I dunno, but have you ever tried to watch a 3D movie that requires those glasses, when you're actually wearing glasses because of bad eyesight?? THAT FREAKIN' SUCKS, ok? It's uncomfortable and a pain >_>
Why does everybody hate 3D?
- Thread starter Dindril
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't hate the 3D as an idea, but it's going through the phase where it's stuck to any movie just to get few extra bucks out of it.
I hate the current technology, with the glasses, that gives me a headache and makes the picture all dark and gloomy, and I don't know if it's the glasses that are in fault, or my vision, but in almost all 3D-movies I've seen the picture is blurry.
While gimmicks get old fast, short movies where stuff flies at you can be fun, but stretching that to a full-length movie...
I agree, 3D can be used as a integral part of storytelling, giving the artists one more thing to work with, but I've yet to see any good uses for it.
I hate the current technology, with the glasses, that gives me a headache and makes the picture all dark and gloomy, and I don't know if it's the glasses that are in fault, or my vision, but in almost all 3D-movies I've seen the picture is blurry.
While gimmicks get old fast, short movies where stuff flies at you can be fun, but stretching that to a full-length movie...
I agree, 3D can be used as a integral part of storytelling, giving the artists one more thing to work with, but I've yet to see any good uses for it.
I don't hate it, I haven't seen anything in 3D to make that decision. However, I prefer good old fashioned 2D.
In my mind, getting 3D gear is the equivalent of paying £3000 for a top of the range PC just to play Crysis 2 and play it every once in a while. To me, it's just not cost effective.
But that's just my opinion.
In my mind, getting 3D gear is the equivalent of paying £3000 for a top of the range PC just to play Crysis 2 and play it every once in a while. To me, it's just not cost effective.
But that's just my opinion.
My mom has astigmatism and cant see 3D, also agree with what other people have said about it being forced on us in every movie these days with no real merit behind putting it in most of those movies.
Honestly, it depends on how well its done.
My bloody Valentine? Oh yeah. I loved it. Coraline? Amazing.
Jaws in 3D? No thank you.
And it can give you a headache really easly. Plus, people who wear glasses have a harder time watching 3D. It just doesnt come out right.
My bloody Valentine? Oh yeah. I loved it. Coraline? Amazing.
Jaws in 3D? No thank you.
And it can give you a headache really easly. Plus, people who wear glasses have a harder time watching 3D. It just doesnt come out right.
I don't hate it, per se. I just find it rather unnecessary. You don't need 3D to make a good movie. Hell, look at Inception. There're only a few movies where 3D makes it better, like Avatar. Then there are those films, which is to say every other film, which scales up the film to 3D just to earn some extra bucks.
This irks the hell out of me. Also, I don't see what's so good about it. What's wrong with 2D, hmmmm?
This irks the hell out of me. Also, I don't see what's so good about it. What's wrong with 2D, hmmmm?
I'm cheap and the glasses give me headaches. Give me a full hologram and I'll give you my money. Until then, I'm fine with HD.
[sub]Also AHHHHHHHH!!!! Post 666![/sub]
You just used my example. I personally found the visuals in Inception better than Avatar. That and the story didn't get ridiculously cliched in the third act.havass said:
[sub]Also AHHHHHHHH!!!! Post 666![/sub]
For me, its the sticking the glasses over the glasses issue, as well as only seeing it as a gimmick that adds hardly anything to most movies. But not having really seen any recent 3D films, besides the final destination on DVD (I don't think that counts as the 3D wasn't working right due to TV not being the optimum for 3D) and that Chuck episode, it probably comes off as complaining about shows you don't watch.
I like 3d when it adds something to the movie. The thing is...most of the time it´s just a cash-grab. For every "Coraline" and "A Christmas Carrol" (great 3d), we get a "Clash of the titans" and a "Last Airbender" (crappy 3d).
I don't see it as a step forward. I think a '2D' film can be shot much more artfully through use of depth of field, which is impossible with 3D.
It doesn't improve the experience for me, sure it blew my tiny brain as a kid but so did glow in the dark stickers and lava lamps.
Could be because I've never seen it used well in any movie. I saw Avatar in 3D and it didn't do squat for me there as well.
Could be because I've never seen it used well in any movie. I saw Avatar in 3D and it didn't do squat for me there as well.
Because it improves nothing and frequently detracts from the experience.
A movie in 3D does not look any better then one in 2D, at least not to me. The image just looks weird and kinda "layered". I saw Avatar in both 2D and 3D and I found the 2D version significantly more pleasing to the eye.
Thing is, we are perfectly capable of perceiving depth without a fucking gimmick jumping up and down in our faces saying, "Look, loooook! This thing is closer to the camera than that other thing!"
Call me back when you've invented moving holograms. Then I'll give a shit.
A movie in 3D does not look any better then one in 2D, at least not to me. The image just looks weird and kinda "layered". I saw Avatar in both 2D and 3D and I found the 2D version significantly more pleasing to the eye.
Thing is, we are perfectly capable of perceiving depth without a fucking gimmick jumping up and down in our faces saying, "Look, loooook! This thing is closer to the camera than that other thing!"
Call me back when you've invented moving holograms. Then I'll give a shit.