Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[laggyteabag]

If they do it properly, its great and well worth the money, but if they just throw it on to get a few extra £'s its pointless, especially when the glasses actually make the screen darker than it should be

 

[Veldel]

I cant see 3D and even so its just a way for them to raise ticket prices :/

 

[TheMann]

I think there is an important option omitted form the poll and that's "It depends". Whether or not I like it depends on a few things. The main one being whether or not the movie was filmed in 3D. This is incredibly important. Many movies that are cashing in on the 3D thing are converted from normal film and look like shit as a result. There's absolutely no reason to see these in 3D. Animated CGI movies will almost always good in 3D because the camera is virtual, and can easily be tweaked to provide the best possible result.

Movies that looked good in 3D:
Avatar
The Avengers
TRON: Legacy
Toy Story 3
Coraline
How to Train Your Dragon
Megamind
Despicable Me

Movies that looked like shit in 3D:
Alice in Wonderland
Clash of the Titans
A whole slew of campy horror flicks.
Any older movie that's been re-released in 3D

So yeah it depends, it really does.

 

[Shaved Apple]

Depends on my mood. People just find it annoying sometimes because they have stuff flying at them.

 

[ultratog1028]

1. Some people can't see 3d.

2. 3d at this point hasn't been executed well and has just become a gimmick to charge an extra $3.

3. It adds NOTHING to the experience. I never watched any movie and thought "you know, I really miss width. this movie needs glasses to allow me to see width."

4. I wear glasses to see, so wearing 3d glasses requires me to either remove my glasses, resulting in a blurry movie, or not use the 3d glasses, resulting in a blurry movie.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

A year ago I wore contacts and I disliked 3D and saw it as an unnecessary gimmick. It's NOT real 3D, it just kind of looks like there's depth. If I'm watching a 3D movie often after a half an hour I will almost stop noticing it and can watch the movie like normal. Then I can go home and watch a movie in 2D and feel like nothing was missing. That is not saying good things.

Now I wear glasses and I hate 3D. Even if I can eventually get past the fact that everything is harder to focus on and "jumping out" I can't ignore how uncomfortable and almost painful it is to be wearing two glasses on top of each other. Not to mention they keep falling down during the movie.

 

[Olas]

snip

Yes, stereoscopic vision is a pretty big deal, considering it was the primary means by which Homo Sapiens dodged hungry lions. It's so important that the brain has its own, rather effective work-arounds just in case one of our eyes gets fucked up - size disparity, parallax, memory, and probably a whole bag of other tricks that we use to, even when one eye is disabled, be able to get a three-dimensional bearing on what we're looking at.

Actually parallax, one of the "tools" you mentioned requires at least 2 points of reference to work: 2 eyes; and it's pretty much how stereoscopy works.
I don't think the argument here has ever been that stereoscopic 3D is required so that viewers can figure out what's in front of what. Obviously we're more savvy than that.

We abandoned the glorious clarity of digital projectors and high-resolution filming techniques for blurry pop-up films. We traded the possibility of experimentation and exploration in genre, plot, and performance so we can have things jumping out at our faces.

Way to go, us.

So adding 3D to a movie reduces the quality of it's plot and acting performances? I'm pretty sure good screenplay writing can exist in a movie with or without and 3D visuals.

 

[New Frontiersman]

I have no problem at all with 3D. It's not the greatest thing in the world but there's nothing really wrong with it if it's done well, sometimes I even find it to be a really interesting effect.

