Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

[The White Hunter]

My problem is that unless they have a non-3D choice you are forced to pay more for a movie that looks fuzzy and shitty quality overall cus of whatever the hell '3D technology' does.

And it gives a lot of people headaches... Actual headaches.

I don't get headaches from it.

It does however strain my eyes, making them tired after maybe 10 minutes, because I have to actively attempt to see it and would rather not loses quality visuals for the sake of it.

My bigger issue is it adds nothing to games.

 

[Deadyawn]

Well, first off it isn't true 3d. It's just an optical illusion that our brains interpret as being 3d.
The problem here is that this causes additional strain on your brain because it has to work harder to interpret what you're seeing and thats why people (including me) tend to get headaches from it. And headaches, for those of you who are mercifully free of such an affliction, suck. It's kind of hard to argue the merits of 3d when it literraly causes you physical pain.

 

[somonels]

Have you ever seen a 3D movie? If so how many? Was it good? How much do you base your opinion on those of others, since you don't seemingly form one of your own and instead make threads about it?
I've never seen a 3d movie, I never will. I was adamant about it being a bad idea from the beginning. I will concede the fact that Avatar would be worth seeing in 3D.

Congratulations, you have wasted hours of humanity's time.

 

[Olas]

It's an effect which adds production cost to a film and jacks up ticket prices, while adding nothing to the overall experience.
It's worse for gaming because you need special hardware to get it to work.
It irritates me as well. When I saw Avengers in the cinema in 3D, it was fine for the most part, but the 3D heavy scenes made my eyes hurt.

Except theatre tickets are a set standard price independent of a film's budget; and the cost of 3D technology is extremely modest compared to some of the things producers put money into when funding film productions. The fact that theatre chains try to exploit 3D movies to suck extra money out of your wallet is their own damn problem and it's beginning to bite them in the ass.

 

[floppylobster]

Isn't 3D the way things are supposed to look? Haven't we been settling for 2D simply because of technological limitations that we've since overcome? Sure it's been overhyped by advertising in the media, but I don't see how the stereoscopic viewing that our 2 eyes and brain are built for could be a fad. Shouldn't it at least exist as a tool in a director's arsenal for their own artistic usage? I mean, what exactly are the disadvantages anyway?

We have painting. We have sculpting. Why make all painters create sculptures?

We haven't been 'settling' for 2D, it's an intrinsic part of the medium of film. I'm happy for 3D to develop on its own course, (possibly into some 3D arena hologram type presentations). And if that development has to start that by piggy-backing off film then I'll have to accept it - but I won't go and watch it. In it's current form 3D is still a gimmick. A trick played on the eye and the brain to make it believe it is seeing a three dimensional image where there is none.

If you really want 3D, go see a play. It's even better.

 

[Bvenged]

I think 3D is a bag of bollocks. I don't like swearing online, but that's exactly how I feel about this false technology.

Whenever someone claims a movie is in 3D, I immediately become "that guy" and correct them.

"No, it's not 3D, it's false 3D... the illusion of 3D."

If 3D really was 3D, then I could shuffle to the left or right of the image and receive a different perspective of said viewing image. Instead, the image splits in two and I get eye-strain from looking at it after a couple of hours.

Holographic TVs, the very things currently in prototype and development, are expected to become commercial by 2022. They are true 3D, not this fake eye-straining illusionist technology we're using now.

So basically, fuck 3D. It's a cheap trick sold to make a killing. 3D is, oh I dunno', fucking 3-Dimensional; not this 2D shit with an illusional effect.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's not real 3D, shift your head 45 degrees and the illusion is already lost. It's a trick.

The human mind is perfectly capable of establishing a 3-dimensional map in their brain when watching 2D images. That's simply how our minds work. Adding 3D to a movie is like adding real lights to a picture of a lantern or a candle; We know what it is and how it works, the size, shape, weight, and girth because our brain immediately translates this.

If some people want this gimmick that's fine by me just give me the choice to watch my movies in 2D. But even that's too much to ask, since most of not all blockbusters released in my country don't even give you the option of 2D anymore. With Prometheus I had to watch it in 3D because movie theaters were too cheap to give us a 2D version.

So fuck 3D, may it die an ugly, painful death!

