Why all the 3d hate?

[Mr Goostoff]

I've always regarded 3D as a gimmick that makes movie tickets more expensive, without adding much to the overall experience. More often than not, I don't even notice the 3D until they pull a "large object coming right at the camera" move, and then I despise it.

 

[Warforger]

Because 3D tvs are still far too expensive, and the requirement for classes still makes it too inconvenient for home use.

Regarding movie theaters, it's FAR too expensive. It's obscenely offensive for an already-overpriced movie ticket. Especially for animated movies where it literally costs no more than a day or two's work to make it 3D, and because many live movies are done really cheaply and look horrid (Clash of the Titans).

If done well, it's awesome. How to Train Your Dragon, for example, looked great. But it's just WAY too expensive for moviegoers to be worthwhile.

What? I remember getting tickets for a 3d version of Tron 2 and it only cost around 5 more dollars than the actual ticket. But perhaps that was just because it failed so badly.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

The problem with 3d these days is most of it ISN'T 3d, just parts in the shot. The actors, the ship, the house, etc. So it looks very "pop-book". You should never notice the 3d, it should feel as real as the movie itself. As a video editor I have noticed that movies these days fail to follow even the simplest of editing rules, much less the rules governed to a good 3d movie.

I am truly terrified and excited about Star Wars 3d in 2012. If anyone has a chance in hell of doing a proper 3d conversion right its Industrial Light and Magic.

 

[Thaius]

Yeah, I agree. I've never seen a good argument for 3D; best I've seen is that it dulls the colors, but that kink is already being worked out, and honestly, nothing will be perfect this early in its development. 3D still has a ways to go before it's perfected.

Usually what I see is, "It's a gimmick!" But that's not a reason why it's bad. You're basically claiming that it's useless and has no effect, in which case the absolute most extreme you can actually argue is that it does no good, but not that it actually has a negative effect.

The other one I see is when people see a movie that did it well, like Up or Avatar, and say, "I didn't even notice it!" Exactly. That's the entire frigging point. It increases depth of field and makes for a far more visually arresting experience when it's done right; that means, just like cinematography, it's best when it's not constantly drawing attention to itself. When you get so into a 3D movie you don't even actively notice things are popping out at you, it's done exactly what it came to do. You actually notice bad 3D, on the other hand, because it's either popping out too little or there are too many things popping out at you; not constantly being aware of it is exactly what makes it good.

So yeah, I have yet to see a good reason why 3D is bad. And I doubt I ever will.

 

[chadachada123]

Because 3D tvs are still far too expensive, and the requirement for classes still makes it too inconvenient for home use.

Regarding movie theaters, it's FAR too expensive. It's obscenely offensive for an already-overpriced movie ticket. Especially for animated movies where it literally costs no more than a day or two's work to make it 3D, and because many live movies are done really cheaply and look horrid (Clash of the Titans).

If done well, it's awesome. How to Train Your Dragon, for example, looked great. But it's just WAY too expensive for moviegoers to be worthwhile.

What? I remember getting tickets for a 3d version of Tron 2 and it only cost around 5 more dollars than the actual ticket. But perhaps that was just because it failed so badly.

I feel really poor now, because a mere $2.50 extra is still far too much for a glorified pop-up book. I'd never pay 5 dollars extra for a movie unless I got some sort of happy ending from the director, by which I mean a blow-job.

*Edit* I suppose I should clarify a bit too, I truly CAN'T afford to spend $3 extra to see a 90 minute movie for every movie I see, especially since many just throw in the 3D to make more money.

 

[captaincabbage]

Well, aside from the fact that 1/3 of people can't actually see 3D at all (my girlfriend being one of them), it adds NOTHING to the viewing experience. It doesn't increase immersion or drama and it certainly doesn't look that amazing.

And for the record, yes, I saw Avatar in 3D and yes it was pretty good, but I watched it again at home in 2D recently and I enjoyed it much more. It's just not an important technical advancement.

 

[chadachada123]

Yeah, I agree. I've never seen a good argument for 3D; best I've seen is that it dulls the colors, but that kink is already being worked out, and honestly, nothing will be perfect this early in its development. 3D still has a ways to go before it's perfected.

Usually what I see is, "It's a gimmick!" But that's not a reason why it's bad. You're basically claiming that it's useless and has no effect, in which case the absolute most extreme you can actually argue is that it does no good, but not that it actually has a negative effect.

