Poll: What does everybody think of 3D movies?

[kwillis]

Hey there, I was wondering what everybody's opinions on 3D movies were. I tend to go to the movies with my friends quite a lot, and some of my friends love it and some hate it. We tend to just go to whatever screenings are on at the time, but I've been to a lot of movies, both with and without 3D and I thought I'd ask you guys what you thought.

Personally I don't really like the 3D effects. They seem so unnessecary and more distracting than immersive.

But yeah, what do you guys thing?

 

[Scarim Coral]

I think it's a waste of tech and money since only very few film make good use of it (Avatar and Gravity). I pretty much try to avoid it if I can since I ain't forking out a pound(£) or two when I can perfectly watched it as 2D.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

Never seen one, i would if i could
I remember using red cyan glasses to see a 3d dinosaur book when i was younger

 

[Bebus]

My girlfriend gets huge headaches from the effects, and I've honestly not noticed my experience heightened by 3D effects in those movies I have seen in it - and yes I've seen Avatar, etc. I watched them again in 2D and thought they were just as good, without the distraction of the awkward glasses and obligatory "thing reaching towards the audience" moments.

Add to that the ludicrous extra charge added for 3D showings in cinemas and yes, I go out of my way to avoid them. It is a gimmick that, in my opinion, adds nothing to a film and distracts from the fact that better writing, acting, filming, sets or effects would be much worthwhile areas to focus resources.

 

[krazykidd]

I like them. And as time goes on the 3D effects get better and better. Lego Movie was a marvel to watch in 3D. If i can watch a movie in 3D, i will.

 

[Zhukov]

I'd rather watch them in 2D.

Luckily most of the time I have that option, so it's no big deal.

I just find the 3D effect distracting. It doesn't simulate looking at a real three dimensional object. Depth of focus does that better.

 

[Eleuthera]

The local cinema only shows the 3D versions if available, so I end up going to those mostly. If I had a choice I'd always pick 2D. The glasses don't fit wel over my normal glasses, so I either am uncomfortable throughout, or unable to read the subtitles...

The 3D effects themselves also annoy me.

 

[SerBrittanicus]

If a movie is only in 3D in the cinema then I won't be watching it. Can't stand 3D - usually adds nothing to the movie other than a much more expensive ticket. I'll usually just wait for the movie to come out on DVD, so I can watch it in regular old 2D.

 

[Lieju]

I'd prefer seeing all my movies in 2D. It might be okay for 15 minutes or so, but eventually I just get a headache, and I don't usually see the 3D well anyway. It might be because my sight is much better in my left eye,I dunno.

The 3D in Nintendo 3DS works for me, though. But even then I don't often use it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I like it when used properly, but it rarely is, and even when it is it conflicts awfully with the stupid dual-subtitle system, Dutch and French at the same time, here in Belgium.

Hence why I'd rather not see any film in 3D unless there's a subtitle-less option, which is never available. And even if it would be it's only rarely worth it. Sadly my local theater always picks the 3D option if available.

 

[Aris Khandr]

I like the idea of 3D, but it is still in that gimmicky stage where directors are shooting scenes just to say "Look how neat this looks in 3D." As time goes on, and 3D becomes less of a novelty and more of another tool in a director's toolbox to tell an interesting story, I think the movies will be better for it.

That said, I did go to see Jurassic Park in 3D on an IMAX screen, because I love that movie. And it was great.

 

[Mr Fixit]

Other than the fact that the glasses are annoying & uncomfortable, I actually like 3D movies. Improve those glasses & I'll be all for it.

 

[hermes]

I prefer 2D movies if given the chance (not the least of the reasons being the more expensive movie tickets for the less than noticeable difference), but most new releases are in 3D by default. I might find some version that is in 2D, but they are often associated with dubbed versions.
In other words, I will go out of my way for 3D, but a lot more for other factors... I would rather pay extra for a 3D movie in the original language than a poorly translated 2D movie.

 

[Roxor]

I've seen one movie in 3D at the local cinema. It was okay.

Yeah, "okay" is about all I can say about it. It's okay to have it, but it's not anything you'll miss if it's not there.

I once tried looking at a 3D movie on an in-store demo with shutter glasses. Big mistake. It's like a return to the CRT days of instant headaches and flickering distractions. Shutter glasses are a terrible idea and anyone who promotes them deserves a severe beating.

Regarding games in 3D, I've tried it with red/cyan glasses. It can look nice, but if the game has relatively de-saturated colours, like Unreal Tournament 3, colour-sensitive activities, like figuring out which team controls a point, is damn near impossible to do. As far as I'm concerned, it's just a gimmick you'll play with for half an hour, then completely forget about until someone mentions it to you again.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

If a film maker knows how to use it, it can add to the cinematic experience. CG heavy films or directors who really know their glass seem to do well with it. I could count the amount of good 3d films on one hand. It has to be shot with 3d in mind. High contrast, high key movies work well. (With notable exceptions like Tron Legacy and Prometheus. No surprise, both directors had a background in design) Clean lines and an understanding of colour and values is vital. Too many 3d movies look murky and muddy. Truthfully though. I have not seen a movie in 3d I have not preferred on Blu ray. It has to be a visually special film for me to go 3D. Most of the time it's 2D for me. I am a bit of a visual connoisseur though.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Depends on the type of 3D, if it's a film shot in 3D and specifically designed to be in 3D then it's ok, but films that are converted to 3D in post-production look awful and it detracts form the experience I think.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

Seeing as I can't even see in 3D, yeah, I find them a colossal waste of money and time.

 

[Bluestorm83]

I wear glasses. If a movie is in 3D, I now have to wear glasses in front of my glasses. They NEVER fit right. Also, "Blinding Migraine" is not a feature that I think Hollywood really needed to add to its fare.

Nobody wants 3D. We didn't want it back in the day, we don't want it now. Since the average camera shot in a movie is something absurdly short like 15 seconds, the constant swinging of perspective makes the added depth do NOTHING to engross people. 3D effects are only good to show off just how cool weather effects can be, or in a "Whoa, that jet engine exploding came right at you!" moment. None of that is storytelling, and storytelling is what's lacking in movies, not more Michael Bay Explosion Porn.