 

[DanielDeFig]

Isn't 3D the way things are supposed to look? Haven't we been settling for 2D simply because of technological limitations that we've since overcome? Sure it's been overhyped by advertising in the media, but I don't see how the stereoscopic viewing that our 2 eyes and brain are built for could be a fad. Shouldn't it at least exist as a tool in a director's arsenal for their own artistic usage? I mean, what exactly are the disadvantages anyway?

I have a serious problem with this clearly misinformed attitude (sorry, no offense meant towards you personally).
From what I understand, and I've seen a few posts by ppl who seem to know more about this, 3D does NOT work in they way our eyes are "supposed" to register real depth in the world. In fact, it works against what our eyes are trying to do to register depth, which is the main reason so many people get headaches from watching 3D.

I get it, 3D is supposed to look pretty, so it works in movies with colorful visuals and open landscapes. But it's more than that too, it's depth, it's an entire spacial dimension, and it should be a tool in the director's palette like color and lighting. Maybe sometimes it should be limited for artistic reasons, but to leave it out of movies entirely seems stupid IMO. So why protest 3D when it's the logical and sensible next step for the entertainment industry?

I have a problem with this too. The industry clearly doesn't treat 3D as "just another tool for filmmakers". If they did, they wouldn't charge extra money for 3D.


Which leads me into listing off every other problem I have with 3D

1) Charging that much extra money for something that doesn't add much to the movie. On top of that, many people stop noticing the effect completely after 10-30 minutes (especially if the 3D was added afterwards).

2) The fact that we lose about half the colour in these movies when we put on the 3D glasses (and we pay more for that?)

3) I didn't initially get 3D-related headaches, but after being forced to watch a few (because a movie I wanted to watch was only available in 3D) I can almost guarantee it after watching one now, along with feeling sick for the rest of the day.

4) While it has died down considerably, it still feels like the movie industry is desperateley shoving this 3D stuff down our throats without even asking consumers if we are even interested in the idea (I never was, and I'm still not.).

5) Putting glasses on top of my regular glasses or impractical and annoying.

 

[Olas]

We have painting. We have sculpting. Why make all painters create sculptures?

But why have only painters? Without 3D movies are just paintings by necessity. If directors WANT their movies to be 2D for artistic reasons that's great. Schindler's list was filmed 98% in black and white, The Artist was 98% soundless, but that was a deliberate decision made for very specific reasons related to the respective films.
I doubt the countless movies that were made in the past 100 years were all filmed in 2D specifically because the directors wanted it to look that way for artistic purposes. I see nothing "intrinsic" about 2D, it's just something we've grown used to out of habit so we think it's what movies are supposed to be like.

 

[Nazulu]

It's treated as a gimmick and done poorly, like the Wii. Should I support a poor job?

I remember a lot of people were going on about how Avatar was 3D done right while the Piranha was the real gimmick, these people are lost. All these 3D remakes just make the background blurry in some scenes while sharpening the hell out of whatever is in front. It literally lowers the quality of some detailed backgrounds in a poor attempt to be called 3D.

 

[MammothBlade]

I can't see 3D, thus I don't get anything out of the premium ticket price. Even then, it seems like a gimmick. Suppose it did work for me, I don't think it would enhance my enjoyment of the film, as it detracts from the rest of it.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Get me something that projects the 3d images straight into my brain without the need for glasses and we'll talk again.
Those red and blue outlines just make me dizzy.

 

[Olas]

I have a serious problem with this clearly misinformed attitude (sorry, no offense meant towards you personally).
From what I understand, and I've seen a few posts by ppl who seem to know more about this, 3D does NOT work in they way our eyes are "supposed" to register real depth in the world. In fact, it works against what our eyes are trying to do to register depth, which is the main reason so many people get headaches from watching 3D.

It's pretty simple really, each of our eyes sees things at a slightly different angle. Our brain uses this difference to translate depth from the separate images our eyes see. 3D cameras film things at 2 slightly different angles as well, the same way as our eyes. Those 2 separate images are then shown to us in a theatre where the glasses we wear sort out which image goes to which eye. Each eye sees the movie scene at a slightly different angle just as they would in real life. I don't see how this is unnatural at all.
If 3D gives people headaches it's probably from that shitty half assed post rendered "3D" which is created by computers after filming and looks like vomit. It could also be because 3D movies tend to send objects flying out 4 inches from our face every few minutes, which is just retardery on the director's part. You'd probably get headaches in real life too if objects were constantly flying right up to your face making you go almost crosseyed.

