Replies to Walter Murch on the end of 3D as we know it

Argument to some seems to be a matter of simply re-describing things with “negative” words. Honest assessment of merits, therefore, becomes screed to reinforce opinion. This all of course avoids dealing with actual things. The Boxoffice Magazine article’s author seems to think that, if he can prove some sort of prejudice Ebert has against 3-D, that automatically disqualifies any of the arguments Ebert’s put forth. Logical fallacy. But notice also how he describes all the writing Ebert has done concerning 3-D as repeated and vociferous critique. Semantic games. Hell, in the same sentence he even acknowledges that he’s not actually dealing with any arguments Ebert’s put forth (“… while he may or may not have a point…”)! Also, his article is called “This Week in Cranky: Walter Murch Declares War on 3-D” and deals with Murch’s arguments about 3-D. Ebert published Murch’s letter on his blog. That seems like the only time Ebert should have been brought up in an article about Murch’s comments.

Oh, and “Declares War!” Really! More like “Walter Murch Makes a Few Arguments Concerning 3-D.” I admit, it’s not as catchy, but at least it’s the truth.

Thank you for this. While I don't spit venom towards 3D films like Ebert does (as long as I'm not forced to see them or switch to a 3d tv), I do grow tired over seeing "IN 3D" in commercials for movies all the time.

I've seen two movies in 3D. Toy Story 3 and Voyage of the Dawn Treader. While I loved both movies, the 3D experiance I found wasn't for me. I wear glasses already and can't see the effects unless I wear both. I find the film quality to be dim like Ebert said, and I get annoyed over the flimsy flickering edges around objects it makes.

It also saddens me that my father who is blind in one eye can't watch 3D movies, so I'm very adament that there should always be a 2D option for movie goers like him.

Eh, in fairness, I don't think Ebert's done much to elevate the discussion from his end, either: declaring an art form dead by fiat isn't exactly an invitation to spirited debate. You're right about the pettiness of some of the responses, but he's not exactly shown a willingness to discuss this with an open mind, so I understand why people are getting frustrated with him.

Study the history of art long enough, and you get used to arguments like this, and considerably less cynical about the possibilities. Nothing spurs innovation like being told something can't work, and blanket dismissal is like a mating call for innovators. That's a good thing.

For me, the current problem with 3D isn't physiological or technological, but the lack of imagination with which it's been applied. Remember when Arnheim declared black-and-white intrinsically better than color because the former was 'artistic' and the latter merely 'realistic'? At the time Arnheim couldn't imagine that color could be used artistically as well: I have a feeling that, if directors continue to explore the possibilities of 3D filmmaking, we'll see more interesting developments than 'mere' immersion. So what if it's unnatural?... How can that unnaturalness be exploited in an effective way?

Those possibilities do exist, and Ebert's unwillingness to consider them is part of the problem. He grudgingly admitted that Avatar used it well (and I disagree!), but that he was incapable of imagining a 'serious' drama using it. You can't argue with that because it's not an argument.

(His critiques about what the rush to 3D is doing for the industry do have merit, but that's a problem of the industry, not the format.)

By the way: I'd encourage people to read Engber's article, despite its opening salvo. He does indeed address the objections, agrees with some, disagrees with others, briefly analyzes a few film scenes that he believes show potential directions for 3D, etc. It's a worthwhile addition to the discussion, and not dismissed so easily.

I am not a fan of 3D. In fact, I've been avoiding it like the plague. I didn't even see Avatar in 3D, and I liked it just fine in 2D. Since 2007, the only movies I've seen in 3D have been Beowulf, an IMAX documentary, and Tron: Legacy. I think I'm probably not in a position to really discuss 3D aside from saying that the format added nothing except dimness to the already visually uninteresting look of Tron: Legacy (the 1982 film was more visually impressive).

But I am intrigued by something Martin Scorsese said about shooting his new movie "Hugo Cabret" in 3D. He said that "every shot is rethinking cinema." I'm also interested to see what Werner Herzog and Steven Spielberg do with 3D. My main question with 3D is if filmmakers really think about how to use 3D and "rethink cinema" as Scorsese says, could it become a become a legitimate filmmaking tool? This certainly does not mean that everything should be in 3D. There should be room for traditional filmmaking techniques since a legitimate use of 3D might require major changes in film grammar. I have no idea what those changes would be, but maybe Scorsese, Herzog and Spielberg will show them. Essentially, this amounts to the same old "we can't predict the future" argument, but if great directors are giving 3D a chance, maybe it could work. Then again, Hitchcock used 3D for Dial M for Murder and that didn't produce a cinematic revolution.

I don't really understand why people get so worked up over this, if you don't like 3D don't go to 3D movies. There are plenty of 2D screenings of any given movie available.

