rants. Rubbish used to troll for more hits.

Murch may have a hell of a resume and is more than well respected, but his opinion isn't the nail in the coffin. Not only is James Cameron an accredited editor, but he also, to put it lightly, knows a thing or two about picking up a camera, and he sure as hell doesn't have a problem shooting and editing in 3D, and Camerons results were a resounding success in every single way imaginable. So no. Sorry Ebert. Case NOT closed. Far from it.

I don't think Ebert is trolling for hits. He's already the most widely read film critic alive. I believe this is truly his opinion. I just happen to think his opinion is at odds with the box office, just like his video game opinion is at odds with reality. Contrast that with Armond White, who I believe does not share his true opinions and does in fact troll for more attention.

Trolling for hits may be exagerating, but his obvious sensationalization and attitude do not befit him.