I have a problem with this too. The industry clearly doesn't treat 3D as "just another tool for filmmakers". If they did, they wouldn't charge extra money for 3D.

The whole industry isn't part of one big vertical monopoly, Steven Speilberg doesn't tell theatre chains how much they should charge for a ticket. Though admittedly I'm sure pressure is put on creators to make 3D movies BECAUSE they know theatres will want them so they can make more money. I think the distribution end was just hoping 3D movies would be more lucrative than they really are and being the greedy basterds that they were chose to exploit it. It doesn't change the artistic/aesthetic potential of the end product though.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Hurts my eyes, gives me a headache, and doesn't even look that good.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

I think its a great technology that is used in a terrible way. If proper research was put into "how to make 3d work in games and cinema" and come out with proper techniques and standards then it would be bloody awesome.

But for now its simply a gimmick to make people pay more money.

I dont own any 3d devices myself but have used quite a few. So far, nothing has really impressed me.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

This video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0VQ7-5b_Io
although silly in some places does display my main problem with 3D: directors use very generic, derivative methods to show off the technology in stagnant CGI set pieces, and in doing so detracts from the film.

Other than that, its an extra cost I'd prefer to not have to pay and simply adds nothing to the experience of any movie I have seen. And on occasion it can give me a bit of a headache.

All that said, the 3Ds I think has the potential to be very good: the 3D aspect, at least in the two games I played, felt like they actually enhanced the experience, rather than just be more shit shoved in your face for the sake of desperately raking in a bit more cash from idiot movie goers.

 

[Nouw]

Jesus christ are the glasses really that bad? I can't imagine how much strife you would be in if you needed to wear actual glasses in everyday life.

 

[The_Waspman]

Ugh, just because.

Need more? Well, because the majority of 3D films are post processed, which always always looks bad, it actually draws more attention to visual effects (and visual effects - like editing - are something you should never ever notice during a movie. This is why Zack Snyder movies are terrible), for most films its just tacked on to make more money...

Also, everybody's eyes function differently. 3D is 'standardised', while a person will have different focal lengths in each eye, different levels of visual accuity, which means that very few people will watch a 3D film as the studio hopes it is presented. There will always be some degree to which an element of 3D is ineffective. Either the foreground doesn't pop or (in my case) the background is flat. Which highlights something else - 3D films tend to look like the actors have been badly photoshopped into scenes (The Darkest Hour is probably the best example of this)

Oh, and finally, films are displayed on a screen, so it looks like you're watching things through a tiny window. That was something I found very distracting during Avatar, is that things would randomly just pop into the foreground. It breaks immersion. I've also noticed that a lot more films are being shot in 2D that are shot in such a way as to look impressive for 3D processing. So yeah, 3D is actually changing the way regular movies are being shot.

 

[acey195]

Its just a way to cash-in, to make sure people cannot watch all the features of the film at home (before the home cinema set, this was the ambiance with sound) so they will have to go to the cinema. more than 80% of the 3-d effects in non-animated movies is terribly bad/contributes nothing, except making you lose 30 minutes of the film, getting used to the 3d-subtitles.

I also get a bit of nausea from them and there are only small cinemas in the neighborhood where I live, so EVERYTYHING is in 3-d, meaning I just have to wait for the dvd/other sources

just to be clear: pixar and dreamworks movies work in 3d as they are made that way,its just rendering a depth layer for the entire movie.
2D+ movies are le Derp.
In disney... well it could work as it is easier to do, than normal non-animated movies.
which makes it easier to get the 3d more consistent, rather than 1 or 2 elements in the entire movie

also Goodguy Nolan

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I think the technology is at, or near, a point where it can be used to great effect by talented film makers. However it's new, or at least this generation hasn't made movies in it, so if it sticks about then maybe we'll see some good stuff come out of it.

I've seen a few 3D films, and the best one I've seen by far is Cave of Forgotten Dreams. It's a documentary about cave paintings in France. It uses 3D amazingly well, and that film has convinced me that 3D is not a gimmick, and can be used to great effect by a talented cinematographer (the film was made by Werner Herzog so it had talent behind it).

Seriously if you ever get the chance to see that film in 3D then do so. If you can't see it in 2D because it's cool anyway