Roger Ebert Still Insists 3D Is Inferior *AND* Why I think His Opinion, Again, Is Flawed...
I suppose it is safe to assume that Roger Ebert is not going to give up. Ok. I can accept that. He hates 3D and thinks it is inferior to 2D.
Yesterday he posted on the opinion of film editor and sound designer Walter Murch in his Chicago Sun-Times column. You can see Ebert's whole article here.
I have taken the liberty of grabbing a few snippets from his page for our discussion here:
Ebert states: I received a letter that ends, as far as I am concerned, the discussion about 3D. It doesn't work with our brains and it never will.
The notion that we are asked to pay a premium to witness an inferior and inherently brain-confusing image is outrageous. The case is closed.
This letter is from Walter Murch, seen at left, the most respected film editor and sound designer in the modern cinema. As a editor, he must be intimately expert with how an image interacts with the audience's eyes. He won an Academy Award in 1979 for his work on "Apocalypse Now," whose sound was a crucial aspect of its effect.
Then Ebert posts Murch's letter:
Hello Roger,
I read your review of "Green Hornet" and though I haven't seen the film, I agree with your comments about 3D.
The 3D image is dark, as you mentioned (about a camera stop darker) and small. Somehow the glasses "gather in" the image -- even on a huge Imax screen -- and make it seem half the scope of the same image when looked at without the glasses.
I edited one 3D film back in the 1980's -- "Captain Eo" -- and also noticed that horizontal movement will strobe much sooner in 3D than it does in 2D. This was true then, and it is still true now. It has something to do with the amount of brain power dedicated to studying the edges of things. The more conscious we are of edges, the earlier strobing kicks in.
The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.
If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.
We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for. This is a deep problem, which no amount of technical tweaking can fix. Nothing will fix it short of producing true "holographic" images.
Consequently, the editing of 3D films cannot be as rapid as for 2D films, because of this shifting of convergence: it takes a number of milliseconds for the brain/eye to "get" what the space of each shot is and adjust.
And lastly, the question of immersion. 3D films remind the audience that they are in a certain "perspective" relationship to the image. It is almost a Brechtian trick. Whereas if the film story has really gripped an audience they are "in" the picture in a kind of dreamlike "spaceless" space. So a good story will give you more dimensionality than you can ever cope with.
So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?
All best wishes,
Walter Murch
Here is my response to Ebert on his column (which is still waiting for his approval):
Roger,
Though I continue to respect your authority wrt cinema, again I must vehemently disagree with the aura surrounding this story.
Simply put, if a movie is WELL MADE in 3D, there must be time given to the audience to relax their eyes. It is not a white and black scenario as Murch seems to be hinting at here. It is very much a grey area. This is where having an experienced stereographer on set is paramount. Scenes with tight or even medium narratives should be dialed back to close to 2D. It adds nothing to a movie to see a nose sticking out or eyes sunk in a face.
I reviewed THE GREEN HORNET (here: http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/green-hornet-advanced-review-8-stars.html) and just so you know - I did NOT fully enjoy the non-stop 3D. I think you will enjoy reading that section of the review. I was clear in that time must be given to the audience to rest. I left with a headache that lasted for 15 minutes.
If you are bombarded with fairly intense 3D for an entire 2 hours it is not a good thing. I will tell you this. James Cameron will tell you this. Several rules were broken for THE GREEN HORNET and it is a shame because it is the best conversion project to date. It could have been perfect 3D, rivaling even native 3D.
No, the case is very much open and in fact is 3D is leading the industry. 50 to 70% of box office revenue is 3D and growing (http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/50-70-of-box-office-revenue-is-s3d-new.html). James Cameron is a well respected editor too - I believe he has a different take.
Funny CAPTAIN EO was mentioned; that of course is Francis Ford Coppola's 3D effort! He is revisiting 3D again. Scorsese's HUGO CABRET is coming. Herzog's CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS is simply amazing. I don't have to mention all the other respected filmmakers embracing 3D.
But you know all of this Roger! I applaud your fortitude, but sometimes it takes more to admit your wrong than to stay the course.
So hopefully some of my words will help diffuse the additional fear, uncertainty and doubt that is continually coming from Ebert. I respect the man and his opinions as everyone is entitled to them, but I am steadfast against him on this.
Hopefully the 24 year old blogger he has added to the roster will help him see the error in his ways. Unfortunately the first interview question thrown at him was probably: "What are your views on S3D?"
Oh well.
Dear Mr. Ebert,
I have been holding off on posting on your blog as I really didn't see the point in attempting to set you straight as you clearly are very involved with the industry for a very long time and certainly entitled to your learned opinion.
However, I now find myself needing to reply to your post as there are many readers of my 3D focused website that are either confused by what you have said - or they want my opinion of your comments.
So, at the behest of my readers, here is my retort.
Your opinion is basking in the glow of nostalgia Mr. Ebert. Yes I have a vested interest in 3D, but I can base my opinions on fact and not fiction.
You stated: "There seems to be a belief that 3-D films are not getting their money's worth unless they hurtle objects or body parts at the audience. Every time that happens, it creates a fatal break in the illusion of the film. The idea of a movie, even an animated one, is to convince us, halfway at least, that that we're seeing on the screen is sort of really happening. Images leaping off the screen destroy that illusion."
