Why all the 3d hate?

[EricKei]

Same sort of issue here -- I am all but blind without my Hubble lenses -- er, I mean specs. Movie theater 3d specs don't fit in front nor behind them for me, and I honestly have yet to see any 3D effects that would justify the additional cost of a 3D TV and (presumably) specialized 3d-overlay specs that would indeed fit properly. (I suffered thru 3D Avatar by holding the damned things to my face. Wasn't worth the trouble)

It's not that I dislike of 3D movies/effects in general, it's just that I have yet to be really impressed. Keep in mind that the idea of 3D movies goes back to at least Jaws 3D, three decades ago...If the market for this was really that huge, one would think that more effort would have been put into making significant improvements to it by now -- And yes, I do feel that not having to wear the red & blue 3d glasses IS one of those "significant" advances. Now if they'd do more, and use the tools at their disposal more effectively, then I will be impressed. I guess you could say I'm 3D-agnostic for the near future

 

[Vivi22]

No one's saying 3D isn't cool. The issue with it is that's where it stops. It's a neat novelty that doesn't really add much to the experience. A good movie will draw me in regardless of simulated visual depth, and gimmicky tricks aren't going to save a bad one.

This is basically what I would have said. I mean honestly, it was kind of neat at first to see the depth that you got watching Avatar, but it didn't make it more than the mediocre movie it was. Nor did it forever alter the way I will see and watch movies.

When you add in that many 3D movies are shot in 2D and altered after to be 3D (and not being shot with it in mind as a result) so that movie companies can charge you more money and get away with it, and the whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

And I'd be remiss not to mention that a, not insignificant, portion of the population can't see the 3D effect at all.

Personally, I don't pay for 3D movies anymore. If there's a 2D version showing, I watch that. If not, I'll often wait for the Blu-Ray or watch it on TV. I refuse to support 3D movies that use it as a quick cash grab rather than a way to supplement the experience, and I certainly don't need 3D to enjoy a movie. If I did, then it means the movie was shit.

 

[tippy2k2]

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.

Except that it's ruining 2D movies too. 99% of these 3D movies have that "3D money shot". You know, the killers weapon flies at the camera! The bad guy doing his signature "flip a coin taunt" right at the camera! The car explodes, causing the pieces to fly right at the camera!

All of this bullshit just pulls you right out of the movie.

 

[-Dragmire-]

It breaks immersion for me. It's only great use might be for virtual roller coasters.

 

[Reaper195]

I wear normal glasses. The glasses I have to wear to watch something in 3D actively hurt the bridge of my nose.

That, and aside from 3D and maybe Saw 7 and Final Destinations, I have yet to see a movie in which 3D was both worth it and made any difference to the movie.

 

[Jauffre]

As someone who wears glasses, I will refuse to consider it until its glasses free. Do you know how uncomfortable it is to try and wear two pairs of glasses for something that is not even worth it?

 

[DanielDeFig]

Because 3D is usually only done in one of two ways: It's either noticeable and intrusive, or unnoticeable and therefore pointless.
Some movies do hit just the right spot, computer animated movies mostly. Unfortunatley, the last time I watched a movie that got it right (Kung Fu Panda 2), I had a headache for the rest of the eveneing. I had heard about ppl getting headaches from 3D before, but it had never happened to me until then.
Finally, I've noticed that apparently a lot of ppl turn down the 3D effect on the 3DS so much that actually just turn it off, before they can play comfortably. (Then what the hell is the point of spending all that money on the same DS product, with the only difference being the 3D effect, if no-one uses it!?!)

It's a gimmick that is far to expensive for what little it adds to the experience (If anything). I'm just glad that the "3D craze", which really only existed in the industry (and never really among the public), is finally dying down again.

 

[Skoosh]

It's very easy to mess it up, while being very hard to do right. Even when done right, it adds nothing to the movie.

Also it costs way more to see movies in 3D and seems to be an obvious gimmick. It's a ploy to keep theaters in business since everyone has a 55" HDTV and can rent a movie for a dollar rather than spend 20 bucks. They are trying to come up with anything that people can't get at home, and that's their best attempt.

I don't want to wear plastic glasses over my actual glasses, I don't want to pay extra, and the 3D itself is either neutral or negative for my movie experience. No point in it.

 

[Drakmeire]

Example:
Let's say there's a guy who wears a jetpack to go to work and saves gas that way. He has a little bit of fun with the jetpack but isn't wasteful. Everyone grows to love this guy because he knows how to use said jetpack correctly and only takes it to places to be cost effective. Now let's say people start copying this guy but they use their jetpack to get the mail and fly around in circles all day not going anywhere, doesn't it kind of ruin the good thing that the jetpack is?
3D is kind of like that, if used correctly it can make a movie fun (works great for self-aware campy horror movies like The Final Destination) but when EVERYONE is using it wrong it just becomes wasteful and annoying.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Can anyone tell me if this is just my eyes or if its a fault in 3D technology itself:

motion shots, you know where the camera is moving around something(such as a fly over for example), With me I find they don't work at all with 3d. If its a still background 3d works fine, but add in motion and it just goes all blurry and.. well as I said, doesn't work at all.

