Agreed

Newsweek: “3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.”

I’m not all that impressed with 3D, I can live with or without it, and to top it off it makes my wife nauseated.

If we have the choice we’ll go to the 2D version of films. I must be getting old.

2 Comments

  1. I agree with you about 3D. But more and more movies–especially the blockbusters–are going to be in 3D because it’s something (well, mostly–3D HDTV displays are making it into the home this year) that you have to go to the theater to see.

    BTW, I’m pretty sure you mean that it makes your wife nauseated. “Nauseous” describes something that makes you nauseated.

  2. Tommy,

    It’s kind of a bummer films are headed that direction, I don’t think it helps with the story, it’s gimmicky. Movie goers must like 3D or they’d speak with their pocket books and we wouldn’t have this craze.

    Oh, and thanks for the language lesson. 🙂

Comments are closed.

© 2017 Rob Fahrni

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