Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[Olas]

So most of the people I've talked about it with say they hate the recent trend of 3D movies, consider it a fad, and want it to die, quickly. Apparently some [a href="http://www.facebook.com/IH83D"]other[/a] people do as well. I don't get it.

Isn't 3D the way things are supposed to look? Haven't we been settling for 2D simply because of technological limitations that we've since overcome? Sure it's been overhyped by advertising in the media, but I don't see how the stereoscopic viewing that our 2 eyes and brain are built for could be a fad. Shouldn't it at least exist as a tool in a director's arsenal for their own artistic usage? I mean, what exactly are the disadvantages anyway?

A similar opinion that I've heard is that 3D is good for animated or action movies but not more serious or dramatic ones. But animated movies are less concerned with realism and authentic visuals than their grittier counterparts. If anything they're the ones who can get away with looking flat and pretend.

So rereleasing the Lion King in 3D made sense...

but using 3D in a serious film is just silly.

I get it, 3D is supposed to look pretty, so it works in movies with colorful visuals and open landscapes. But it's more than that too, it's depth, it's an entire spacial dimension, and it should be a tool in the director's palette like color and lighting. Maybe sometimes it should be limited for artistic reasons, but to leave it out of movies entirely seems stupid IMO. So why protest 3D when it's the logical and sensible next step for the entertainment industry?

 

[Aerosteam]

The glasses make the cinema darker. =(

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It's a gimmick.

It's not even real 3D, not really.

Put your hand in front of your face and focus on it. Notice how the background blurs?

Now focus on the background and notice how it's your hand that is now blurred?

That's what 3D is, and movies have been doing that for years.

'3D' movies aren't true 3D as we know it, it's like a popup book. Sure, the image stands out, but there's no depth to it.

 

[tippy2k2]

There are only a handful of movies that get 3D right; that's why I hate 3D movies.

Avatar uses it the way it should be used (to add depth to your shots): I should NEVER notice that your movie is in 3D. If I have noticed the 3D, you have utterly failed as a film maker.

The vast majority of 3D movies have that 3D "money shot" (The ax is coming RIGHT AT ME!!!! The coin is flipped RIGHT AT ME!!!! Etc. Etc.). There is no quicker way to pull me out of a movie then reminding me that I am watching a movie. Hell, I've avoided going to ANY 3D movie, even in 2D, because it's so blatantly obvious that these shots were added to show off the 3D.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I like 3D as a concept.. but I find it's almost never used well in or integrates well with the media it's being used in. Conceive the experience with 3D from the start and use it as subtly as possible. I'm sorry, but using it just so you can blatantly have something fly out of the screen at the audience is just silly and lazy, and it's what makes people hate what is otherwise not a bad idea.

 

[Heronblade]

1.) It is not true 3D, just a series of 2D images with slightly altered virtual depth
2.) Only a tiny handful of 3D movies use the tech well, most of them do little more than give moviegoers a headache while squinting at the blurry picture.
3.) For the most part, releasing a movie in 3D is little more than a money making gimmick. With few exceptions it does not enhance the experience.

I for one am waiting until the technology improves, I don't have anything against the concept itself, just with the current application.

 

[DoPo]

I've seen a total of one movie in 3D. I wasn't really impressed. Moreover, given the choice between 3D and a cheaper movie ticket, I'd go for the latter option. Then again, I don't really go to the movies that much - it was my one cinema going so far this year. All in all, a total "meh".

 

[MasochisticAvenger]

3D is a gimmick added to the movies to try and convince people actually going to the cinemas was still relevant when DVDs only take a couple of months to come out, and everyone has big televisions. The problem with 3D is it really adds nothing to the experience, and actually takes you out of the moment by reminding you you're watching a movie. You spend more time trying to notice the things in 3D than actually getting sucked into the experience.

In my opinion, 3D does not add anything useful to the movie going experience. I have yet to see a movie where I have gone "this would have been greatly improved if some of the stuff looked more in front of the other stuff".

 

[Dangit2019]

Because I'm white and the TV itself was good on other merits, I actually own a 3D TV. It is the cheaper type though; the one that uses movie glasses instead of the $200 active shutters. Personally I like it. I enjoy it when there's a big, deep, expertly composed shot that you can see in a new light. I, as others have mentioned, hate the "OMG IT'S COMING RIGHT AT YOU" effect as it makes any experience feel like a cheap grab for attention and box office money rather than a positive, if somewhat overblown, addition to the movie.