A great addition to Roger's article, Jim. I posted this comment on Ebert's blog:
One of the main reasons I feel that mainstream movies do not need 3D goes way back to the beginnings of cinema. Eisenstein's definition of film is "a succession of images juxtaposed so that the contrast between these images move the story forward in the mind of the audience." This very definition, which describes film beautifully, is summed up in our naming the medium of film as "Motion Pictures." Moving pictures, affected by the expansion and compression of time through editing. The moment we add depth into this time-based medium we're in trouble, because we are changing depth in every cut. Notice how the most immersive 3D films were the thrill rides at Universal. No cuts, just one continuous take, and all dependant on a continual forward motion, travelling ever deeper into the scenes.
Not all films are thrill rides, yet those bean-counters who saw the box office of Avatar suddenly saw 3D as the next step in film evolution. It doesn't help that James Cameron is blowing that horn as well, and that's troubling. It's like trying to convince us that picture books are cool, but pop-up books are better. I prefer my succession of pictures viewed without gadgetry.

Some years ago I saw Alfred Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" in 3D and liked it, but reading Murch's comments I can see why that worked for me. There's not a lot of depth in that movie because it's a stage play filmed more or less like a stage play, so you're not focussing far away from your focal point. OTOH, I can't say it was better in 3D than the times I've seen it in 2D; just an interesting effect.

I'm just another schmuck with a blog.

I might need to add that to my masthead, if you don't take it first.

I have remembered the film in 2D..

To me, this is the canary in the mineshaft for 3D. I suspect almost all of us remember 3D movies in 2D (or, if you prefer, we remember 2D movies in 3D). The experience of seeing these movies is different, for sure, but against the movie screens of our memories, I suspect they all project the same. This is just a hunch, but until 3D gets to the point that we immediately remember a 3D composition three-dimensionally I have doubts about its ability to overtake or rival 2D (even if they get the glasses figured out and deliver us true holographic images). On that note ...

Think of going to a play vs. seeing a movie. There are differences between these experiences, for sure. But when a play like Doubt, which consists of simple sets that can be constructed on stage just as easily as for the screen (as opposed to, say, a play about the Titanic, where the audience would need to imagine a vast ocean that can't be created on stage), does anyone ever compare the stage show to the film by discussing the three-dimensional proximity of things within the frame/stage? Of course not. Because in our mental image, even as it's being recorded, the 2D movie is just as three-dimensional as the stage play, and vice versa.

Now, again, that doesn't mean that the actual act of seeing a 3D and 2D film are the same. 3D will always offer a different sort of moviegoing experience, for better or worse. But for 3D to stake a claim beyond that, I suspect its image will need to actually wrap around us, so that we are truly 'within' the stage. As it is now, a 3D rendering of the Grand Canyon is stored to my brain just like a 2D rendering. But, to stick with that example, if the 3D-movie experience truly made me feel like I was inside the Grand Canyon, then the depth of that 'image' might preserve itself in my brain differently than what I would get out of 2D. In that case, when I remembered the 3D compositions of that film, things wouldn't just be in the foreground or background, they'd also be in that currently untapped peripheral space. In that case, in theory, remembering a 3D movie of the Grand Canyon would be like remembering being at the Grand Canyon -- and that would be quite different.

Final note: I saw Avatar in both 3D and 2D formats (in that order). I vastly preferred the 3D -- because while I'd seen things in 3D before, it's still relatively foreign to me, and I thought the unusualness of the 3D experience enhanced the themes of the film -- taking on the avatar figure, discovering Pandora, etc. That said, I suspect that if 3D became the norm, this effect would go away, and then Avatar in 3D would be exactly the same as what I thought it was in 2D: too brutally written to bear.

There are plenty of 2D screenings of any given movie available.

No, sir or ma'am. That is just plain wrong. My spouse and I went to see Despicable Me last summer and tried in vain to find a theater playing it in anything BUT 3D. We ended up paying extra and wearing those horrible glasses and seeing a gimmicky, dark picture. I would have enjoyed it much more in 2D, but I had no CHOICE.

From now on, we are boycotting any film which does not offer a 2D choice. That includes Herzog's upcoming film, too. I don't care if it's the 3D wonder of the world. Those glasses hurt my eyes.

Jim, you write at great length to criticize the behaviour of those who would dismiss Roger's article. However,at no point do you mention the fact that Roger's closing statement in the article in question is simply factually wrong.

Roger does not acknowledge that 3D actually works well for some people; he claims that human evolution has left "our brains" (collectively, as in "all human beings") incapable of interpreting, much less enjoying, 3D movies. This is quite simply a glaring factual falsehood: in reality, some people can handle it and some people can't.

This is NOT a collective limitation of humanity. It is something that varies from person to person, just as some people are better at math or sports. No one would say "our brains just don't work with math" or "the human brain just doesn't know how to catch a baseball" simply because some individuals are much worse at it than others. Like it or not, this sort of glaring overstatement does legitimately call into question Mr. Ebert's objectivity on this matter.

