Roger Ebert's anti-3D article

[Chris D]

While I don't necessarily agree 100% with each of Roger's points, I think he's right on with most of them, and I do completely agree with his premise.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

He makes some excellent points. I can also see that a 48fps construct would be HUGE for picture quality and enhance the experience. We see images nice and crisp, and then just as soon as they start to move... blurrrrrrrrr... refresh rate is supposed to help with this, but it's still limited, and IMHO, still largely artificial. (but yes, I do believe in it as well)

Disney's not going to make any more original traditional films? Bummer. We seem to be shifting in a not-so-good direction in the film world.

[aud19]

Interesting...pretty much my sentiment as well.

[Johnloudb]

Yes, movies are soooo yesterday ... I'm taking up reading!

[wkhanna]

Nothing beats the picture created by your mind's eye. :W

[impala454]

It's not good enough for me to adopt yet, and I'm usually a pretty early adopter. That said, it's inevitable that eventually it will get much better. It's still in its infant (heck, more like fetus) stages.

Also I noticed that article is dated May 2010... wonder if Ebert still feels the same way.

[Ovation]

He still feels that way about 3-D. Just about every one of his film reviews of 3-D films has some complaint about how dim the film is compared to the 2-D version, along with continued thanks that a 2-D version is available.

[Chris D]

I'm still of the mindset that I'm not going to be happy-joy-joy about 3D until they can do it holographically without glasses.

[madmac]

I agree with the whole article. Every aspect of it!!.

[George Bellefontaine]

I agree with the whole article. Every aspect of it!!.

Same here.