Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[Casual Shinji]

It's not real 3D, shift your head 45 degrees and the illusion is already lost. It's a trick.

The human mind is perfectly capable of establishing a 3-dimensional map in their brain when watching 2D images. That's simply how our minds work. Adding 3D to a movie is like adding real lights to a picture of a lantern or a candle; We know what it is and how it works, the size, shape, weight, and girth because our brain immediately translates this.

If some people want this gimmick that's fine by me just give me the choice to watch my movies in 2D. But even that's too much to ask, since most of not all blockbusters released in my country don't even give you the option of 2D anymore. With Prometheus I had to watch it in 3D because movie theaters were too cheap to give us a 2D version.

So fuck 3D, may it die an ugly, painful death!

 

[DanielDeFig]

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?

I have a serious problem with this clearly misinformed attitude (sorry, no offense meant towards you personally).
From what I understand, and I've seen a few posts by ppl who seem to know more about this, 3D does NOT work in they way our eyes are "supposed" to register real depth in the world. In fact, it works against what our eyes are trying to do to register depth, which is the main reason so many people get headaches from watching 3D.

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?

I have a problem with this too. The industry clearly doesn't treat 3D as "just another tool for filmmakers". If they did, they wouldn't charge extra money for 3D.


Which leads me into listing off every other problem I have with 3D

1) Charging that much extra money for something that doesn't add much to the movie. On top of that, many people stop noticing the effect completely after 10-30 minutes (especially if the 3D was added afterwards).

2) The fact that we lose about half the colour in these movies when we put on the 3D glasses (and we pay more for that?)

3) I didn't initially get 3D-related headaches, but after being forced to watch a few (because a movie I wanted to watch was only available in 3D) I can almost guarantee it after watching one now, along with feeling sick for the rest of the day.

4) While it has died down considerably, it still feels like the movie industry is desperateley shoving this 3D stuff down our throats without even asking consumers if we are even interested in the idea (I never was, and I'm still not.).

5) Putting glasses on top of my regular glasses or impractical and annoying.

 

[Olas]

We have painting. We have sculpting. Why make all painters create sculptures?

But why have only painters? Without 3D movies are just paintings by necessity. If directors WANT their movies to be 2D for artistic reasons that's great. Schindler's list was filmed 98% in black and white, The Artist was 98% soundless, but that was a deliberate decision made for very specific reasons related to the respective films.
I doubt the countless movies that were made in the past 100 years were all filmed in 2D specifically because the directors wanted it to look that way for artistic purposes. I see nothing "intrinsic" about 2D, it's just something we've grown used to out of habit so we think it's what movies are supposed to be like.

 

[Nazulu]

It's treated as a gimmick and done poorly, like the Wii. Should I support a poor job?

I remember a lot of people were going on about how Avatar was 3D done right while the Piranha was the real gimmick, these people are lost. All these 3D remakes just make the background blurry in some scenes while sharpening the hell out of whatever is in front. It literally lowers the quality of some detailed backgrounds in a poor attempt to be called 3D.

 

[MammothBlade]

I can't see 3D, thus I don't get anything out of the premium ticket price. Even then, it seems like a gimmick. Suppose it did work for me, I don't think it would enhance my enjoyment of the film, as it detracts from the rest of it.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Get me something that projects the 3d images straight into my brain without the need for glasses and we'll talk again.
Those red and blue outlines just make me dizzy.

 

[Olas]

I have a serious problem with this clearly misinformed attitude (sorry, no offense meant towards you personally).
From what I understand, and I've seen a few posts by ppl who seem to know more about this, 3D does NOT work in they way our eyes are "supposed" to register real depth in the world. In fact, it works against what our eyes are trying to do to register depth, which is the main reason so many people get headaches from watching 3D.

It's pretty simple really, each of our eyes sees things at a slightly different angle. Our brain uses this difference to translate depth from the separate images our eyes see. 3D cameras film things at 2 slightly different angles as well, the same way as our eyes. Those 2 separate images are then shown to us in a theatre where the glasses we wear sort out which image goes to which eye. Each eye sees the movie scene at a slightly different angle just as they would in real life. I don't see how this is unnatural at all.
If 3D gives people headaches it's probably from that shitty half assed post rendered "3D" which is created by computers after filming and looks like vomit. It could also be because 3D movies tend to send objects flying out 4 inches from our face every few minutes, which is just retardery on the director's part. You'd probably get headaches in real life too if objects were constantly flying right up to your face making you go almost crosseyed.

