In a strongly worded piece for Newsweek, Ebert puts forth nine reasons why 3D movies are nothing more than an "annoying distraction... driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets."
Ebert's statements essentially boil down to the following argument: 3D detracts from the entire movie experience, from concept to theater consumption. He points to 3D as an enabler of greed that disrupts the mind's eye (since it already sees in the third dimension), causes headaches and merely exists to create a gap between home and theater experiences.
The following are excerpts that highlight Ebert's position on 3D:
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 think 3D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to "want" 3D.
The medium seems suited for children's films, animation and films such as James Cameron's Avatar, which are largely made on computers.
I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed.
For younger generations it may be easy to write off Ebert's statements as rantings from an old man afraid of change. For those with an appreciation for the art of storytelling, it's easier to identify with his point of view, which hinges more on the fear of losing great art than it does on opposition to technology. Regardless, if moviegoers continue to speak with their pocketbooks, 3D is here to stay.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto, nuno.