Poll: Why do people hate 3D?

Recommended Videos

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I wear glasses, If they made 3d goggles that fit comfortably over my glasses like some skiing goggles I've owned, It would be within the realm of possibility that I'd consider it.
Technical issues aside, I can't see much difference in the way hollywood has approached this compared to the 3d craze the first time. The movies being made in 3d just seem to have it tacked on. There's really no reason for any movie being released in 3d to have done so, It's just a gimmick and, to me, that ain't worth doubling a ticket price.
 
Feb 22, 2009
715
0
0
I think most people who say they dislike 3D actually just think it makes basically no difference at all, and that filmmakers should be focusing on actually making good films before obsessing over how fancy they can make them look with 3D.
 

Bobic

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,532
0
0
I dislike 3D greatly. I have to pay extra for something that I'll pretty much stop noticing within minutes of the film starting (or, as the case is more likely to be given that timeframe, during the trailers)and the only reason I do notice it is that it lowers picture quality and turns things into a blurry mess.

It sucks.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
I don't mind so long as:
A) Its implemented well. I don't want to notice something being 3D really ostensibly, it should be something I subconsciously pick up and think looks better than the average movie.
B) I don't have to wear the glasses. Yep, that ruins it out for me. I have to wear a pair of glasses just to see far enough clearly to see what's on the screen anyway, and the movie ones are far less comfortable than the ones I normally wear - and even my own start to feel annoying after a few hours. Beyond that, wearing any glasses makes me feel extremely tired. My eyes just don't like them.

So... yeah. When they develop 3D without glasses and use it mainstream, and use it well, I'll like 3D. I'm not against it as it is now, but I don't exactly care for it either.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
I think James Cameron is now experiencing what Allan Moore went through with Watchmen. He did something, once, as an experiment for a movie he made and all of a sudden every ************ jumped on the bandwagon to the point where its baffling as shit.

I mean I love Cameron, but he is a technology and small time corporate whore :p Of all your movies to post-convert to 3D and you chose Titanic? No Aliens? No Terminator 2: Judgement Day....actually, Titanic was a good choice. Though I won't lie, if he re-released T2 and/or Aliens in 3D, I'd be fucking THERE!


3D is kind of like anything else, when its used properly and really well such as Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon (man that scene with Hiccup and Toothless testing the rig, awesome!) and oddly enough Transformers 3, it actually does pull you in a bit more.

However, when misused, oh Jesus what a fucking mess. Hi Clash of the Titans, how is your shitty post converted doing?
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
Our eyes just aren't tuned to have good depth perception these days, so 3D ends up as a gimmock, because it doesn't really improve anything... it's like an optical illusion at the end of the day. If you look into the distance for example, not far, even just say, to the end of the room your in, about 2-4 metres - well all that stuff is too far away for depth perception. We have to be able to see alternate views of an object, basically see around it somewhat, before we can decipher it's shape and consider it 3D. The principle is all there, the practice is all there, but the implimentation is fricken horrible. I think that our brain starts to dismiss the effect as pointless - we are still looking at a flat shape, that is telling our eyes and brain that it's super-cool 3D, but our brain knows better and just adapts - it probably tries to flatten the whole image to make sense of it. Anytime I watch a 3D movie, I forget it's in 3D within 20 minutes.

But, it might be a better effect, better prospect for games. Because in a game, you are in control, it might be useful to have depth perception in a game, but in a movie it's just an effect. When I play a 3D game, my brain doesn't start to dismiss it. I have been playing Half-Life2 in 3D recently, using a little headset (VR920), it's actually a pretty cool way to play it. I lean my chair back, plug in a 360 controller, and play in 3D, with the controller, and it's pretty cool - I mean cool enough for me to want to play through the whole game like that... and I've played through HL2 a lot of times. The headset I use has 2 seperate screens, so is free from the issues that other systems might have, there's no flickering or colour degredation. Visually things aren't perfect, as people have already said, the issues with blurring etc stop it being too realistic, it's more like looking at a 1/10th scale model than a real environment. I'd probably not want to watch a movie like that, I'd rather watch a movie in 2D - but for first person games that support a controller, well 3D really can add to the experience, it just takes a little effort, maybe a little weed or a couple bottles of beer, but it can definitely provide an experience that is enjoyable and worthwhile.

Expensive though... I mean my headset was about £250, a good 3D monitor is about double the price of a standard one, nVidia 3D goggles can cost £100 or more, and that ski-goggle thing that Notch mentioned yesterday is probably even more expensive.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
3d doesn't add a dimension. We have ways to make a 2d image that conveys 3 dimensions without charging extra for it. It doesn't add anything to the experience. 2d movies have a third dimension, without the expensive extra price, the stupid glasses, the headaches, and the idiotic shit jumping out of the screen bullshit. I don't know that 3d is a fad, but it is definitely a gimmick. It adds nothing to the experience, it just lets theaters charge almost twice as much for the same fucking movie, plus annoying bullshit and headaches.
 