The other one I see is when people see a movie that did it well, like Up or Avatar, and say, "I didn't even notice it!" Exactly. That's the entire frigging point. It increases depth of field and makes for a far more visually arresting experience when it's done right; that means, just like cinematography, it's best when it's not constantly drawing attention to itself. When you get so into a 3D movie you don't even actively notice things are popping out at you, it's done exactly what it came to do. You actually notice bad 3D, on the other hand, because it's either popping out too little or there are too many things popping out at you; not constantly being aware of it is exactly what makes it good.

So yeah, I have yet to see a good reason why 3D is bad. And I doubt I ever will.

It can have a negative effect if done badly. One way that 3D movies are made is by a process that darkens the film considerably. If the film is already not incredibly bright, it can make the movie near-unwatchable.

Regarding the "it's a gimmick" reason being given, it's not that being useless is a bad thing, it's being useless but *charging more money for it,* particularly if it's the only version in theaters, that is the problem.

 

[Gregg Lonsdale]

I owned a 3D computer monitor for a while, and from a gaming perspective I can say that it's completely useless. Even on the games where the 3D worked perfectly the hit to the processor meant that most of the time it looked better turning it off and upping the res. The only game where I preferred having the 3D on was audiosurf (trippy as).

Anyway, I realise this is a film/tv 3D centered argument, I just wanted to make an aside comment.

 

[Snotnarok]

It's far too expensive to justify what's little more than a animated popup book that becomes more and more difficult to justify the high price and use the more people you have viewing. It doesn't immerse (me at least) anymore than a regular bluray, if anything it just becomes a distraction.

It's not like this is the first time it's been pushed but it's not like it's gotten much better than the regular blue/red 3D glasses. It's simply not impressive enough to go with.

 

[Right Hook]

It is almost always gimmicky, it adds extra cost in the theaters, 3D TVs are insanely expensive for what they can do, having to wear the glasses is annoying, my eyes do start to hurt a little bit after a while, some people can't even properly see 3D, I personally feel it actually takes me out of the experience and makes it harder to notice subtlety in the movies. Most importantly, I have to hate 3D because if I don't it could become the standard, which scares me for all the above reasons, we need to move beyond this gimmick, the industry is wasting time grinding on 3D when it could be doing something cooler.

 

[Thaius]

It can have a negative effect if done badly. One way that 3D movies are made is by a process that darkens the film considerably. If the film is already not incredibly bright, it can make the movie near-unwatchable.

Regarding the "it's a gimmick" reason being given, it's not that being useless is a bad thing, it's being useless but *charging more money for it,* particularly if it's the only version in theaters, that is the problem.

"It can have a negative effect if done badly."

So can every other aspect of filmmaking. That's hardly an argument against the very use of the technology. When done well, it has a positive effect, and when done badly, it has a negative effect. That's how things work.

As for costing more money, I've never seen a movie theater that had a 3D movie without also having the 2D version. That means that those who don't like 3D don't need to spend the money, thus invalidating the complaint entirely. I could see how it would be annoying if the 3D version were the only one available, but as I said, I've never seen that.

 

[UrieHusky]

My only experience with 3D was with batman Arkham city, there was a booth for it at the armageddon expo so take my opinion for what it's worth.
To me the whole "3d" effect just makes the prominant stuff look like those paper pop out books I used to read as a kid, sure there is some feeling of depth but it just falls flat because of how displaced everything is. It's not nearly as immersive as just watching it in 2d, or at least not to me.

 

[teebeeohh]

it makes movies more expansive and makes stupid people tell me how the real world is not in 3D because stuff doesn't jump you. Also: it's a totally useless gimmick that hurts more than it helps because time and energy is spend to make a movie look good in 3D(and fail at it anyway) instead of other things.

 

[ckam]

...Well, your mileage may vary for what 3D has done in movies like Avatar or whatever, but I see it as a cheap cash-in that fails at being any good. I don't remember ever having 3D enhancing any experience whatsoever. It actually just takes me out of it even more so than movies usually would.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's not so much hate as this:
-Marketers: You really want 3D!
-Consumers: No, we really don't.
-Marketers: Yes, you do!
-Consumers: No!
-Marketers: YES!
-Consumers: NO! NO! NO!

We just want them to move on already.

 

[FallenTraveler]

Because I can't see the 3d, save for avatar, dammit.

Seriously though, that is why I hate it. Because I am being sold something I cannot physically use and I do not like that. I would probably hate 3d anyway as it just adds another 3 bucks onto my movie ticket prices...

 

[DracoSuave]

3d is a way to up the price of a movie but rarely does it actually get used well.