Poll: Why do people hate 3D?
- Thread starter Olas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The first film I watched in 3D was "Despicable Me". I'd been looking forward to the film in ages but when I got to the cinema we saw it was available in 3d and decided "Why not?".
Well. I spent most the film squinting, trying to focus on different parts of the screen - if I tried to look at the whole screen at once then things started to go blurry. I developed a headache about 1/2 hour in and by the end my eyes were red from watering a bit.
Needless to say I've never gone to see another 3D film.
Well. I spent most the film squinting, trying to focus on different parts of the screen - if I tried to look at the whole screen at once then things started to go blurry. I developed a headache about 1/2 hour in and by the end my eyes were red from watering a bit.
Needless to say I've never gone to see another 3D film.
For me it's a couple of things.
1. Very few movies (especially live action) get it right. So far only the 8th Harry Potter made me go "Wow!"
2. Its a gimmick that cycles every thirty years or so. They did it in the 50's and the 80's, so it is due again.
Lastly, (and I know I said a couple but this is important) is the 3DS. Parents give this to their little kids unknowingly. Every title has it (unfortunately in fine print) that using the 3D on children under 7 years of age can permanently damage their vision. I feel that Nintendo is to blame here. They clearly market and cater to a younger audience, and while it is the parents responsibility, I feel that Nintendo is doing something that is harmful to children knowing that children will play it regardless of a warning that they don't point out.
1. Very few movies (especially live action) get it right. So far only the 8th Harry Potter made me go "Wow!"
2. Its a gimmick that cycles every thirty years or so. They did it in the 50's and the 80's, so it is due again.
Lastly, (and I know I said a couple but this is important) is the 3DS. Parents give this to their little kids unknowingly. Every title has it (unfortunately in fine print) that using the 3D on children under 7 years of age can permanently damage their vision. I feel that Nintendo is to blame here. They clearly market and cater to a younger audience, and while it is the parents responsibility, I feel that Nintendo is doing something that is harmful to children knowing that children will play it regardless of a warning that they don't point out.
3D is ok, the annoying thing for me is that I had to nearly £100 for extra glasses. With most active 3D TVs you have to buy extra pairs of goggles, so I had to buy more for the once in a blue moon event when I watch a movie with a bunch of my friends/family at home.
If you don't have them you are boned.
If you don't have them you are boned.
3d is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem and not finding one
some folks came up with this nifty technique and have been telling us the consumers that we need it for years now and the majority of people (that I know at least) give it a resounding 'meh'
it is not a technology that arose from a great need and that is why it has a bad rap, most people don't _need_ it nor really want it at this point, its just an additional cost
some folks came up with this nifty technique and have been telling us the consumers that we need it for years now and the majority of people (that I know at least) give it a resounding 'meh'
it is not a technology that arose from a great need and that is why it has a bad rap, most people don't _need_ it nor really want it at this point, its just an additional cost
It's a very cheap visual gimmick. Sure it's not bad for some movies, but generally only movies designed from the ground up in 3D look even remotely decent.
It also 1. Doesn't work for a lot of people and 2. Gives people it does work for headaches after a while.
Plus the limited at-home viewing. Nobody (okay maybe somebody) wants to buy a whole new TV just so they can wear a pair of dorky glasses to see shit on the small screen slightly pop out at them. The effect is generally only worth tolerating in theaters because of the huge screen.
And whenever 3D is involved it seems the movie takes every chance it can get to have corny shots where objects fly at the camera or variations thereof.
For me it adds nothing and in fact can take away from a movie easily. I wonder if in like a decade people are going to look back at the present movies and go "what the fuck were they thinking?".
It also 1. Doesn't work for a lot of people and 2. Gives people it does work for headaches after a while.
Plus the limited at-home viewing. Nobody (okay maybe somebody) wants to buy a whole new TV just so they can wear a pair of dorky glasses to see shit on the small screen slightly pop out at them. The effect is generally only worth tolerating in theaters because of the huge screen.
