I've been paying attention to my focusing, and I have more flexibility left in my lenses than I thought. I can feel myself changing the focus as I look at things at different distances.

But, anyway, I think Ebert's argument is going completely the wrong way. "I just saw Green Hornet in 3D and didn't like it; therefore, 3D will never work."

I can buy that 3D might never be a common thing, or will never work for most movies. Ebert's perspective on this is not normal, because he has to see a lot more movies than a normal person, and he might even have less choice about whether he sees them in 3D or not.

But doesn't it only take on good movie in 3D to prove that it DOES work? If it actually works, then the theoretical arguments for why it shouldn't work don't prove anything.

DID Avatar work? Even Ebert gave it 4 stars. He also doesn't bring it up as an example for how 3D doesn't work, eg., "Avatar was pretty good in 3D, but the imperfections were still palpable." Instead, he always uses examples things like Alice in Wonderland, and Green Hornet.

If you want to prove that something can't work, you have to prove that it can't work in the best possible case. Not that it can't work in the worst possible case.



"Without a foothold in the past, we cannot walk towards the future."
-Vagrant Story