I respect Mr. Ebert greatly as a film critic, but that does not mean I treat him as a prophet. It is quite possible for him to have a real chip on his shoulder about something, and that chip seems to have something to do with emerging technologies. He has ranted against, in turn, CGI, digital cameras, digital projection, and now 3D. There is a pattern here: Roger seems to be a traditionalist by nature, who is deeply wary of new technologies in film. This doesn't invalidate his opinions on film by any means, but it's something that I think a lot of his viewers (including people who would consider themselves big fans) just learn to take into account. When I read Mr. Ebert's reviews, I pay great attention to his remarks about the story. However, to be honest, I tend to skim over his remarks about the technologies used to tell that story. To me, they only cloud the issue.

Because 3D movies monopolize all the good screens. Our local theater has Tron on the IMAX and Black Swan on a screen barely bigger than my TV. We need to get that reversed.

For somebody who supposedly hates 3D so much, Ebert sure was excessively nice about Avatar.

The Ebert/Murch piece came up over at Andrew Sullivan's site and some of his readers offered a scientific de-bunking of Murch's argument. I don't pretend to know the merits of his argument as I am not learned in the science of perception, but it is an actual argument.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/3d-does-work-with-our-brains.html

As long as we're being all Lincoln-Douglas Rational about this, what exactly is the claim that Murch (and Ebert by proxy) is making? Is it that 3-D will necessarily fail? Is it that 3-D is fundamentally inferior to 2-D in cinema? Is it the former conclusion following from the latter?

If these are the key claims, then this argument is basically an attempt to anticipate the future of 3-D in the cinema. As any good critical theorist knows, it's entirely up to the market to decide this, and the "correctness" of these arguments will only be decided after 3-D has either plateaued and survived, or declined into the obscurity from whence it emerged. In the former case, Ebert and Murch will have to shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, guess we were wrong about 3-D not working." If it's the latter, they'll get some credit for a successful prediction.

If this is the direction their argument takes, however, it means the title claim: "Why 3-D will never work, Case Closed, End of Story" [paraphrased for laziness] is highly disingenuous. 3-D is still a huge part of the market, and it definitely hasn't failed.

But phrasing the argument as this kind of Platonic certitude hints that Ebert isn't trying to anticipate the market. Many of us suspect that he's mainly just justifying his own prejudices, and that fundamentally, he has no point to prove except, "I was right all those times that I shit-talked about 3-D!"

This is what BoxOffice Magazine was saying, in a roundabout way. Within an argument where the central claim isn't spelled out, you can usually sense it in the author's tone and treatment of evidence. In the tone of someone more objective (like on Bordwell's blog), you can sense that the claim is descriptive and scholarly, so the facts are being treated fairly: there's not only an accounting of evidence, but a weighing of its importance, and an assessment of counter-evidence. But readers can sense, in Ebert's essay, that his claim was self-serving, a reinforcement of his own point of view, and an attempt to make it seem unassailable. This disingenuousness infects all the evidence that's presented, because it leaves out a huge part of the total debate.

The funny thing is, Murch's basic assertion isn't that 3-D is impossible for the brain, only that it's "inefficient," because it requires a higher degree of processing power. History has shown that this is no impediment to human behavior. We've spent all of history taking on increasingly difficult cognitive tasks, and we'll adapt to the technology, even if the observable gains aren't that profound. We'll find a way to make 3-D work for us, both as individuals and as a culture, simply because it's a new communication technology, and we are all communication machines.

For this reason, I think 3-D is on its way to acceptance as a permanent part of the market. Humans will find ways to integrate, innovate, and assimilate any new tool for (as McLuhan put it) "translating experience." 3-D cinema will find its audience and its adherents, and its effects will play out gradually, in fundamental and unpredictable ways.

It's true, they do release 3-D movies in 2-D concurrently, but they don't change the content of the film, and it's obvious you're watching something in 2-D that wasn't meant to be seen that way. Cartoons like the "Ice Age" series are filled with moments where the characters and objects "fly" at the audience. The visual joke may or may not work in 3-D, but in 2-D it brings the Suspension of Disbelief to a screeching halt. It reminds me of the PG-13 movie that's allowed one F-bomb, and when it hits, no matter how engaged I am in the story, I always step outside the plot and think, "Well, there's the F-bomb."

Ebert is finding varying success in his argument that these elements of 3-D that distract us from the actual narrative can or cannot be overcome. What remains incontrovertible is that those elements DON'T NEED to be overcome. Narrative is king; anything that distracts from narrative, ANYTHING, is a rhetorical misstep.

Murch provides very clear technical reasons to explain why 3D doesn't work. It's not his opinion, it's science!

Jim, you're not just another schmuck with a blog, you're an erudite, eloquent schmuck with a blog! ;)

Thank you for some well-reasoned discussion; I enjoyed following you making intelligent points. I don't have an axe to grind, myself. I'm one of those who can't get the eye magic to work, can't read in a moving vehicle because of eyestrain, all of that. I'm not even going to try 3D, I can't imagine I'll enjoy the experience, at least not enough to invest the money and especially time. Maybe someday if there's true holography. "Obi Wan, you're my only hope..."

