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.

Why I Think Roger Ebert Is Obsolete (And You Should Too)

Jim here. Roger Ebert just wrote an op-ed piece for Newsweek that blew my mind. I am forced to write yet another post to attempt some sort of counter balance to his blatant obsolescence (as he is obviously not ignorant to the facts any longer). Not only has he not learned from AVATAR and the optimism 3D has given Hollywood, he has retreated further back into his world. He has blasted yet another salvo at, well basically the world, now that practically everyone has been to Pandora and now owns it on disc.

Take this excerpt for example: "3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for."

Stunning isn't it? 3D adds nothing essential. Interesting. I guess we should all poke out our left eye now shouldn't we? We don't need to see in stereo. He alludes to distraction, yet for most people you forget you are wearing glasses at all 5 minutes into AVATAR. Nausea and headaches? Again he is shooting off fear, uncertainty and doubt by talking about BAD 3D - like CLASH OF THE TITANS and/or the statistically very small number of people who literally can't see it effectively. Yes, the business side of Hollywood is enjoying more revenue to offset the development and future of 3D - but we live in a capitalist world driven by supply and demand. The market will set the price. Do you think people would flock to theaters at $50 a pop? I think not. 3D is darker than 2D - yes, so? If directors pay attention to this it does not matter - Cameron paid attention with AVATAR and hence no lighting issues. Get over it. 3D is unsuitable for grown up films he says. If anyone cares to enlighten me on what he means here, by all means do so! Dramas? Art films? What? In other words, if you have something serious to say to me Mr. Ebert, you had better shut one eye. What a joke. In fact, you should be winking when you say these things Mr. Ebert because it sounds like you are completely in jest.

Lastly he says that it limits the freedom directors have to make movies. To this I have to say: Hogwash. Directors are limited to making movies with sound nowadays aren't they? Dolby sound? With color? Oh the humanity to be forced into making a movie that actually draws our audience closer to the storyteller! To be fully engaged and engrossed. What a pity to force 3D upon ourselves.

His arguments against 3D are baseless and he knows it. So what is his motivation to broadside 3D like this? Self promotion? Ego? How dare Hollywood do something like this without consulting with me? Someone paying him to say these things? Only Ebert can answer these questions. Surely it has nothing to do with his opinion does it? Hmmm. Perhaps it does. Perhaps obsolescence is upon Mr. Ebert finally. In fact, I know it is. And he knows I know.

Who am I to criticize one of movie's greatest critics of all time? I have done it before if you will remember. Clearly Roger Ebert fits the description of a great critic, if not the defacto standard. He has entertained and informed movie fans since 1967 when he first set up his typewriter for the Chicago Sun-Times. Ebert's movie advice has been for the most part, excellent. Logic and an innate blend of artistic criticism and empathy for the public audience has set him apart from the now massive vault of available online movie pundits.

And I clearly fall into the last category. I am just a simple movie blogger that happens to love and embrace stereoscopic 3D. I am clearly biased and invested in the new industry. So what makes me think that I should challenge the man? Because he is wrong. Dead wrong.

The downfall of Ebert lies in his luminous past. He is so entrenched in his rich history of Hollywood that he cannot move a limb towards its future. Quicksand of the mind if you will. The more he moves toward wanting to understand and enjoy 3D, the deeper he recedes into his opinion. Perhaps the first ill conceived opinion of his life. Unfortunately for him, the world has embraced 3D - not meekly or a generational blip, but a full blown revolution in filmmaking. Whether he sees this embrace is unknown to me. At least he recognizes the accomplishment of AVATAR.

Ebert tries the trusted old trick of misdirection when he actually strays WAY off topic to bring up faster frame rates as being the technology we need now rather than 3D. Yes, I agree faster framerates would be awesome! WITH 3D!! The two are independent thoughts my fellow movie critic.

What upsets me the most, other than his influence he has on the movie going public, is that he is artificially bringing directors on his side. Another excerpt: "Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening." Mr. Ebert. Stop trying to confuse your readers! It is pathetic. Hitchcock used old school 3D, NOT modern 3D. They are so vastly different. And YOU know it.

Moreover, he said: "I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe." Wrong again Mr. Ebert. Even his self admitted hero, Werner Herzog, is shooting a 3D movie about prehistoric cave paintings in France! Yet he freely admits all of this! He knows he is one of the last few influential people speaking out against 3D and you can tell he feels his back against the wall. Even his much loved directors are leaving him squirming. Of course he can take solace in the fact that Michael Bay is still on his side. *snicker* And do you really think the studios can force a man like Scorsese or Herzog into shooting 3D? Seriously, think about it.

Look. The time has come to admit that you were wrong Mr. Ebert and move on. It is only going to get worse for you. 3D will be improving by leaps and bounds in the coming years from a number of factors: Technology is improving everyday (TRON: LEGACY and AVATAR 2 will make huge strides yet again); 3D film crew expertise is growing exponentially; 3D is getting cheaper to shoot and convert; and more and more independents will soon be involved.

If Roger Ebert refuses to acknowledge that Hollywood is on the cusp of something magnificent and not "suicide", then surely the man is now obsolete. It pains me to say this yet again, but it is so true. Time to retire and enjoy the spoils of your career. Look at it this way folks, at least there will be one more aisle seat available for someone that cares.

Roger Ebert Vomits Forth More Bile - Just Doesn't Get Modern 3D AT ALL

Jim here. Well Roger Ebert has again attacked modern 3D by spewing more ignorance of the technological marvel: "3-D is a distraction and an annoyance. Younger moviegoers may think they like it because they've been told to, and picture quality is usually far from their minds. But for anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the darned thing, like me, it's a constant nudge in the ribs saying never mind the story, just see how neat I look."

What this solely tells me is he can't get over how profoundly 3D affects him. He can't shake the experience! I will submit that the first few 3D movies you see will have you thinking about the beauty of the format, but as you experience more and more of it - and if the movie is done right - you will forget that 3D is even there. THAT is the magic.

Unfortunately it seems all the magic has left Mr. Ebert. It really is too bad. One of the most respected movie critics of all time simply cannot come to grips with what is now being proven to be the future of cinema and the next step toward total immersion in the movies.

I have said it before and I will say it again if he continues to voice his ignorance of 3D: Perhaps it is time to retire. Retire before there is real embarrassment, because in my mind if he continues down this path he may very well be ruining his mammoth legacy to the entertainment industry and present himself as, well, a dinosaur who didn't really know extinction was possible.

Roger Ebert Responds To My Comment On 3D

Jim here. Well I didn't think he would respond to my comment as better people have commented earlier on the same post (Phil McNally of Dreamworks Animation for example), but Mr. Ebert did respond. Heck I didn't think he would approve the whole comment to begin with, but he did. I respect the man a great deal for his integrity, I will give him that.

I don't believe I was too hard on him as clearly he is way off base with his opinion on 3D. In fact, at times it seemed like he had some sort of personal vendetta against anything 3D, like some sort of anti-stereoscopic Charles Bronson.

Instead of being a stereoscopic advocate, he is now being stereotyped as being obsolete. It is a shame really. I will say this again, I am a fan of Roger Ebert. I will drop you a line after AVATAR and see if you have changed your mind!

Here is my response to his post as well as his followup:

By Jim Dorey of MarketSaw.com on September 2, 2008 2:43 PM

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.