In the article Why I Hate 3D Movies by Roger Ebert, it is clear that the author does not like the advent of 3D movies. Egbert argues that 3D is a waste of dimensions. Perhaps he does not realize the fact that this is a technological advancement that takes the movie industry to a new level. The reasoning that he presents throughout the paper leaves a lot to be desired simply because he does not use his perceived evidence for his arguments well. Besides this, Ebert passes off as a bitter person who intends to dissuade movie lovers, and 3D lovers from their liking of the same. Technology brings change, Ebert is not at all too willing to embrace the said change, clinging to old ways that some may call outdated.
People in the movie industry, including Hollywood, want to maximize on profits in order to make gains. When they embrace 3D, it means that chances are that people will not be in a position to download the movies illegally. Ebert argues that whenever Hollywood feels threatened; it turns to technology to stay on top of the game. Anyone in business will have to look for means and ways of ensuring that they stay on top of their game if they have to remain relevant. By embracing 3D, it means that Hollywood has seen a major investment in it that will enable it make profits. No business venture is worth being a business if it does not seek opportunities with which to satisfy the needs of their clientele (Mendiburu 108). It is not in order that Ebert presents such an argument when he knows all too well that Hollywood and any business for that matter work hard to ensure that they meet the needs of their clients.
It could be totally absurd to say that 3D experience does not add anything to the experience of movie watching. In the past when 3D was not in place, there was a way people had fun and enjoyed going to theatres and cinema halls to watch movies. It is very different today because even watching it in the house has been made fun thanks to 3D. Just like films in the past engaged the imagination, today, they also engaged the imagination in a different way (Minoli 12). Every movie has the capabilities of engaging its viewer’s imagination aside from entertaining them. The questions he asks about what Fargo gains in 3-D cannot be ignored. It so happens that there is so much to gain from 3-D; it is just that he wants to lock himself away from the change that comes with technology.
The argument Ebert propagates by saying that 3D creates nausea and headaches, is fallacious as it can be termed as an outright lie. According to the argument by Dr. Deborah Friedman, may be true but then one cannot just assume that the headaches are attributed to watching 3D movies. There could be some other underlying problems that these people may be having which will cause the headaches, which the persons may not be aware of having. The evidence provided here has not been proven and, therefore, cannot be relied on if people have got to be serious about the dangers that are paused by 3D movies. This evidence is, therefore, plausible and this means it leaves so much to be desired. Talking about nausea after watching a 3D movie gives a lot of doubts and, therefore, need to be scientifically proven.
3D brings a lot of new experiences to anyone watching these movies. One gets the feeling that they are part and parcel of the movie. Ebert may hate 3D but then the experience is different from any other in the world. It is a good idea to give the mind some experience that it is not used to, for the body to feel part and parcel of the movie. It cannot, therefore, pass for a waste of dimensions. Instead, it should be looked at as a way of giving the movie world a dimension like no other (Kennel 160). 3D, therefore, adds so much to the whole experience of movie watching and not like Ebert says that it does not. It is never by any means a distraction.
This essay fails to give concrete evidence as to why 3d is inferior to 2D. He gives his opinion, and he is entitled to it but then he fails to convince the reader as to why they should not watch 3D movies. In as much as he borrows from some researchers, their studies have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, making his opinions look empty of content. The desire to embrace modern technology lies in the hearts of many movie lovers and this could explain why there are lots of them out there who would rather watch a 3D movie than other movies. The evidence used by the author fails to convince the reader just like the reasoning seems wanting. These are the reasons that make one feel that the arguments presented in the essay are not convincing.
Works Cited
Kennel, Glenn. Color and Mastering for Digital Cinema. New York: Taylor & Francis. 2007
Mendiburu, Bernard. 3D TV and 3D Cinema: Tools and Processes for Creative Stereoscopy. New York: Taylor & Francis. 2011
Minoli, Daniel. 3D TV Content Capture, Encoding and Transmission: Building the Transport Infrastructure for Commercial Services. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 2010