0z0wen

New member
Feb 11, 2009
244
0
0
Because my eyes are defective and I can't see the 3d in 3d films... But mreh, I save money for not having to buy a 3d television! :D
 

piinyouri

New member
Mar 18, 2012
2,708
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
It's a gimmick.

It's not even real 3D, not really.

Put your hand in front of your face and focus on it. Notice how the background blurs?

Now focus on the background and notice how it's your hand that is now blurred?

That's what 3D is, and movies have been doing that for years.

'3D' movies aren't true 3D as we know it, it's like a popup book. Sure, the image stands out, but there's no depth to it.
Pretty much what I was going to say.
It's also hard to feel ambivalent towards 3D when it is mostly used as a bloating device for ticket prices.
 

Fasckira

Dice Tart
Oct 22, 2009
1,678
0
0
The first film I watched in 3D was "Despicable Me". I'd been looking forward to the film in ages but when I got to the cinema we saw it was available in 3d and decided "Why not?".

Well. I spent most the film squinting, trying to focus on different parts of the screen - if I tried to look at the whole screen at once then things started to go blurry. I developed a headache about 1/2 hour in and by the end my eyes were red from watering a bit.

Needless to say I've never gone to see another 3D film.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
For me it's a couple of things.

1. Very few movies (especially live action) get it right. So far only the 8th Harry Potter made me go "Wow!"

2. Its a gimmick that cycles every thirty years or so. They did it in the 50's and the 80's, so it is due again.

Lastly, (and I know I said a couple but this is important) is the 3DS. Parents give this to their little kids unknowingly. Every title has it (unfortunately in fine print) that using the 3D on children under 7 years of age can permanently damage their vision. I feel that Nintendo is to blame here. They clearly market and cater to a younger audience, and while it is the parents responsibility, I feel that Nintendo is doing something that is harmful to children knowing that children will play it regardless of a warning that they don't point out.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
3D is ok, the annoying thing for me is that I had to nearly £100 for extra glasses. With most active 3D TVs you have to buy extra pairs of goggles, so I had to buy more for the once in a blue moon event when I watch a movie with a bunch of my friends/family at home.

If you don't have them you are boned.
 

fer-

New member
Apr 26, 2011
22
0
0
3d is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem and not finding one

some folks came up with this nifty technique and have been telling us the consumers that we need it for years now and the majority of people (that I know at least) give it a resounding 'meh'

it is not a technology that arose from a great need and that is why it has a bad rap, most people don't _need_ it nor really want it at this point, its just an additional cost
 

NathLines

New member
May 23, 2010
689
0
0
I haven't really watched a single movie in 3D. I get the feeling that I would get nauseous from them because I get nauseous really easily.

My dad has a real reason to hate it. He's blind on one eye, and some movies are only shown in 3D.
 

sethisjimmy

New member
May 22, 2009
601
0
0
It's a very cheap visual gimmick. Sure it's not bad for some movies, but generally only movies designed from the ground up in 3D look even remotely decent.

It also 1. Doesn't work for a lot of people and 2. Gives people it does work for headaches after a while.

Plus the limited at-home viewing. Nobody (okay maybe somebody) wants to buy a whole new TV just so they can wear a pair of dorky glasses to see shit on the small screen slightly pop out at them. The effect is generally only worth tolerating in theaters because of the huge screen.

And whenever 3D is involved it seems the movie takes every chance it can get to have corny shots where objects fly at the camera or variations thereof.

For me it adds nothing and in fact can take away from a movie easily. I wonder if in like a decade people are going to look back at the present movies and go "what the fuck were they thinking?".
 

karcentric

New member
Dec 28, 2011
1,384
0
0
3D is just a silly gimmick, why would I want to wear a pair of silly glasses to see stuff with slightly more perspective added to it?

It's a bit like the whole HD craze, who cares if something a little more clear? It still doesn't compare to RD or Real Definition.
 

BENZOOKA

This is the most wittiest title
Oct 26, 2009
3,920
0
0
I like 3D the most for bringing (back) high refresh rate monitors!

Haven't seen a 3D movie yet, though. But I do have nVidia 3D Vision.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
Simple, I don't want to pay extra to the already espensive cinema tickets when they are only showing that film in 3D. Honestly most film don't really utalize the 3D effect properly other than the whole "in your face" type of effect. Avatar got it right but the rest not so much.
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
It makes me nauseous and gives me a migraine, and it's distracting.
It's just another gimmick that'll pass.