Looks like Roger Ebert has made his thoughts quite clear on the recent influx of Hollywood movies being made in 3D now a days.
He posted this on his twitter yesterday:
3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices.
To be honest I will have to agree with him. Films like Avatar were shot with a 3-D camera from the beginning, increasing the cost of production and the cost of the equipment so it is understandable that the price would go up for such a film. But the 3-D in this movie was simply amazing and was so subtle, there was nothing forced out of the screen at the audience.
But with other movies coming out; such as Alice In Wonderland, The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, the list could go on. Not to mention the extremely large amounts of children’s movies all being marketed in 3-D suddenly. These are all movies that were filmed with basic equipment, and then they used After Effects to create the 3-D effects, making things pop out of the screen and to mess with the coloration.
Personally I agree with Ebert completely when it comes to this, there are movies that should cost more because of production costs, and others that should not. If 3-D is done right, then it is amazing, if it is done wrong then it will just ruin the movie and make the audience sick to their stomachs.
What do you think?
