"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." — Arthur C. Clarke
Roger Ebert, one the best and most prolific film critics in America, hates 3-D and thinks you should too, as he explains here in Newsweek. Below are his bullet points which he fleshes out in his article.
1. IT'S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION
2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE
3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION
4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES
5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM?
6. THERE'S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS
7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D
8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D
9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN.
Reasons 1 through 3 are his opinion.
Number 4 is true, but seriously affects only a tiny portion of the film-going audience.
Number 5 is also true, but is a technical issue which can be overcome.
Numbers 6 and 7 leave me shocked, absolutely shocked to learn that Hollywood is all about business, not art. When did that happen? Why was I not informed?
Number 8 is, once again, his opinion.
Number 9 is an historical fact. But does Ebert think we should roll back technology to the days of hand-cranked, black and white silent film cameras? Is he seriously against stereo sound, color and widescreen formats?
Number 10. Couldn't he come up with one more reason for an even 10?