I sometimes question the stance Ebert takes on the films presented to him in 3D. I don't understand how anyone could write this about Toy Story 3:

"This is a jolly, slapstick comedy, lacking the almost eerie humanity that infused the earlier “Toy Story” sagas, and happier with action and jokes than with characters and emotions. But hey, what can you expect from a movie named "Toy Story 3," especially with the humans mostly offstage? I expect its target audience will love it, and at the box office, it may take right up where "How to Train Your Dragon" left off. Just don't get me started about the 3-D."

That doesn't sound to me like it's written from a recollection of either Toy Story 3 or its two predecessors, which, I would think people would agree with me had more focus on jokes and less on emotions compared to the threequel (at least, it's pretty even). It's an empirical fact that Andy has more screentime - and more relevance - in Toy Story 3 than in the first two. So the 3D comment at the end doesn't help. (NOTE: check out this Answer Man: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100624/ANSWERMAN/100629990, where he responds to a reader pointing out his mistakes by shifting to an argument against 3D.)

I have no real point to make about that, other than, it'd be sad if Ebert let his antipathy toward 3D colour his perceptions of the individual movies (in Toy Story 3's case, Quentin Tarantino put it as his No. 1 of 2010, if that means anything to anyone).

As for 3D in general, I pretty much agree with all of the criticisms put forth, although I've enjoyed 3D as a novelty in movies like Jackass. You couldn't get the foreground/background difference during the slo-mo explosions of confetti in 2D that you get in 3D. Does that make it better cinema? It makes Jackass 3D better.

I'll be interested to see what Scorsese does with it in Hugo Cabret, but I'll probably see that movie a second time in 2D regardless. I think a lot of the anti-3D feelings...okay, at least, a lot of my anti-3D feelings come from a legitimate fear that it will change what we fanatics know as cinema forever, and for worse, and that is blasphemy. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Wouldn't it be great if they still made B&W movies on a regular basis?

Side-by-side comparison: I saw Avatar in 3D and found it breathtakingly beautiful.
I saw it in 2D and found it unbearably banal, poorly written, poorly acted, and seemingly made with a conscious focus on being as bland and unimaginative as possible.
Perhaps all that came through due to it being a second viewing (familiarity breeds contempt, even though I generally like movies better the second time), but my money's on the extra dimension. Without the distraction of breathtaking 3D beauty, the movie's many gaping flaws could finally shine through.

I think what kills me the most is that many of the comments over at Ebert's blog come from people who think that Walter Murch and Roger Ebert are trying to rain on their parade and ruin their enjoyment of 3D by making arguments against it. How does that even make sense?

Where are the innovators, actually? They haven't responded particularly well to the invitation so far.

In terms of tech or artistry? In tech it's pretty well acknowledged that digital filmmaking, and Cameron in particular, are starting to clean up some of the older 'problems' of 3D. Where they take it will depend, in large part, on the industry.

As far as artistry goes, Engber gives a couple of examples in his article of places where (he feels) 3D offers an reading that isn't possible in 2D. I'd offer another: one of the sliest bits of the already great Coraline was a literalization of the term 'eye-popping' (appropriate, given the plot). And more than these, don't discount the interesting stuff happening in experimental short film.

Me, I'm waiting for a mainstreamish director who's willing to exploit the 'unreal' qualities of 3D as an aesthetic choice unto itself. A good example is stop-motion animation. Even during its heyday almost no directors used it. At its worst, it's unconvincing, out of place, and cheesy. It's close to being a dead art. But doesn't it add something special to the works in which it is used well?

I'd like to focus on what Jim said here--

"But there are still legitimate debates to be had about what and how 3D (in past and future films) has added to the entertainment or artistic value of individual movies (which is where #2 comes in)."

--because I don't think we can even really call them 3-D Films (capitalized) as of yet.

I'm going to republish what I wrote in Roger's blog. Actually, first I commented on, kind of the business side of it. So, I'll start with that, just to kind of throw that out there: but Part 2 is the more important point I wanted to make.

Part 1

Keith Carrizosa | January 24, 2011 6:42 PM | Reply
Imagine if 3-D movies only played at certain dedicated theaters that were the only ones that played all these 3-D films.

Meaning, imagine regular movies theaters that all these 3-D movies are now playing at, would not only not be playing at these movie theaters, but that they would only be playing at these certain new theaters that were 3-D only: thus, kind of monopolizing the whole 3-D market, leaving the rest of us to, the slightly less craptacular movies that were there before this craze.

If they were really serious in 3-D as a surviving medium, let them, the producers, open up a chain of these theaters to monopolize the market for themselves.

They'll Run the only theaters that will be playing them and they'll be Making the movies too.

If they really believed in 3-D they'd do this.

