Poll: What does everybody think of 3D movies?

[Nexxis]

I've heard that there are some movies that look great in 3D. Personally, I don't bother with them for a few reasons:

1. Price is too high. Sometimes, they can be twice as expensive as a normal movie ticket.

2. Length. I enjoy going to a museum or science center and watching a 15 - 30 minute feature in 3D. with that being said, that's my limit. I can't sit through a 3D movie for longer than that which brings me to my next reason.

3. 3D glasses. I find the glasses irritating and uncomfortable to wear for long periods of time. 30 minutes is pretty much all I can handle.

4. Waste of technology. Don't get me wrong, I love a 3D scene when it's done right and can make a scene very awe-inspiring. That being said, most of the 3D scenes I've come across usually involve something awkwardly flying at the screen. Something like this is ok in a short feature, but I think it's pointless to sit through an entire movie just to have 3 scenes were something flies at the screen.

All in all, I avoid the 3D showing of movies if I can help it.

 

[RandV80]

I like it. Was really enamored by the visual spectacle of Avatar, which 3D played a big part of, but otherwise I don't often notice. Apparently Gravity was supposed to be really good in the same manner but I missed that one.

I gotta say though for all the complaints you get about it on internet message boards, just look at the poll results here with 75% on the nay side, the general movie going public's opinion is overwhelmingly receptive of it. Some people cling to the notion that it's just a 'fad' and will go away, but 3D movie showings always fill up. Avatar came out 4.5 years ago, and 3D movies are still going strong. If they were going to 'go away' you would have seen them faltering already. Call it a gimmick if you will, but it's one the majority of people enjoy and willingly pay for.

One thing I'm kind of surprised about though, with wide-spread adoption of 3d and the cheap glasses the theaters give you I'm surprised no one's tried turning the glasses it into an actual product. It's just cheap lenses and plastic frames, so you should be able to make a variety of custom frames in different sizes and fits and sell them for $10 or whatever, with the point being you find a pair that is comfortable to keep permanently and bring with you to the theater. Perhaps that could alleviate the problem of some people finding them uncomfortable

 

[wasabinewt]

I remember watching Spy Kids (3?) in 3D and being so excited by all the effects. The only other movie that came close to that experience was Avatar.

I now cannot be bothered paying extra for 3D, the glasses hurt and it gives me headaches. And well most movies implement it rather poorly. So yeah, was once a fan but not so much anymore.

 

[trollnystan]

I've only ever seen one - Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland - and I never noticed that it was in 3D until the credits started rolling. With that being my only experience of it I can take it or leave it really.

 

[Vegosiux]

They give me a migraine. So I could say my opinion on them is sort of negative.

 

[soren7550]

I've only seen two films where the 3D was any good and I actually remember: The Lion King and Titanic. However, with Titanic, I only remember the underwater shots being phenomenal, and the rest of it, I can't really remember how the 3D effects were.

The rest of the time, 3D is just annoying. The movie is darker and a bit blurry, and since I have to wear glasses, having to wear the 3D glasses on top of those is really irritating and distracting.
Doesn't help that going to a 2D movie is already expensive enough. Don't want to pay more for an experience that I'm very unlikely to enjoy. I'll only do it if I'm going out with the boyfriend and the 3D showing is the only one available, and if it's a re-release that I really want to see (such as The Incredibles).

 

[scorptatious]

Sorta meh on them. If there's an option to watch the movie in 2D instead, I'll usually take it.

Some movies actually do take advantage of 3D and look great. Others don't even really try.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

With one exception, my 3D experience has ranged from "Didn't notice" to "Actively made the movie worse."

Most of the time I just stop noticing it within 10 minutes. In the case of The Hobbit and a few others, it made the movie look like absolute crap.

The one exception was Tron: Legacy. That looked absolutely gorgeous in 3D.

So for the most part, I actively avoid it. I intentionally go see the 2D showings even if I have to pick an inconvenient time.