And whenever 3D is involved it seems the movie takes every chance it can get to have corny shots where objects fly at the camera or variations thereof.
For me it adds nothing and in fact can take away from a movie easily. I wonder if in like a decade people are going to look back at the present movies and go "what the fuck were they thinking?".
3D is just a silly gimmick, why would I want to wear a pair of silly glasses to see stuff with slightly more perspective added to it?
It's a bit like the whole HD craze, who cares if something a little more clear? It still doesn't compare to RD or Real Definition.
It's a bit like the whole HD craze, who cares if something a little more clear? It still doesn't compare to RD or Real Definition.
Simple, I don't want to pay extra to the already espensive cinema tickets when they are only showing that film in 3D. Honestly most film don't really utalize the 3D effect properly other than the whole "in your face" type of effect. Avatar got it right but the rest not so much.
It's more expensive than 2d, it gives me a headache and I don't notice it adding anything tangible to the viewing experience. There's been a few films i've seen in both at the cinema, and honestly i cant really notice the difference except for when they make the typical really crass effort at 3d.
I understand why people used to hate it, I mean it used to absolutely terrible (whenever I think of the movie Spy-kids 3 I instantly get a massive headache), but these days when people actually shoot the movie in 3d rather then convert it I think it looks amazing. But at the end of the day it's just like CGI a means not an end, and like CGI when used right it can be amazing, if you make it the focus of your movie, you're gonna have an awful, awful movie (and in the case of bad 3D it can literally make people sick).
And on a related note whenever I hear someone say something along the lines of "3D is nothing but a gimmick for silly movies." I can't help but laugh and wonder if they realize that alot of people said the same thing about color when that first came around.
And on a related note whenever I hear someone say something along the lines of "3D is nothing but a gimmick for silly movies." I can't help but laugh and wonder if they realize that alot of people said the same thing about color when that first came around.
I have a slight break in my nose that was never set properly, so putting the 3D glasses over my regular glasses forces them to sit right on the break. Short term it isn't bad but after an hour my nose starts to hurt so much it distracts me from the movie. That is why I dislike 3D movies. Also my girlfriend can't see 3D anyway so not much point.
In movie terms, it's a fad I wish would hurry up and die out but doesn't look like it will, at least not yet. If it's making more money than pre-3D, then they'll keep making them.
However it does nothing for the "art" of filmaking, it adds nothing to story telling and does nothing to make bad scripts better, bad acting better or bad films better. It adds a little eye candy that if anything, is a distraction from the actual film, or the parts of it that matter (or should matter if they were good films).
If there's not much 3D in the film, it serves no purpose and shouldn't be there. Too much and it will break immersion. It's very hard to get right. I think Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D) is probably an example done right. It's purely a sensory experience, the story and acting are rubbish and just there to fill gaps between visual extravaganza.
I think studios use it as a gimmick to get people to see unimaginative films. And the same as EA has done to our games, studios have done to movies with "broadened appeal" ruining stories and the industry to watch the expensive crap they churn out.
However it does nothing for the "art" of filmaking, it adds nothing to story telling and does nothing to make bad scripts better, bad acting better or bad films better. It adds a little eye candy that if anything, is a distraction from the actual film, or the parts of it that matter (or should matter if they were good films).
If there's not much 3D in the film, it serves no purpose and shouldn't be there. Too much and it will break immersion. It's very hard to get right. I think Avatar (which I haven't seen in 3D) is probably an example done right. It's purely a sensory experience, the story and acting are rubbish and just there to fill gaps between visual extravaganza.
I think studios use it as a gimmick to get people to see unimaginative films. And the same as EA has done to our games, studios have done to movies with "broadened appeal" ruining stories and the industry to watch the expensive crap they churn out.
I don't really care for 3D but they few 3D movies I've seen have seemed significantly darker than their 2D counterparts. Other than that 3D as we know it now is still just a filming trick using multiple lenses and not a true-to-life representation of how humans actually see the world. This could be why a lot of people complain about headaches if they watch a 3D image for too long. Also the way 2D animation and film works, our brains are automatically able to tell how things are supposed to look in terms of fore, middle and, back grounds. Another thing that keeps 3D from being completely viable is the fact that you need both of your eyes to work to see it. I know people with one eye are a sort of minority but they're out there.
I kind of like 3D. The only movies I've seen that were 3D have been Tron Legacy and...that animated Dreamworks one about the inventor-kid who gets adopted by his future self (spoilers). I plan on seeing Finding Nemo when that's out again too. I also own a 3DS but only use the 3D feature for cutscenes and even then I'd only use it some time (gotta conserve that battery). I think once we have holographic imagery or some similar technology we'll really be able to exploit 3D in a more viable way that everyone can enjoy...except for the totally blind of course, the poor people.
I kind of like 3D. The only movies I've seen that were 3D have been Tron Legacy and...that animated Dreamworks one about the inventor-kid who gets adopted by his future self (spoilers). I plan on seeing Finding Nemo when that's out again too. I also own a 3DS but only use the 3D feature for cutscenes and even then I'd only use it some time (gotta conserve that battery). I think once we have holographic imagery or some similar technology we'll really be able to exploit 3D in a more viable way that everyone can enjoy...except for the totally blind of course, the poor people.
Because double-stereoscoping gives me a fucking migraine.
My eyes work in 3D already. Taking something that clearly looks 2D and applying a 3D effect makes it awkward for my brain.
The only 3D anything to date that I've been able to stand for a long period of time is Starfox 3D.
My eyes work in 3D already. Taking something that clearly looks 2D and applying a 3D effect makes it awkward for my brain.
The only 3D anything to date that I've been able to stand for a long period of time is Starfox 3D.
Here's the thing - first off, 3D isn't. It is 2d with funny colors that tricks your brain.OlasDAlmighty said:
When movies are made as true 3d Holograms, then I'll be onboard. The current visual trickery gives me a (literal) headache.
Secondly, "2d" films aren't 2d either - they are 2d pictures of a three dimensional reality. Even if the depth doesn't "jump out" doesn't mean it's not there.
"3d" makes things seem to appear beyond the screen - which is just as unrealistic. 2d film is like a window into whatever you're watching - 3d is like a window with a puppet show in front of it. It's distracting and pointless.
For those reasons, and the migraines "3d" causes me, I say that current 3d is nothing but a fad that should die. When true 3d - ie, Holograms, become popular, then we'll see.
Edit:
Or this:
That pretty much sums it up.Daystar Clarion said:
One thing I have always wanted to question about 3d is that I can notice it when I'm watching in the fact that I can see the change of depth but I wonder why because only one of my eyes actually works.
Is it my brain tricking me or is it not actually 3d or am I just completely confused
Is it my brain tricking me or is it not actually 3d or am I just completely confused
Its a gimmick. Most movies that state 3D mean they will have random shit flying at the camera....normally for no real reason than to have shit flying at a camera. Real 3D to me is that there would be added depth to the movie, as in your looking more at reality, as if watching a theatre play. Kinda like a hologram, where there is a depth of field.
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.
Also, a shit film is still shit in 3D. In that respect 3D adds nothing, except from the added cost of a ticket. At the moment, you are just paying extra for nothing. Maybe this is something that will be better in the future. Already The Hobbit at 48 fps is supposed to look more real and more like watching a theatre play than a movie due to those extra frames. But i guess we shall see.
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.
Also, a shit film is still shit in 3D. In that respect 3D adds nothing, except from the added cost of a ticket. At the moment, you are just paying extra for nothing. Maybe this is something that will be better in the future. Already The Hobbit at 48 fps is supposed to look more real and more like watching a theatre play than a movie due to those extra frames. But i guess we shall see.