3D heresy
Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction […] It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose.
Robert Ebert on why he hates 3D movies (and you should too)
For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.
That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz side of show business […] But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3D. 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.
I’ve seen multiple films in 3D and 2D (to compare) and I have to say I prefer 2D.
Unless you specifically design your movie for 3D – any fast pans or camera moves just result in a smear of colour blur.
Which makes me really sorry for the animators on films like How to Train Your Dragon and Up. Why spend hours, weeks and months getting you animation pixel perfect when in 3D it all becomes a dull smear due to quick edits and camera moves.
Personally – 3D is all about not being able to be pirated. It’s providing a perceived movie experience that can’t be sold via pirated DVD.
Or not until 3D televisions become more widespread.