But they're too busy having Ronald McDonald bring them Big Macs himself in a mini-skirt.
-------------------------------------------------

Part 2

Keith Carrizosa | January 25, 2011 5:15 PM | Reply
By the very fact that you can watch these movies at the theaters in 3-d OR 2-d shows that they are not really serious advocates for 3-D movies: and they're not even truly 3-D movies; if they were, they wouldn't even be watchable or make Sense as 2-D; they're actually 2-D movies masquerading as 3-D.

In other words, they're lying about their belief in 3-D as a serious form (not that we don't already know that).

But even if they weren't lying, it shows that they really don't have any ideas for a truly 3-D film, one that can't even be watched or doesn't make sense as 2-D.

So, far, it hasn't been proven to be an essential tool for making any movies yet.

Because then people would be talking about 3-D, not by saying "Oh, you have to watch it like this; it's MORE of this kind of movie"; no, they'd laugh and say "Ha, there's no way this could be in 2-D; can you even Imagine how ridiculous that would be?"

It's not happening because the producer's are too busy having Papa John bring them a pizza on the set himself in a see-through mini-skirt and blood-red lipstick and a thong.

-------------------------------------------------

About what you said here and the parenthesis:

"(Show me a new technology, like true holographic cinema, and I will be glad to reconsider. Meanwhile, do all these parenthetical asides give you headaches?)"

No, because I got the joke.

Parenthesis or "parenthetical asides" are just what you called them: asides; so it showed you knew exactly what you were doing as you were kind of not taking them too seriously.

So, to me, parenthesis are the equivalent of asides in a play, or a kind of more intimate way of conveying information, as if you are giving your listener, or in this case readers, access to your inner thought-process.

it also makes the picture on the screen look dim because it reduces the amount of light getting through to the eyeballs -- you're basically wearing sunglasses in a dark theater;

Just some technical clarification, the sunglasses are only one contributor to the dimmness problem.

Without delving too deep, the standard for 35mm film on screen is 16fl +- 4fl. The "standard" for digital 3D is 4fl. With digital 3D there is enormous loss of light all the way through the process (with digital everything there is enormous loss of light). The new Technicolor 35mm 3D system is capable of providing more light, but there is still great loss and the sunglasses.

3D is cute for a novelty, but it has had over 50 years to try and establish itself as a useful tool and has failed everytime. I expect no less this time.

Roger Ebert has provoked an interesting discussion, and it is one worth having. I still think the viability of 3D is up in the air, as there is still potential. I also expect the technology to continue to develop, so it is difficult to declare it dead already. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D and was glad I saw it that way, but the comment about remembering movies in 2D is true too.

For many of us, the quality of the movie is more important. I'd rather see a great black & white movie than a mediocre 3D movie, but I know people who would prefer the opposite. And that is why 3D is not dead. . . yet.

I'm tired of the argument that it will never work because earlier, more primitive versions failed. What kind of logic is that?

In 1950, you could have said that they've been trying commercial airlines since 1914 but they've never taken off. And you would have been right; commercial airlines didn't really become popular until the 1950s, due in part to new technologies such as jet engines and cabin pressurization.

"Moving pictures, affected by the expansion and compression of time through editing."

Not all styles of filmmaking are dependent on editing for their effect.

"Notice how the most immersive 3D films were the thrill rides at Universal. No cuts, just one continuous take, and all dependant on a continual forward motion, travelling ever deeper into the scenes."

That sounds like a Bela Tarr film. I don't like 3D, but I wonder what he'd do with it. Or for that matter, something like "Russian Ark" might be interesting in 3D - feature length, no cuts, more or less continuous forward motion, moving through an interesting space with a lot of complicated staging.

I'm not sure about 3D movies. The only one I've seen in the theater is Avatar, mainly b/c I can't justify paying a higher price for the ticket without a "guarantee" that it won't be worthless. By the same token, I don't spend extra on fake IMAX anymore either. Even the Dark Knight and Inception with dedicated IMAX scenes didn't live up to the hype. It felt like a waste of money for no added value.

However, ESPN 3D might be the best channel out there. The dimness that results from the glasses doesn't seem to be much of an issue and the increased clarity of image is just outstanding. There was never any doubt that Dyer wasn't down on his run against Oregon haha. There are still some glitches like when a yard marker unexpectedly enters the frame and the glasses are too expensive to allow for large viewing parties. Still, overall it has exceeded my expectations.

I've heard people say sports sold HDTV. The difference in experience between standard and HD for sports is miles ahead of the difference for watching The Office or House. If 3D sports coverage on TV is able to proliferate, I think the rest of programming might follow. An article I read said ESPN has received very good feedback (http://tinyurl.com/49y39qk). And, no, I'm not an ESPN employee; just a sports fan. haha

Dear Jim and Roger (for I am posting this both places):

I don't like 3D because I don't think it makes any film better, and if we need to pay more for it, I'm not sure why I (or Roger or Jim) should need more reason than that, but I have one: It actually makes them worse.

Here's my simple explanation, which I haven't seen discussed much at all, though I don't read every thread of the discussions. (This is in addition to the reasons of dimness and having to wear the glasses.)

