(Biff’s buddy can’t catch a break)

If you’ve been paying any attention to the film industry for the past year, you know 3D is the next big thing.  Avatar is supposed to be a “game changer“, Jeffrey Katzenberg says Dreamsworks will be all 3D from now on, and even Iron Man 2 was toying with the idea of 3D.  I’ve bitched about 3D being an annoying gimmick a few times, and my opinion is usually enough for me. But it’s nice to see a world-famous film critic agree with me, and now, Roger Ebert has weighed in.  (Actually it was two weeks ago, but who’s counting.):

Simply put, has anyone ever attended a 2-D movie and thought, ‘If only it were in 3-D’? I doubt it, because 2-D creates a perfectly effective illusion of depth and dimension. When I see Lawrence growing from a dot far across the desert sands, it never occurs to me that I’m watching a 2-D image. When I watch 3-D, however, I’m constantly reminded that it’s in 3-D. Objects approach and recede alarmingly, drawing you out of the actual film.

Characters seem more concerned to demonstrate their dimensions than their personalities. And, by its nature, the entire 3-D image must be in focus at all times, depriving cinematographers of the use of focal planes. The process is an annoyance and a distraction. [via Spectator UK]

Yeah!  What he said!  Though, in the interests of being fair and balanced, I should point out that critic Pete Hammond calls 3-D “the funniest innovation of the year!”, while Ben Lyons says it’s “the wave of the future, homey.”

(picture source)