DUmmies Slam 3-D

Do you want a successful career as a LOUSY FREEPER TROLL? Well, the best way to accomplish this is to get 1000+ posts in DUmmieland. Otherwise you will remain under suspicion. And the BEST way to reach that mark is to post to non-political threads so you don't "out" yourself. Post to non-political threads in which you find the topic to be of interest and with which you agree with most of the DUmmies. A very good example is this DUmmie THREAD, "'Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too' Roger Ebert." In fact, I found this subject so interesting because, like Ebert, I also HATE 3-D that I couldn't refrain from posting on this thread as my deep cover DUmmie alter ego. No chance of being caught since it was on a non-political topic. So let us now watch the DUmmies slam 3-D in Bolshevik red while the comments of your humble correspondent, slipping out of his secret DUmmie ID, is in the [brackets]:

"Why I Hate 3D and You Should Too" Roger Ebert

[I hear ya, Roger! I got all excited about a 3-D broadcast of the Grammies a couple of months ago. For some reason I thought the technology had reached a new tolerable level so I picked up a pair of free 3-D glasses at Target. Result? I had to take the glasses off after less than a minute. It was simply unbearable to watch.]

By Roger Ebert | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 29, 2010

[Ebert sounds like he is writing from another dimension when discussing politics but on this he sounds like he is from our dimension.]

"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.

[Pay extra to be annoyed. I can't even enjoy my popcorn while watching 3-D because of the nausea factor.]

That's my position. I know it's heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year's top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they're only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O's you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics' case, point by point:"

["Avatar" was nothing but "Dances With Wolves" done up with 3-D and lots of blue body paint. In fact, I call it "Dances With Pandorans." And now to the DUmmie Peanut Gallery (where I temporarily sat).]

I gotta agree. I saw two too many movies since this new wave has hit, and I was dissapointed both times. Now they are going to bring it into the living room? F*ck that.

[Use the F-word liberally if you want to disguise yourself as a DUmmie. However, I am NOT DUmmie Oregone. You got that, Skinner?]

Bells and whistles can turn crap into HiTech crap.

[Hi-Tech crap. Good description of "Avatar." All they did was take "Dances With Wolves" and set it on another planet with blue body paint and long tails. Oh, and with an added dimension that added NOTHING to it.]

That's what's happened to 'popular' music. Tech-generated beats and auto tuned shlock.

[My thought exactly. BTW, I am NOT DUmmie Captain Hilts! Please believe me!]

Great visuals can't save a mediocre story. That's my opinion of Avatar. As George Lucas once said, "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

[Oh, "Avatar" had a story. The one James Cameron ripped off from "Dances With Wolves."]

Maybe some director will create a film that makes good aesthetic use of 3-D, something that raises the entire film -- story, cinematography and all; that would be pretty cool.

[You mean like "Gorilla At Large?" A 3-D cinematic masterpiece from 1954. It ranks right up there with "Casablanca" as one of the film classics.]

Hollywood is not expecting it to be a fad. They are heavily invested especially since the new 3D TVs are coming out.

[Good. Will that mean I can get a discount on 2-D TVs in the future?]

if we're gonna make all these animated 3D movies for kids....how about making glasses that actually fit their tiny heads?

[That way they can learn to enjoy "SpongeBob SquarePants" in full 3-D glory.]

I'll Wait Until "Feelies" Are Available. "Feelies: These are the popular films. Filmgoers sit in special chairs that allow them to feel, and to interact, with the movie. The plots are simple, and often involve sex. Lenina takes The Savage to one of these feelies. She enjoys it very much, but he is horrified."

[Ben Burch would certainly love "Anal Intruder" as a "Feelie."]

3-D isn't 3-D. It's flat 2-D on a few flat planes. I want real 3-D with no glasses, no headaches, no dimness, no jacked up prices, and no dumbing down of films. Until then, I'll enjoy the occasional sci-fi 3-D movie, but for most good movies, it's a distraction at best.

[Exactly right but am I quoting myself here?]