Look at an object in your house that's about 20 or 25 feet away. (I'm using a clock right now.) Now, hold your thumb up in front of the object. Change your focus from the clock to your thumb. What happens to the clock? Two things: 1. It goes out of focus. 2. And this is crucial, YOU SEE TWO OF IT.

When watching a 3D film, this doesn't happen. Yes, you are being asked to focus on something at a different distance than it actually is, but that's no death knell to 3D for a simple reason: A lot of people like it that way.

The problem for me, and others I have spoken to, is that 3D isn't really 3D. It's 3Dish. It sort of looks lifelike, sort of how I would see it in the "real world," but not really. And in this case, getting something closer to reality actually highlights how different it really is. That's why I get annoyed after about 30 minutes. (Those IMAX nature films in 3D aren't much longer. Maybe that's why I don't mind them as much.)

What I'm hoping either of you can do is pass along a link from someone with a cogent, insightful piece on why they like 3D that is more than, and here's where the arguments seem to fail for me, simply, "It's cool."

It is cool, in a way. But if I'm watching a film and thinking, "Ooh, look at that. It looks like it's right there in front of me," then I'm not watching the film. I'm watching the effects.

If someone likes paying $4 or so extra for it, OK, fair enough. But when studios go chasing those 3d surcharges, it starts to effect what films they put into the pipeline. Again, that's the business side of show business. That's just an extension of the shift from serious filmmaking to popcorn moviemaking by the studios.

The solution is simple, if what you want is a truly immersive, visual experience. Shoot on large format. Bring back giant, curved screens. I can recall seeing an Imax film (on a true, Imax screen) which included a shot where the camera was mounted on a plan, which dove down and swooped over an island.

As that plane dove, I swear to god my stomach leapt into my throat just as though I were on a rollercoaster. THAT is an immersive experience. 3D is just shallow gimmickry.

You know what I hate? When critics are criticized for doing criticism. It's disingenuous nonsense to complain about Ebert's evaluation of 3D films. As he always says, he's just speaking for himself. He's got a bigger megaphone than anybody else, but it's not just his right, but his responsibility to complain about technological gimmicks that get on his nerves week after week.

As somebody who gets motion sick a bit more easily than some, the prospect of 3D ever becoming the norm is a bit scary (although I'm really skeptical that 3D will expand beyond where it is- a "deluxe" version of blockbuster effects movies that we can opt out of if we'd like), and criticism that takes seriously the biological hurdles that 3D has is welcome. Some of us do get heaches or nausea from wacky visual gimmickry (I can't watch those Borne movies at all without feeling physically ill, although I differ from you in finding them well made), and I'm happy for any and all piling on that critics of the logistical aspects of the technology would like to administer.

Keep 3D around for that big tent experience. Improve it. Make it a legitimate spectacle. I'm not at all for pooping on anybody's parade. But I'm glad to have somebody like Ebert working to keep the bandwagon from getting out of control. I think, again, that the market would be enough by itself, since I'm skeptical that 3D will get any bigger than it is, but it's nice to have somebody in my corner.

Like the previous poster, I also suffer from terrible motion sickness while watching movies and television programming (I didn't as a child, but there you are). That, combined with the fact that almost everything is filmed handheld nowadays makes the experience difficult and uncomforatble for me at best (whatever happened to Stedicams?). Add 3D on top of that and I guarantee you those will be films/shows that I go out of my way to avoid.

While I find the scientific reasons behind why it does not play well with our physiology interesting, I don't even really need to know them: I simply just don't care at all about 3D. I was very content seeing the totally predictable "Avatar" in all its 2D glory, though even on a measly 32" HDTV I was having to look away from the motion a few times.

Hollywood needs to realize that a movie relies on a combination of acting, script writing, screenplay, and directing -- if any one of those elements (or more) is off, then no techno wizardry, no CGI, and certainly no 3D can save a film ("Resident Evil Afterlife" anyone?).

Proclaiming argument validity is a good method for debate. All arguments pertaining to the quality of the use of 3-D are not arguments against 3-D. (This includes a very wide range of ones that people made, including some of what Ebert and Murch have said.) They are arguments regarding use, not 3-D itself. One can argue that 3-D isn’t necessary, but not that it doesn’t work, unless it really doesn’t work. If 3-D does work, then it’s an argument of artistic production and therefore opinionated depending upon the work. I like what this author—Jim “Schmuck with a Blog” Emerson—does by evaluating the logic of the various arguments, including the reference to Boxoffice Magazine. Emerson does a great job compiling arguments in a reasonable, orderly manner, and on deriving and creating ethical decision-making points from them. However, Emerson ends his article obtusely with incompleteness on easy-to-argue-against statements.

"I suppose the basic problem is that if the 3D is used for flashy depth effects with things flying out at the audience, it becomes too distracting and obtrusive."