NOT if used correctly and for that purpose! JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH is a family thrill ride and nothing more - it was MADE to have things coming at you - including the gravity influenced saliva of Brendan Fraser. James Cameron's AVATAR will be using 3D correctly and actually bringing the audience INTO the movie. Do not lump all 3D films into the category Mr. Ebert - you are sadly mistaken.
You stated: "There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. Nor do such things, such as arrows, cannonballs or fists, move so slowly that we can perceive them actually in motion. If a cannonball approached that slowly, it would be rolling on the ground."
I find this paragraph to be far beneath you. In real life we do see in 3D OBVIOUSLY because we have 2 eyes. And yes we DO see things leaping at us: How on earth did you play catch with a baseball? It is called depth perception or Stereopsis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis) - it is that little thing that pilots must have in order to be licensed. And in a well made movie you will not have objects slowing down to augment a 3D effect unless it was intended to be part of the movie (like for example the bullet time effect in THE MATRIX). 3D is not realistic? This is an ignorant statement - we are obviously seeing in three dimensions as we have two eyes. It is as realistic as when I shut off my alarm clock in the morning without having to slap around my nightstand trying to find it in space.
You followed that nugget with "But what about rapid movement toward the viewer? Yes, we see a car aiming for us. But it advances by growing larger against its background, not by detaching from it. Nor did we evolve to stand still and regard its advance. To survive, we learned instinctively to turn around, leap aside, run away. We didn't just stand there evolving the ability to enjoy a 3-D movie."
Huh? I mean... WHAT? Yes, of course objects get larger and then when it gets close enough we detect depth. Why are you constantly referencing fast moving cars and cannonballs? Think about what really can be captured in a movie like catching a baseball as a kid from your father for example. I really dislike arguments from people that insist on either black or white. There is plenty of gray area in life! The baseball leaves your dad's hand and starts to get larger - you see the movement and the growth in size means it is coming towards you. Great, you position yourself. It is not until the ball gets close enough that your two eyes register two different images of the ball (depends on the distance of your eyes from each other). Your brain is then able to use your god given depth perception from TWO eyes to very accurately pinpoint where to catch the ball. It takes practice too. Not practice watching a ball get larger. Come on. HAND-EYE COORDINATION that is trained through depth perception. Honestly, are we back in school here?
You stated: "In my review of the 3-D "Journey to the Center of the Earth," I wrote that I wished I had seen it in 2-D: "Since there's that part of me with a certain weakness for movies like this, it's possible I would have liked it more. It would have looked brighter and clearer, and the photography wouldn't have been cluttered up with all the leaping and gnashing of teeth." "Journey" will be released on 2-D on DVD, and I am actually planning to watch it that way, to see the movie inside the distracting technique. I expect to feel considerably more affection for it."
That T-Rex sequence was one of the most entertaining and spell-binding bits of cinema I have seen in a long time. My opinion of course. So if you rather enjoy watching a T-Rex in 2D I would suggest Jurassic Park more so than JOURNEY. I have said it before, JOURNEY was meant to be a 3D thrill ride, nothing more. I won't waste your time trying desperately to dissect the "movie inside", whatever the heck that means. There is nothing else. It is a 3D family thrill ride! I can't believe I am saying this to the preeminent movie critic of our time, but you DO PREPARE yourself before a movie right? I mean, you don't walk into a horror movie expecting anything else but right? More than anything else I have commented on here - that is what I am most curious about from you Mr. Ebert.
You stated: "Ask yourself this question: Have you ever watched a 2-D movie and wished it were in 3-D? Remember that boulder rolling behind Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark?" Better in 3-D? No, it would have been worse. Would have been a tragedy. The 3-D process is like a zombie, a vampire, or a 17-year cicada: seemingly dead, but crawling out alive after a lapse of years. We need a wooden stake."
Absolutely 100% yes - and in fact RAIDERS would have been better yes. Especially the boulder scene. You have an uncanny knack for picking the exact right cinematic sequences that SHOULD be in 3D! And you comparison of 3D to the undead creatures of lore is unremarkable. A childish attempt to wrap up your butchery with something akin to a grin. Sorry. Didn't work. Modern 3D is a completely different beast compared to 20th century 3D and YOU KNOW IT. It amazes me that an educated man in your position would froth forth such bile.
Here is MY OPINION Mr. Ebert. It is you that is obsolete. Ewww, I can hear the gasps of the readers now! Jim Dorey dares to insult Roger Ebert! Whatever. I think you have had your day and your relevance is slowly eroding. I appreciate all you have done to date, really I have and I have watched many episodes of your work.
Yes, maybe I am miffed at having to post on your site. But really Mr. Ebert, open your EYES. Both of them. THE WORLD IS NO LONGER FLAT my good man and your opinion is growing obsolete. It is time to listen to the Galileo's of the world. Like Jim Cameron or Jeff Katzenberg. You said it yourself - Cameron wouldn't be trying to make AVATAR if he didn't think he could do it. My money is on Cameron, not you Mr. Ebert.
For your readers information, I am the creator and editor of www.MarketSaw.com which is dedicated to 3D movies and technology.
-Jim Dorey
Ebert: Thanks! I would like to believe I have an open mind, as I did when praising "Polar Express" and "Beowulf." I can very much see the effectiveness of using 3-D to provide depth instead attacking the foreground, and I am anticipating "Avatar" as much as any movie coming out--except for a few, of course.