I have a problem with this too. The industry clearly doesn't treat 3D as "just another tool for filmmakers". If they did, they wouldn't charge extra money for 3D.

The whole industry isn't part of one big vertical monopoly, Steven Speilberg doesn't tell theatre chains how much they should charge for a ticket. Though admittedly I'm sure pressure is put on creators to make 3D movies BECAUSE they know theatres will want them so they can make more money. I think the distribution end was just hoping 3D movies would be more lucrative than they really are and being the greedy basterds that they were chose to exploit it. It doesn't change the artistic/aesthetic potential of the end product though.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Hurts my eyes, gives me a headache, and doesn't even look that good.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

I think its a great technology that is used in a terrible way. If proper research was put into "how to make 3d work in games and cinema" and come out with proper techniques and standards then it would be bloody awesome.

But for now its simply a gimmick to make people pay more money.

I dont own any 3d devices myself but have used quite a few. So far, nothing has really impressed me.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

This video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0VQ7-5b_Io
although silly in some places does display my main problem with 3D: directors use very generic, derivative methods to show off the technology in stagnant CGI set pieces, and in doing so detracts from the film.

Other than that, its an extra cost I'd prefer to not have to pay and simply adds nothing to the experience of any movie I have seen. And on occasion it can give me a bit of a headache.

All that said, the 3Ds I think has the potential to be very good: the 3D aspect, at least in the two games I played, felt like they actually enhanced the experience, rather than just be more shit shoved in your face for the sake of desperately raking in a bit more cash from idiot movie goers.

 

[Nouw]

Jesus christ are the glasses really that bad? I can't imagine how much strife you would be in if you needed to wear actual glasses in everyday life.

 

[The_Waspman]

Ugh, just because.

Need more? Well, because the majority of 3D films are post processed, which always always looks bad, it actually draws more attention to visual effects (and visual effects - like editing - are something you should never ever notice during a movie. This is why Zack Snyder movies are terrible), for most films its just tacked on to make more money...

Also, everybody's eyes function differently. 3D is 'standardised', while a person will have different focal lengths in each eye, different levels of visual accuity, which means that very few people will watch a 3D film as the studio hopes it is presented. There will always be some degree to which an element of 3D is ineffective. Either the foreground doesn't pop or (in my case) the background is flat. Which highlights something else - 3D films tend to look like the actors have been badly photoshopped into scenes (The Darkest Hour is probably the best example of this)

Oh, and finally, films are displayed on a screen, so it looks like you're watching things through a tiny window. That was something I found very distracting during Avatar, is that things would randomly just pop into the foreground. It breaks immersion. I've also noticed that a lot more films are being shot in 2D that are shot in such a way as to look impressive for 3D processing. So yeah, 3D is actually changing the way regular movies are being shot.

 

[acey195]

Its just a way to cash-in, to make sure people cannot watch all the features of the film at home (before the home cinema set, this was the ambiance with sound) so they will have to go to the cinema. more than 80% of the 3-d effects in non-animated movies is terribly bad/contributes nothing, except making you lose 30 minutes of the film, getting used to the 3d-subtitles.

I also get a bit of nausea from them and there are only small cinemas in the neighborhood where I live, so EVERYTYHING is in 3-d, meaning I just have to wait for the dvd/other sources

just to be clear: pixar and dreamworks movies work in 3d as they are made that way,its just rendering a depth layer for the entire movie.
2D+ movies are le Derp.
In disney... well it could work as it is easier to do, than normal non-animated movies.
which makes it easier to get the 3d more consistent, rather than 1 or 2 elements in the entire movie

also Goodguy Nolan

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I think the technology is at, or near, a point where it can be used to great effect by talented film makers. However it's new, or at least this generation hasn't made movies in it, so if it sticks about then maybe we'll see some good stuff come out of it.

I've seen a few 3D films, and the best one I've seen by far is Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It's a documentary about cave paintings in France. It uses 3D amazingly well, and that film has convinced me that 3D is not a gimmick, and can be used to great effect by a talented cinematographer (the film was made by Werner Herzog so it had talent behind it).