I don't seem to get issues with headaches and stuff.
But is it just me?

 

[Mimssy]

It's easy to do it poorly, it costs more to see, and usually makes me want to vomit.

 

[WhatIsThisIDontEven]

Because I don't wanna spend an extra $5 to have things look like a diorama. The movies are not 3D, they just look like theres a backdrop.

 

[Dunkerloop]

The Main Thing I tend to have wrong with 3D In movies is how much of an emphasis they place on it over other things, and how often It tends to effect review scores. Avatar, while having pretty good 3D, was overall only average at best, and not a movie I'd think about rewatching for a long time.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I think it's overused. Not that I doubt there aren't any good 3d movies... but we really should cut back a bit.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Simple, it's unnecessary and not as immersive as it should be.
Ok yes Avatar did achieve what I claim that it doesn't do but which other films had the same effect as Avatar? Monster Vs Alien? Tron Legacy? I think not.
Seriously all 3D films had simple use it as a cheap effect and not constant throughout the film (e.g. in Tron Legacy sure the bike scene is cool in 3D but what about seeing them having dinner in 3D does not have the same effect).
That overall make it unnecessary and it cost a few pounds more in see it in 3D. Cinema tickets are already expensive (depending where you lived) so why should I fork out a few more pounds for a cheap effect where I get the same experiences in plain old 2D?

 

[chadachada123]

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.

Eh, the theater near my house does it, but only for some animated films. It's really stupid.

I'm not arguing against the very use of the technology, since it certainly does enhance *some* movies, I'm only complaining about the price and the fact that many movies aren't worth it or are gimmicky.

 

[Saltyk]

It's a pointless cheap obnoxious gimmick that adds nothing to the experience. It only distracts me from what I wanted to watch at best and gives me a headache at worst. It adds nothing to the experience. Then, they want to force it upon us. It adds nothing to the experience! I've heard that 3D in games actually forces them to compromise on graphics a little. It doesn't add a damn thing to the experience! Most 3D requires glasses, which annoys those that wear glasses, and makes home use rather difficult and bothersome (not to mention a pair for your home costs like $100US or so). Can you seriously picture a day when you take your own personal pair of 3D glasses to a friends to watch the Super Bowl? Did I mention that it adds nothing to the experience?

 

[ElPatron]

>useless gimmick
>makes heads hurt
>makes movie theater tickets obscenely expensive (anyone who says that there is an option, shut up, not every schedule works for everyone, and not every theater buys the 2D version)
>doesn't make a bad movie a good one (see Avatar, Clash of Titans)
>basically adds nothing to the experience

 

[Johann610]

3D isn't cool. I have to wear special goggles (which I detest unless I NEED them), pay MORE money (after dropping 20 on tickets and 15 on food), and keep my head level? For what?
And that's my real issue. If you want to make depth, make shots with depth! Study paintings, FFS! They made depth WITHOUT 3D! For millennia. Practice some basic framing and cinematography. 3D adds zilch when the framing and coverage is done right. Did you mean to say, things come out at me? The last time that impressed me, I was watching Captain E.O.--and I was 10. I'm with Yahtzee on this--3D adds either #$%^-all or a migraine. And I am not risking 10 dollars (you see movies alone? How...unfortunate), a migraine, and one more thing to carry into a theater, for F#$%-all.

 

[The Lugz]

It's junk. that's why.

the 3d currently in games and films is so pathetically overstated, paper cutouts that are placed seemingly randomly in depth that rarely fools me into thinking more than 'why does this suck so hard'

our current 3d technologies are pitiful, migraine inducing colossal wastes of time, effort and money

there's simply no up side. at all. on most systems it hogs resources that could be used to simply make the medium better with the usual tweaks
and for pc games, there's graphics drivers, game engines, hardware configurations to account for

when i tried it on batman, it just ruined the game and any time i moved my head 1 mm to the side, or angled the screen shifts.. Woah..

( half of my games run 3d fine, with nvidia's system but the rest are just plain broken objects out of depth / place / missing / flashing )
i cant comment on the 3ds or 3d tv's because i don't own one, but what i tried did not impress me
i didn't even bother downloading the 3dvision driver with my last gpu update, i haven't used it in months

it seems to me that it's the latest gimmick, it's exactly like the fake depth perception effects in the so called "2.5D" games pre-depth in game engines
if you like it then cool but don't expect everyone to pray at the gods of '3d' any-time soon