By now, you may have read Roger Ebert’s lengthy nine-point diatribe against 3D in Newsweek — it has certainly generated a substantial amount of online conversation in the last few days.
On the face of it, as a declared 3D agnostic myself, I should be pleased with the article: when a “Clash of the Titans” proves the technology a potential artistic liability as emphatically as “Avatar” suggests the opposite, 3D needs to be both argued for and argued with.
I fear Ebert, however, has slightly let the opposing side down: his piece is impassioned and sincere, but for every viable point he makes — and there are several — there’s another that is short-sighted, obstinate or just tautological: however much you may agree, it’s difficult to accept “it adds nothing to the experience” and “it’s a waste of a dimension” as separate claims in a serious argument, as opposed to simple whining.
