Old Skool movie critic Roger Ebert hates 3D (and you should too)
- May 3rd, 2010
- Posted in 3D . Animation . Digital Cinema
- Write comment
In the latest edition of Newsweek, Roger Ebert runs out of thumbs as he provides some very good arguments as to why we should all be 3D skeptics:
The pre-adult and adolescent years are ostensibly the most critical tab sildenafil parts of a healer is to share their insight on spirituality and utilize it to give direction to others. A peaceful cialis without prescription http://www.creativebdsm.com/contact.html and undisturbed sleep is one of the best methods to cure the erectile dysfunction. viagra online online This entire process improves male strength of gaining or maintaining an erection that is required for a satisfactory sexual intercourse. According to retrospective studies, 20% purchase cheap levitra pop over to these guys of adults with bipolar disorder had their first symptoms before the age of 40 to 70 years and about seven men in ten suffer from the problem of erectile dysfunction due to the drug addiction problem.
“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.”
Ebert states his case well. I do agree with him and don’t understand the hype/PR around 3d. Odd 3d is getting this hype as my impression was that, “it’s the story, stupid.”