Roger Ebert hates 3-D (and thinks you should, too)

"Get off my lawn!" That's the cranky subtext everybody seemed to hear when movie critic Roger Ebert slammed Kick-Ass for being "morally reprehensible."

And now Ebert has come forward with another opinion sure to stir up controversy—he blasted the entire concept of 3-D movies as a "waste" in the latest Newsweek.

Here's what he had to say in the issue dated May 10, 2010:

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.

While we agree that "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," we're not entirely ready to give up on the 3-D experience just yet.

But you know what? As it turns out—neither is Ebert.

We're not sure everyone's going to read all the way to the end of his essay to find that out, though. The final paragraph of his piece ends with the far less controversial statement that "I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option. I'm opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood."

Well, we don't think every film deserves to be in 3-D either. Who does? So we're not in as much disagreement as the opinionated opening of his article would have you think.

So what do you think? Sick of 3-D? Hungering for more? Or do you not really care one way or the other?

For the latest sci-fi news, follow us on Twitter at @scifiwire

More from around the web