He had said this after quoting Kristen Thompson’s NY Times interview with Cameron, adding his two cents in the following paragraph:

"For his 3-D 'Titanic' rerelease, Mr. Cameron said he had approached seven companies about working on the film, testing each by asking it to convert about a minute of movie footage before he chose the best two or three efforts.

"'All seven of the vendors came back with a different idea of where they thought things were, spatially,' he said. 'So it's very subjective.'

"In other words, you may think you know what is supposed to go where, but (in the case of these 2D-to-3D conversions, anyway) someone else is actually going to be making that decision for you."

Some people think that the use of music in films is very distracting, yet movies still use it—AMPAS gives out two Oscars for music every year. The great Bernard Herrmann, I have heard on CD claiming that, after a lifetime of composing music for films, he can’t tell you why music is necessary, just that films are almost unbearable to look at without it. Ironically, Bernard Herrmann is famous for feeling he should both compose and orchestrate his own works for exactly the same reason on which Emerson forms a key in his statement.

Bernard Herrmann may have composed every note of music in his compositions of his film music career, but regardless that most composers don’t, Herrmann's rule of thumb encompasses his notion that films are unbearable to look at without music. Compositions still get made, whether by one man or by a team of orchestrators. And in the case of 3-D, it doesn’t matter that James Cameron wants a team of visual orchestrators to perform "efforts" of dimensional "retrofitting" on "Titanic." Because, Cameron has the final say—he’s the man with the money. Not only that, this is a case where the man responsible for the artistic value in the first place, of the original artwork, is available—Cameron. This is one of those arguments pertaining to the quality of a film’s use of retrofitted 3-D, not for the existence of 3-D, nor retrofitting for that matter, even if Emerson or anyone else dislikes retrofitting, including the author of this.

Examine again Blogger Emerson’s obtrusion offering from Thompson:

"…I suppose the basic problem is that if the 3D is used for flashy depth effects with things flying out at the audience, it becomes too distracting and obtrusive. But if it's used simply to make, say, jungle plants look closer to the viewer than Carl and Russell, then it's unobtrusive--and hence not very interesting. Given that we have other mental tools besides binocular vision for grasping the spatial relations in an image, the jungle plants look closer in 2D as well."

Is everything unobtrusive henceforth uninteresting? Is everything interesting obtrusive? Which fallacy is it to determine an on-off switch from a gray area? Emerson and Thompson have created rhetoric of their own with a presumption that there is no immersion to be had by 3-D, and in so doing open their rhetoric to attack specifically on the issue of immersion, because there is some to be had. They know there is. That’s why they use a fallacy, though their motive for its use remains unclear--probably physical difficulties carried over.

"A final thought on disaffected audiences. Currently there is a sector of the moviegoing public that loves 3D, will pay extra to see almost anything in 3D, and hopes the process expands. That part of the public is probably as big as it's going to get. (Yes, new kids will grow up, but others will mature out of their adolescent obsessions with such things.) In the U.S. at any rate, right now there aren't a lot of people suddenly discovering the joys of this wonderful new format. (It's really just getting going in the major Asian markets.) But the proportion of the getting fed up by the process' drawbacks--its higher cost, the growing numbers of mediocre and bad films in 3D, the glasses--is probably growing."

"Disaffected" may not be the right word, but one can accept it as a figure of speech. The author makes a lot of assumptions here, but on many of them, one does not need to split hairs. He copies these sentences not to summarize objective arguments on the pure issue of 3-D cinema, but instead to offer a closure on the debate by discussing social opinions about its technologies and cost. This presents another fallacy that, even if it works, people will reject it anyway for "viability… past, present and future," and this somehow makes Thompson either inadvertently right regardless of her points or inadvertently right because it doesn’t matter that 3-D cinema works—that it doesn’t matter that its quality depends on the artist that uses it, which is much the way anything else gets appreciated, isn’t it?

Thompson:

"Industry commentators don't seem to mention the novelty effect of 3D much any more. Surely they never really thought that audiences will be dazzled forever. I think we reached the ho-hum point some time last year. I've mentioned that people began to resent the $3+ price hikes and to pick and choose more carefully among 3D releases, wanting the movie to be good enough to warrant paying more. But others perhaps decided 3D in general wasn't worth it and that they would rather see a film the old fashioned way, seeing a flat image undimmed by glasses.

"For me it was 'Toy Story 3.' In 2009, David and I saw 'Up' in 3D and enjoyed it. But we enjoyed it because it was another great Pixar film. As I said in my 2009 entry, I have remembered the film in 2D. We went to 'Toy Story 3' in 2D and enjoyed it. [Many others made the same decision: 'Toy Story 3' in 2D outgrossed the 3D version.] I have yet to see a film in both 3D and 2D to make a comparison, but my suspicion is that I would usually prefer the 2D version. I suppose the basic problem is that if the 3D is used for flashy depth effects with things flying out at the audience, it becomes too distracting and obtrusive. But if it's used simply to make, say, jungle plants look closer to the viewer than Carl and Russell, then it's unobtrusive--and hence not very interesting. Given that we have other mental tools besides binocular vision for grasping the spatial relations in an image, the jungle plants look closer in 2D as well."

