Alice In Wonderland in 3D gives me cluster headache. I have all the reason in the world to hate it.
Poll: Why do people hate 3D?
- Thread starter Olas
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.OlasDAlmighty said:
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.
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.
-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.
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.
Seriously, the first 3D movie I watched, I took off my glasses and watched the movie as an ugly mess instead.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
For me it's simple. I hate 3D because the glasses give me a fucking blistering headache every time I watch a movie, so the negatives vastly outweigh the positives.
3D, when properly done, is quite enjoyable. Avatar, Thor and the Transformer movies were good to watch in 3D. Other movies, like The Last Airbender, The Avengers and The Amazing Spiderman had very little 3D impact.
Also there is the growing issue of piracy, its difficult to pirate a 3d movie. So yeah since people still buy tickets it wont go away anytime soon.
I think there should have been a fourth option, 3D can be good when used properly. im going to point out two things, the 3D in the amazing spiderman was quite good, but the 3D for the avengers had a few problems and that is because it was not filmed for the 3D format, spiderman was. I dont mind 3D, as long as its not tacked onto the film after filming.
>extra cost at cinemas
>not everyone can see it (people blind from one eye, people with lazy eye and Leela)
>just like pretty graphics can be a very important aspect of a game, it's cost of production means that producers will focus less on other important areas
>not even true 3D, just two 2D images
>glasses can bother some people
Basically your argument is just like saying "We need photo-realism in games because in real life we don't see things with pixels!"
Basically you can have Avatar's approach, or just knives and shrapnel being shot at the audience during Citizen Kane. I hate both ideas.
Basically... Something. I don't like it for personal opinions, not because "everyone" hates it.
>not everyone can see it (people blind from one eye, people with lazy eye and Leela)
>just like pretty graphics can be a very important aspect of a game, it's cost of production means that producers will focus less on other important areas
>not even true 3D, just two 2D images
>glasses can bother some people
Basically your argument is just like saying "We need photo-realism in games because in real life we don't see things with pixels!"
Basically you can have Avatar's approach, or just knives and shrapnel being shot at the audience during Citizen Kane. I hate both ideas.
Basically... Something. I don't like it for personal opinions, not because "everyone" hates it.
With all the inherent flaws in 3d, the fact that the only object that allows humans to see the effect is crappy overpriced piece of plastic that doesn't even work for everyone would justify the hate.Nouw said:
Because (In the words of abridged Alucard) "It's a stupid fucking gimmick and everybody knows it."
Also as someone who has to wear glasses, do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to wear 3D glasses on top of them. It's not like I can just take them of and wear the 3D ones, because if I do that I won't be able to see the screen.
Seriously nearly every movie in my local cinema is 3D. With the exception of Dark Knight Rises I was so happy I got to watch that in normal 2D.
Also as someone who has to wear glasses, do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to wear 3D glasses on top of them. It's not like I can just take them of and wear the 3D ones, because if I do that I won't be able to see the screen.
Seriously nearly every movie in my local cinema is 3D. With the exception of Dark Knight Rises I was so happy I got to watch that in normal 2D.
Agreed, I dislike it because it's not really there to improve the film but to ramp up cost and since I have to ware my normal specs at the same time as the 3d ones it's less than comfortable, even then I just get none fuzzy images since it doesn't seem to work for me at all.Nouw said:
I like 3D, but only in the case of small particles coming out of the screen. During the Olympics opening ceremony there was a part in which bubbles came out of the screen and they genuinely felt like they were in my room.
Also works well in games. I found myself just stopped and looking at random objects.
Also works well in games. I found myself just stopped and looking at random objects.
I want it to die a horrible horrible death for three reasons.
1) My local cinema isn't showing 2D versions of a lot of movies, so if you want to watch a movie, even one only post-converted, you're stuck with 3D, removing customer choice, they do this because they can charge extra for 3D.
2) I wear glasses, like a large percentage of the population. Wearing a double set of glasses is painful. That's alienating a lot chunk of your customers.
3) It's a visual trick, which would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact it makes me literally physically ill. The whole fooling the eye thing that makes 3D work makes me sick. And I'm far from alone. Paying someone for the privilege of giving me a migraine isn't for me... sorry. That ties back to #1, so I've seen a lot less movies these last few years then I did before 3D "made a come back"
If they manage to evolve the technology to the point where it isn't a migraine inducing, neck cramping pain in the ass, I wouldn't have a problem with it... until then I hope it dies.
1) My local cinema isn't showing 2D versions of a lot of movies, so if you want to watch a movie, even one only post-converted, you're stuck with 3D, removing customer choice, they do this because they can charge extra for 3D.
2) I wear glasses, like a large percentage of the population. Wearing a double set of glasses is painful. That's alienating a lot chunk of your customers.
3) It's a visual trick, which would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact it makes me literally physically ill. The whole fooling the eye thing that makes 3D work makes me sick. And I'm far from alone. Paying someone for the privilege of giving me a migraine isn't for me... sorry. That ties back to #1, so I've seen a lot less movies these last few years then I did before 3D "made a come back"
If they manage to evolve the technology to the point where it isn't a migraine inducing, neck cramping pain in the ass, I wouldn't have a problem with it... until then I hope it dies.
I don't hate 3D, it's just that I've only seen it used in one of two ways. As a gimmick for it's own sake, with things coming out of the screen straight at you (which is boring after the third time you see it). Or to push up the price of a cinema ticket, in which case I stop noticing it after five minutes, which annoys me because, where I currently live, the cinemas just don't show the 2D version of any major release if there's a 3D version. It's boring and serves no purpose (except inflating profits).