WHY I HATE 3D (AND YOU SHOULD TOO)
[1] 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
[5] creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to
sell expensive projection equipment and add a 5to7.50
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
[10] of directors to make films as they choose.
That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz
side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given
Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting
for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three
[15] films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon,
and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and
they’re only the beginning. But many directors, editors,
and cinematographers agree with me about the
shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even
[20] executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood
infatuation with a technology that was already pointless
when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The
heretics’ case, point by point:
IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you
[25] look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your
mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia
growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the
desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows
against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of
[30] perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one
artificially can make the illusion less convincing.
IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall
the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did
they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our
[35] imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious?
Casablanca?
IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. As
3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer
Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters
[40] interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a
lot of people walking around with very minor eye
problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which
under normal circumstances the brain deals with
naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at
[45] Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual
experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort,
making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah
Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology
at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that
[50] in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly
different ∠. “When that gets processed in the brain,
that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that
you see in three dimensions in the movies are not
calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain
[55] are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says
about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences
headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.
WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT
THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY:
[60] SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D,
STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In
marketing terms, this means offering an experience that
can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs,
HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between
[65] the theater and home experiences has been narrowed.
3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow
that gap as well.
By Roger Ebert Newsweek.com, May 10, 2010 Fonte: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-andyou- should-too.html (with slight adaptations)
In “But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers - even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes.” (lines 17-22), the author of the text says that