 

[gbemery]

1. I don't want to pay almost twice the price for the same movie
2. I hate paying almost twice the price for the same movie and a headache (strictly depends on the glasses and way the 3d was done)
3. There are good 3d movies but then there are the loads of producers that will do it half assed and you're literally flipping your glasses up and down trying to see the difference.
4. I really really hate all the gimmicky scenes put in just for the 3D effect (resident evil and clash of the titans are horrible with this. Basically having anything pointing at the camera or flying towards it. It can work but usually is just jumping out saying "Hey hey do you have your glasses on :O didn't that look AWESOME ? Aren't you glad you paid $12 instead of $6 ")
5. Its not truly 3D. If anything you are seeing a 3D movie of 2D images, basically "paper cut out theater." Once they get the tech to make me feel like the only thing separating me from the cast is a window then gentleman and ladies we have reached true 3D.)
6. Nothing is really added other than a few "wow that was neat" moments.
7. If you're going to say we need 3d movies because thats how our eyes were suppose to see then where are our 3d texts?

 

[Ryotknife]

wearing 3d glasses on top of my regular glasses strains my eyes a lot.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

I like 3D, I just find it annoying that I need to wear the thick glasses over my regular pair.

Also I do however hate the glasses and how teenagers poke out the lenses and use them as Hipster glasses. I truly hate my generation.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I generally think it looks worse and it also gives me a headache. I also have to wear glasses, and it costs more.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Also, James Cameron himself stated that Avatar was meant to be seen in 3D and not 2D. Didnt stop him from releasing it on 2D and dvd/blueray etc on a normal screen. So its all bullshit as he could have released it as 3D only if he was that passionate about it.

Dude, he's passionate about because he thinks its cool. However he isn't so stupid as to think everyone was gonna buy into it on his say so. 3D is no more his fault than the retarded 90's Grim Anti-Hero or Dark Deconstruction comic trend is Allan Moore's fault.

 

[Zantos]

People just defend what they're used to, seeing things change is kind of scary. You should hear about how angry people got when they went from 1D to 2D.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I mostly just don't care. I watch a few movies in three D but it doesn't matter that much. I'll usually just spend my 4 bucks on the 2D version if given the option.

 

[Enrique Ontiveros]

Hurts my eyes, gives me a headache, and doesn't even look that good and we get to pay for the glasses --- we give back to them later so re-sell it to us for the same price over and over! 3D not for me. maybe for little kids.

 

[Navvan]

Personally I hate 3D because I can't see it since I have severe amblyopia. That's right I hate it out of pure spite.

 

[Noswad]

Because Avatar is the only film that I think was actually improved by the 3D, all others it made no difference or made it worse and costs more than normal. I remember Thor was actually better on a shitty SD TV than on a big I-Max screen.

But there again, I find that if a film is being shown in both 3D and 2D everyone under the age of 16 always goes to the 3D viewing. So that's a bit of a win for all sensible people who want the 2D viewing.

 

[Ishigami]

I don't like 3D.

Since I'm not used to glasses it I think it is uncomfortable to wear them in the cinema.
It also increase ticket prices and I'm simply not willing to pay more.
Most of the time the effect is very subtle so in order to make the audience aware of the 3D movies more often tend to include the ?in your face shoot? from time to time. So this ?feature? is actually influencing the cinematography in a IMO bad way.
It also does not add anything to the movies. I mean is there a movie that would not work without 3D?
I only viewed a couple of 3D movies in order to see where the technology nowadays is and it either left unimpressed or with a headache. So It actually managed to hurt me physically.
Then it not a new technology. I had 3D technology on my PC as early as 2000 with a the ELSA Revelator. Back then I already could test and dismiss it and nothing really changed. It just that apparently the industry on its own decided that they need a new feature to sell new hardware and the public falls for it.
It makes movies more expensive to produce and on top of that IMO on the wrong side of the spectrum. Instead of a unnecessary technology maybe producers should put some extra money towards and interesting script?

Anyway: 3D? Thanks but no thanks.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

To me, it is like the Wiimote. It can be done well, but most of the time, it is shoehorned in awkwardly. Sturgeon's Law in effect.

Unfortunately, people who see 3D as a gimmick, much like those who see the Wiimote as a gimmick, will overlook the examples of effective 3D (Avatar, The Lion King) to focus on the movies that shoehorned it in awkwardly and unnecessarily (Saw 3D, Jackass 3D).