Thompson also opens a paragraph with a figure of speech as well—"novelty effect"—to ignore its possible uses, despite that she "concludes with a look at Werner Herzog’s 'Cave of Forgotten Dreams' ('a 3D film that even 3D disparagers want to see')…" And, there are again the summaries of social assumption, however "old fashioned" and "undimmed" from truth they may be. But, when one goes to see the beauty of Cannes in the South of France, one sees it stereoscopically. One can stare at a black-and-white photo of it without going there and be reminded of when one was there, and in either case, that city will be remembered in 2-D, according to her. But, if that’s true, then why not just look at postcards? Could it be a point of immersion? There is nothing wrong with postcards and photos. But, it’s a different medium from, say, actually going there to travel around the city. So, how does a professional relegate one as being tampered by the other? 3-D can be called a gimmick, but even gimmicks can be used for positive effect—not all stereoscopes are gimmicky. "Inception" was a gimmicky film that Ebert liked, despite weak character development. Maybe he was studying gimmicks.

A guy once said he didn’t like to watch black-and-white movies. He said, "'Cause it hurts my eyes." Does anyone honestly expect others to believe that the main reason that 3-D can’t work because it hurts people’s eyes? Or even that it’s unnatural? How does one complain of having to wear 3-D glasses over one’s prescription glasses? Don’t prescription glasses alter points of conversion and focus? Isn’t such a phenomenon issued by one’s doctor? A person can get a headache from wearing ordinary glasses, so how does one expect that watching a movie through 3-D glasses are any more problematic in that sense than ordinary glasses? Welcome to the world! Welcome to the human race! Welcome to imperfection! Welcome to the glory of it all! Welcome to pain! Isn’t it still worth it? Aren’t people better with them? Aren’t people better with black and white movies? Speak for yourself! Not for others! Apparently, suffering pain from watching 3-D movies is awfully difficult. Maybe it’s not worth taking chances to have this kind of fun with such unavoidable discomfort, right? Yet, anyone ever going into space, getting into an airplane, or even for some, crossing the street would create that problem. And one could ask, isn’t it worth it? If one is worried about the pain, then of course it’s not. But, many would do it, and many do. If one says that homosexuals aren’t natural procreators, Harvey Milk would answer with this: "But lord we keep trying."

This author wears glasses. This author saw "Avatar," "Avatar RealD," and "Avatar Imax 3D." There is a memorable difference between all of them. The argument that "Toy Story 3," "Up," or any recent film in 2-D as being a less-noisy equivalent to 3-D versions disregards the times. Since the advent of DVD and Laserdisc, most films on home video get released in widescreen versions and the proverbial "full screen" or "standard" versions, both, even though they are neither full screen, nor standard anymore. Filmmakers have noted these developments and often shoot movies in both aspect ratios with the intention of developing both. Isn’t it likely that Cameron accounted for all these distinctions when developing his photography? Disney already knows that its movies are going to sell a lot of tickets for 2-D and 3-D. Producers know this, and directors plan it with their photographers. Maybe that’s why you can watch it in 2-D and still like it! Does this negate 3-D as useless? Perhaps, but that’s not the point of it all, is it. Which version of "Avatar" would you say supersedes the other? Wouldn’t that depend partly on its creation? Just because one can watch it in either doesn’t mean it’s not meant to be better in 3-D. Maybe Cameron wanted both, but knew a lot of people would get motion sickness, don’t have 3-D capabilities, or any of the other 200 reasons people state for not seeing it in 3-D. Maybe he used less red photography in "Avatar" as well, so his film would cause less epileptic seizures of course. Know what? Maybe it’s still better in 3-D. "Avatar" could be the first reason you’ll be getting less when you see it in 2-D. And with the constant complaining, even if "Avatar 3D" is truly better, Thompson would not surprise anyone while she denies it. And, she’s okay, because there are two of them.

The real problem with Murch's argument is that it presents an ostensibly scientific explanation that's not based in science, much like the 'persistence of vision' myth.

Why does 3-D tend to cause headaches? It's much simpler than Murch states. In everyday life, one doesn't use both eyes together except for very short periods. Most of the time, one eye rests while the other eye works. 3D forces one to use both eyes for extended periods, therefore causing eyestrain and headaches.

The solution is simple - cover or close one eye periodically while watching.

And yes, your eyes do change convergence while watching a 2D movie - we didn't evolve in a 2D world, so the eye does attempt to focus on the background. It doesn't work, so the brain doesn't keep it up for long, but it does happen. The change in convergence is not the cause of eyestrain, the sustained use of both eyes is.

Real science means testing hypotheses, not lacing your opinions with scientific-sounding words. Can anyone cite actual controlled experiments that address either the prevalence or causes of headaches and strain when watching 3d? Or how favorably people rate 3d vs 2d in controlled conditions? That would be way more informative than people slinging "scientific" opinions.