Seriously if you ever get the chance to see that film in 3D then do so. If you can't see it in 2D because it's cool anyway

 

[Dwarfman]

Snip

It is a heck of a lot more expensive to view 3d as oppose to 2d at the moment, that is certainly a factor. But honestly, it's because the 3d effects and the 3d glasses hurt my eyes. I can't watch the movie without my real glasses cause it's all blurry and the blurry 3d effects, give me headaches. But when I wear my glasses under the 3d glasses the lenses mess with one another and gives me pressure headaches right behind the eyeballs. Alas it's a no win situation for me. I'll watch 3d if there's nothing else going but for my own health I'm sticking to 2d when I can.

 

[Scrustle]

3D sucks. It reduces contrast and detail, dulls colours, and darkens the image. It doesn't add immersion, it breaks it, because it forces you to focus unnaturally on certain parts of a shot or else it's all a blurred mess (opposed to 90% being a blurred mess). You can't just look at the image, you have to force yourself to find the right part of it and stay fixed on that until the next shot where you have to do it all over again. And the image itself doesn't look realistic. It doesn't look like an actual 3D environment with realistic depth, it looks like a child's pop-up book with 2D images layered over each other. That does even more to break immersion. The whole time you are very aware that you're watching a 3D film. You're not getting lost in the story or visuals, you're seeing a bad optical illusion.

I would comment on the 3D of the 3DS, but I can't even get that to work for me. It's constantly just a blur. And even if I could get it to work, the fact that you have to hold the thing perfectly rigid to maintain the 3D effect is just stupid. You can't expect people to do that on a handheld system. I have several friends who own a 3DS, and none of them use the 3D for that very reason.

3D is just a stupid gimmick that rolls around every time the film industry feels scared by a new competing entertainment medium that's eating in to it's profits. It's already starting to go away again. It's not the future and everybody knows it.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I like it, and sometimes I get the impression SOME people say they don't like 3D to be cool like one of those film critics or something, because every single 3D film I've seen has been good/decent. Most recently:
Toy Story 3
Avatar
Hugo

 

[Hoplon]

Jesus christ are the glasses really that bad? I can't imagine how much strife you would be in if you needed to wear actual glasses in everyday life.

I do wear glasses in real life and let me tell you, The pieces of shit given out for 3d films are crimes against your face. (saw Tron Legacy in 3d)

The only reason it is pushed at all is the 40% bump on ticket prices for minimal extra investment.

 

[Simonoly]

I actually have trouble processing 3D. I can only appreciate it for around 10 minutes before my brain seems to auto-correct and I can't process it anymore and simply see a 2D image. The quality of 3D is completely lost on me. Plus text on screen is always blurred and sometimes has this horrid mirrored effect which actually strains my eyes. So 3D movies are just not fun for me. I always go to 2D showings now. In my mind, it's a completely unnecessary addition to the cinema experience.

 

[floppylobster]

We have painting. We have sculpting. Why make all painters create sculptures?

But why have only painters? Without 3D movies are just paintings by necessity. If directors WANT their movies to be 2D for artistic reasons that's great. Schindler's list was filmed 98% in black and white, The Artist was 98% soundless, but that was a deliberate decision made for very specific reasons related to the respective films.
I doubt the countless movies that were made in the past 100 years were all filmed in 2D specifically because the directors wanted it to look that way for artistic purposes. I see nothing "intrinsic" about 2D, it's just something we've grown used to out of habit so we think it's what movies are supposed to be like.

If that were true then the prevailing 'habit' was originally black & white without sound. But film changed and audiences accepted it. If you look at the current poll results and the general feel of the industry right now you'll notice that audiences are not whole-heartedly accepting 3D as a valuable addition to the language of film. I'm happy for 3D to have its trials and test runs using film until they can work out a way to project 3D without using tricks of the eye to create it within film. But I, like the majority of adult film goers, go to see film because it is a 2 dimensional projected image. That part of the experience is intrinsic to my, (and it would seem others), enjoyment of the medium. Currently only kid's animation films and teenage action films are currently being shot in 3D. Because that is the only audience it appeals to. Despite claims that we see in 3D, we really don't. Our vision, and the way our brain processes it, is closer to that of 2D film. 3D may well develop in to something. But whatever that is, it won't be film. Until then, it is trialing a technique using film and can therefore be classed as a film gimmick. When it becomes true holographic projections or something better then I might give it another go but even then I won't consider what I'm watching a 'film', it will be something else, maybe something better. But not film. A 'movie' maybe. But not film.