 

[Olas]

It's a gimmick.

I hate that word so much.

It's not even real 3D, not really.

Put your hand in front of your face and focus on it. Notice how the background blurs?

Now focus on the background and notice how it's your hand that is now blurred?

That's what 3D is, and movies have been doing that for years.

That's just camera focusing, although related, it's not exactly what people mean when they say 3D. We're talking about stereoscopy, where each eye sees the image at a separate angle and the brain uses the information to judge what's close up and what's distant. Things literally seem to pop in one direction or another.

'3D' movies aren't true 3D as we know it, it's like a popup book. Sure, the image stands out, but there's no depth to it.

I believe you're referring to post-rendered 3D. Ya, it sucks. Clash of the Titans is an true example to the world of how to really screw up 3D with post rendering. But movies that are actually filmed in 3D with 2 cameras side by side create a good 3D effect visually identical to how our eyes see things. It's not fair to lump all attempts at 3D together.

 

[Hazy992]

It's a stupid gimmick that just increases ticket prices

It looks crap most of the time

It's tacked onto films that don't need it

Having to wear big stupid ass glasses just to watch a movie is annoying

It makes some people feel physically sick

In case you can't tell I don't like 3D ^_^

 

[theSHAH]

It's marketed as something incredibly gimmicky. What dimension a movie is displayed in doesn't make up for a bad movie. 3D can be a cool feature, but it is far from the reason people should go see a movie.

 

[Dragonclaw]

For me it's easy...I'm BLIND in one eye so all 3-D tech has become is a more expensive way to give myself a headache. If all movies ended up going 3-D I'd just stop going to the theater entirely.

 

[scorptatious]

I don't think 3-D is itself inherently bad. In fact if used well, it can enhance the experience a movie give me.

The problem is though, it's just way too overused and often times, isn't even taken advantage of in most movies. It just feels like an afterthought and it really doesn't feel like it does anything other then get ticket sales.

 

[burningdragoon]

Tricking your eyes/brain into seeing 3D is not the same as seeing 3D.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

It makes the picture darker and blurrier. Not like markedly blurry, but definitely fuzzier than it would be in 2D. Maybe it's just blurry because the distance between my eyes is too far from the median distance they designed the 3D around for it to look sharp. For example, I saw Avatar in theatres twice, first in 2D on a standard sized digital screen, and the second time in 3D on a full-size IMAX screen. I preferred the 2D.

The picture was darker and the picture lost detail in 3D. I remember my eyes being delighted by how much detail there was in the fauna of Pandora. I couldn't make out the intricate patterns on the 3D picture. Nothing pops out particularly far off the screen, what's the point of 3D if you're just gonna float the characters a foot away from the background? Very little of it is "in your face," even the parts where it would make sense.

3D TVs are even worse. I've tried a few at stores. They look even less 3D than in theatres. It's more like the background has "sunk" behind the characters etc. rather the picture being 3D. Has the darkened screen problem too. The only redeeming feature of 3D I've seen is the simultaneous full-screen local multiplayer (where the glasses make it so player 1 and 2 see a different screen, allowing both players to use the whole screen for multiplayer)--that's actually cool.

3D just kinda strains my eyes in general. I don't get headaches like some people, but it makes my eyes feel like I was using a Virtual Boy for an extended period of time.

 

[gigastar]

The latest 3D is just a trick of plane-polarised light. Ive seen a true 3D image, taken with highly sensitive and high intensity laser equipment, and what ive seen in the movies doesnt hold a candle to that still image.

The only redeeming feature of 3D I've seen is the simultaneous full-screen local multiplayer (where the glasses make it so player 1 and 2 see a different screen, allowing both players to use the whole screen for multiplayer)--that's actually cool.

Ok i never heard of that before. Sounds awesome for when 3D TV's inevitably replace regular HD TV's everywhere.

 

[Tahaneira]

It needs more work. Another decade, maybe a bit less, maybe a bit more, and 3D technology might produce something truly amazing. But the various marketers decided they needed a gimmick to sell for tons of money now, so they pushed the version they have now, and others followed.