Does anyone like 3-D?

Roger Ebert believes not, and that its use in films is an annoyance and a distraction

To my mind, it all comes down to one simple question: does anyone like 3-D? I’ve certainly never met an adult who does. Many of them complain about the goggles, which rarely fit properly over existing eyeglasses. Some cannot see stereoscopically.

No live-action movie has ever been very successful in 3-D, in part because our minds require more realism in the realistic world than we do in animation. The process itself leads to a dimming-down of picture brightness, which animation can try to correct for. If you remove your glasses, you can see what you’re missing. Yet Katzenberg promised me during a stop on his tour that many of Hollywood’s serious dramatic releases would eventually be in 3-D; virtually all films, I gather, except those by reactionary auteurs like Werner Herzog and Lars von Trier.

There may be a clue to this fervour in ticket prices. American theatres have started adding a $3 surcharge for 3-D. At a typical first-run American theatre, adults pay $11 and children $8. For 3-D movies, it’s $14 and $11. Do the maths. Two adults and two children cost $38 in 2-D and $50 in 3-D. They’ve got rid of the children’s discount and raised the adult price, neatly eliminating the loophole in much animated cinema, which is that so many admissions are sold at children’s prices. Many multiplexes showing a 3-D version don’t book 2-D on another screen.

Movie critics are sometimes asked why all movies cost the same to view, even though some may have cost $100 million to make, and others $500,000. It’s a reasonable question. I suppose the reasoning is that you get about two hours of movie either way. Now 3-D has provided exhibitors with a subterfuge to force consumers to subsidise their upgraded projection facilities — which is deceptive, because most theatres are upgrading to digital projectors anyway. This could be called the 3-D children’s tax.