Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[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).

 

[MetalMagpie]

Watching films in 3D makes me feel ill. That's really my big reason for not liking it!

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Snip!

Alright... so my problems with 3D.

1. Manipulation. Tickets to see a 3D movie are significantly more expensive in my region than tickets to see the regular version of the same movie. A friend of mine is a manager of a local theater, and he admits that they've been making money hand-over-fist since they cut down on the number of standard showtimes in order to get people to pay for 3D tickets. Every theater in my area has followed suit.

2. Manipulation, Part 2: Electric Boogaloo. Everyone seems to point at Avatar as the champion of modern 3D films. Yet, when Avatar came out on DVD/Blu-Ray you couldn't get the 3D Blu-Ray for it. Why? Because the film distributor had a deal with Panasonic at the time. The only way to get a 3D Blu-Ray of Avatar (other than auction sites and whatnot) in my region was to buy a Panasonic 3D TV. If you bought a Sony, you were shit outta luck. I have no idea if the 3D Blu-Ray for Avatar is more readily available in retail stores now, but that was a business practice I really wasn't too fond of back then. Especially when I had to explain it to customers at my Best Buy who would inevitably be angry about the situation.

3. 3D TVs. I don't know how much this has changed, as I haven't been following the technology since I left Best Buy, but the 3D TVs we had really weren't very good for anything but 3D movies. They also forced you to buy the glasses, which were incredibly expensive for such a flimsy item. If you were going to have company over, you better hope you have enough glasses, or someone's gonna get stuck watching a blurry mess, because the TVs themselves don't come with very many pairs. They were also pretty prohibitively expensive, despite the fairly small selection of movies that actually were made for them.

4. Motion sickness, vision problems, etc. If theaters start phasing out standard showtimes, or relegating them to the "off hours," people that get ill or physically uncomfortable from watching 3D movies are going to be stuck either dealing with it or just abandoning going to theaters all together.

5. 3D Re-releases. This one might be seen as kind of petty, but I can't stand it when older movies are re-released into theaters for 3D. In many instances it sounds like the 3D either wasn't very good or simply added nothing, and was likely just an excuse to bleed more money out of fans. The biggest example I can think of for this is when Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was re-released in 3D. There's a midnight showing review of it by the Cinema Snob that goes into quite a bit of detail about how obvious the movie was as a quick cash cow.

There's probably more that I can think of, but I'm supposed to be working right now, so I should probably pretend to do some work for a little bit.

 

[deadish]

Gives me headaches. I have trouble focusing. The 3D effect is not worth the eye strain for me.

 

[recurve6]

Every instance of 3D I've come into contact with, be it the 3DS, a Best Buy setup of Avatar, or sitting through The Avengers in theatres, has given me the most MASSIVE of headaches. Now normally, I never get headaches or migraines but I can't even sit through 10 minutes of 3D. Not to mention 3D is really expensive, poorly instituted, and doesn't add any kind of immersion.

Oh by the way, I had to sit through the entirety of The Avengers 3D without my glasses because of the aforementioned reason....it was horrible.

 

[Daverson]

'eh, I can't say I'm particularly big on it. Right now it just seems like a gimmick people want to charge extra money for, if it becomes affordable (like colour did), I'd probably start seeing movies in 3D, otherwise I'll just hang onto that extra £5...

Actually, on the subject of colour, I can't help but notice a lot of films these days are basically just different shades of brown, surely we could just compromise on colour entirely and just watch them in red-cyan vision. It'd save on fancy TVs and electric glasses and whatnot... but I guess that's kinda the whole reason people are trying to sell 3D nowadays...

'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.

Actually, it's not 3D at all, it's Stereoscopy (2 spaced images, think how stereo headphones have a seperate speaker for each ear, it's basically the same thing), "3D" implies the image actually has 3 dimensions (like holograms in sci-fi movies), which "3D" movies don't.

Presumably the driving force behind this technology is calling it "3D" because their target audience has difficulty with multisyllabic words...