Why all the 3d hate?

[Geekosaurus]

It's like having somebody tap on your shoulder every few seconds to remind you that you're watching a film. I can get way more engrossed in a 2D films that I can a 3D one. Also, have you seen how much darker a 3D film is? Because of the dark lenses everything looks all gloomy, and whilst that might suit some films, it really took away from my viewing of Tintin... I mean, something mature and challenging...

 

[Alssadar]

I don't really care whether the images are coming at me or not, I just want to see a movie, and be entertained. 3-D is just an extra illusion that just adds cost and appeals to quality freaks.
I don't care about any form of graphics whatsoever, as my comp can barely run Minecraft, I have adjusted to low quality.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

Because 99.9% of everything does it wrong. You either get the pop-up book effect (see Clash of the Titans) by a company cutting corners or you get pulled out of the movie (see essentially every 3D movie with something COMING RIGHT AT THE CAMERA!)

Hell, that "coming right at the camera thing" is fucking up my 2D movies even. You can tell when a shot was done because the knife would come at the camera in 3D, not because it was a good shot.

If you want to see a good example, watch Avatar. There is never a moment where something is coming at the camera. The effects are very subtle and unnoticeable but in the unconscious part of your mind, you are seeing these effects and they are making the movie more realistic because of it.

Yeah, same with Tron: Legacy. A good 3D movie (in my opinion) is a movie that can work as well in 2D as it can in 3D; and most of the idustry doesn't seem to get that yet.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

All the advocates for 3D need to seriously go to a Universal Studios theme park (or any that has 4D attractions), go to ALL of them and then say that 3D is better than 4D. