Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[Tropicaz]

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.

 

[kickyourass]

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.

 

[Commissar Sae]

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.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

Here's the thing - first off, 3D isn't. It is 2d with funny colors that tricks your brain.

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:

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.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[hawkeye52]

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

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

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.

 

[Broady Brio]

Alice In Wonderland in 3D gives me cluster headache. I have all the reason in the world to hate it.

 

[LorienvArden]

I can not see 3D movies as my eyes aren't working "at the same time" (ambilexia). I really wanted to see the Avengers movie, but I couldn't - as it was ONLY shown in 3D here. I actually looked up where a 2D version might be played, and it was more then 200km away. So yes - 3D can go die in the fiery pits of hades for all I care.

 

[Jared Domenico]

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.

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.

And do you know what makes all these cognitive tools work? I'll give you a hint: _____ Picture. Fill in the blank. I know you can do it!

If you guess "Motion," as in "Motion Picture," get yourself some of your favorite confection because you're a winner! If not, then you're a dumbass - a condition that I will soon rectify.

The way that objects move around each other and within their environment is sufficient information for an undamaged brain to get a working idea about the size and relative distances away from each other and the viewer of those said objects.

Sure, you don't get much in the way of precision, but you're not exactly required to dodge a hungry lion jumping out of the screen. Your skullfilling should have enough data for you to understand what is going on.

This is why Deviantart is so hilariously awful: in a static image, a lot more effort and skill has to be exercised to create the illusion of depth, simply because things aren't moving. When things are moving around each other, your brain does all the work for you, and you know where stuff is!

So what can we conclude about Hollywood's fixation with 3d? The way that is hugs it tightly, coats it in mucous, and has a piss fit when a movie isn't released with it (COUGH G.I. JOE RETRIBUTION COUGH)?

It's the same reason why Joseph Campbell's rigid corpse dong just can't stop getting sucked by screenwriters: Hollywood is convinced that you are brain damaged. Movie studios think that, because you are retarded, you can only tolerate plots that are derivative, unoriginal schlock. It thinks that if you don't get a movie that is 'familiar,' you'll hulk-out and smash their profits into little bits.

And we almost proved them wrong! Up until the advent of 3d (the first time, and this time), Movie Theater sales were in a slump. We were getting tired of derivative, unoriginal schlock. Hollywood's answer, far from hiring better writers and funding actually worthwhile movies, was to just update a gimmick from half a century ago by making it black and plastic and charging extra for it.

And then we proved them right.

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.

 

[Joshimodo]

It's awful.


-Destroys immersion entirely.
-Causes eye strain, headaches.
-Distracts viewer from the film itself.
-Causes the film to be darker (due to glasses).
-Large portions of potential audiences cannot see 3D.
-Does not, and never will add anything to the film.

So, ugly and bad.

 

[sextus the crazy]

Because MY EYES! THE GOGGLES, THEY DO NOTHING!

Seriously, the first 3D movie I watched, I took off my glasses and watched the movie as an ugly mess instead.

 

[omega 616]

To me, it isn't 3D. To me it makes every 3D movie look like a pantomime, you have a background that looks like it's a million miles away, then the foreground is a foot away.

If you look at a picture like this

it looks like a 3D film. You have this lump of earth at the front, a huge disconnect, then a mountain.

Compared to this picture.

which has the grass in your face, the lake is mid-ground and the trees in the back ... it seems to flow better.

There are other things, head aches, eye strain, extra cost (did I even hear of only parts of films being 3D?).

Plus, I have to wear glasses over my glasses ...

 

[Samwise137]

My digital arts class a few years ago actually took the time to research it. Here's a summary of what we discovered. 3D films are, in a literal sense, a 2D projection on a 2D plane. The image is rendered in such a way that when coupled with, for lack of a better term, an optical illusion, the brain is allowed to PERCEIVE it as having depth. The problem being that the brain is designed to naturally want to perceive a projected image as 2D and essentially tries to force you to perceive it as such. This disconnect of signals is what makes us feel negatively about 3D films.

Again, that's a MUCH condensed version of what we found. I'll see if I can find the original research paper with diagrams and such and link it somewhere.