 

[lunavixen]

3D gives me a cluster headache (even my 3DS can trigger them) so I have little choice but to avoid it, the only movie i've seen in 3D was Avatar, I liked it, but the resulting headache and additional cost isn't worth it to me when I can see them in 2D for a third of the price and without the migraine.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I hate 3D. If I really thought it did anything to improve the experience, then I wouldn't mind shelling out the money. The fact remains that it's too gimmicky. Now I know this is usually said of the latest "upgrade" in movies. Sound was once a gimmick, color was a gimmick, cinemascope was a gimmick, digital re-mastering was a gimmick, etc. But the fact remains 3D isn't all that new. It's been around for as long as Hitchcock (and color, and cinemascope, and so on). And while it's been certainly perfected since Dial M for Murder and Jaws 3D, it remains completely accesory to the experience. Whereas you can't just choose to watch a movie without sound or color, 3D remains optional when choosing to go watch what is ostensibly "a 3D movie". Why do you think that is? Because it's an accesory, and not an integral part of the experience.

That said I constantly watch 3D movies. I go to press screenings where we get the 3D copy of a movie if it is thus being released. And I don't think I've once even commented on a movie's 3D experience. I've seen dozens of 3D movies year after year and not for a second would I recommend paying the extra money. You get awed for the first few minutes and then completely forget it's there. The only time it can work, MAYBE, is when a movie is so action-packed that spectacle is more or less constant so you don't feel like the moviemakers are trying to impress you with a set piece magic trick. Pacific Rim's 3D was pretty good because of that. I'm watching Godzilla tomorrow, here's hoping it accomplishes something similar.

 

[teqrevisited]

I don't dislike 3d films but I'm not a huge fan either.

The only film I've seen in 3d was the second Hobbit film. It was there, but I've watched it again since in regular old 2d and I didn't miss the extra dimension at all.

 

[kasperbbs]

I don't like it. Glasses make the movie look darker, besides i have to wear them over my regular glasses or just watch a slightly blurry dark movie. The effects themselves are distracting, it just looked silly when a bunch of bald heads popped out of the screen for no reason.

 

[McElroy]

Certainly don't like it. It doesn't worsen the experience, but it does add 25% to the admission price. The local cinema gives no choice when 3D is available, which is why I didn't see Noah. 25% price increase means 25% less of me seeing your stuff.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

It's a detrimental gimmick that can just never ever be done right and belongs in the era it came from, whenever the fuck that was. It sucked the first time and it only sucks harder the more tuxedo'd executives think they can make cinemas "relevant" again by pushing it in our faces whenever their profits dip.

 

[shootthebandit]

What i really hate is when i go to the cinema to see a film (usually spur of the moment) and the film I want to see is ONLY 3D. Its basically a scam to get you to pay extra for the screening and glasses when a 2D showing is far too expensive as it is

I dont condone piracy but when the cinema charges me over £10 to get in then another £2 for glasses and about £7 for a drink and a snack. I can totally understand why people download movies and buy a £1 multibag of microwave popcorn plus they dont have annoying, smelly and noisy joe public to put up with

 

[Johnson McGee]

I like 3D movies. I don't like paying extra for 3D movies.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Eh, I'm indifferent towards it. The only film I actually wanted to see in 3D was Gravity and unfortunately I missed it. Saw Avatar in 3D, and it was kind of cool, but I have a problem with 3D in that I want to look around and focus on different things, but the view's fixed and so is the focus, which I find kind of frustrating.

As far as I can recall I've never suffered any ill effects from watching a 3D film. Apart from that one time I poked myself in the eye with the glasses, but I can't really blame that on the 3D. I think next time I see a film in 3D I'm going to have to try looking through the glasses backwards, just to see what it looks like.

 

[Kinitawowi]

I fucking HATE 3D.

I hate that it's been sold as the Next Big Thing in immersion when it's a pathetic gimmick.

I hate that I can't even see in 3D so I get nothing out of it.

I hate that it's okay to stick an extra £3 on the price of a cinema ticket and £300 on a TV for something completely irrelevant.

I hate that so many cinemas have bought into the bullshit - and the extra prices - that it's nearly impossible to find 2D showings of some films any more.

I hate that nobody has yet invented a system for 3D glasses that can clip on to the bridge of regular glasses, to make life a little easier for those of us who need them to see the screen in the first place. Have you ever tried wearing 3D glasses over the top of regular glasses? I have, and it made Dredd the second most unpleasant experience I've ever had in a cinema (behind some incompetent projectionist ruining Alien).

I hate 3D.

Hate.

Hate.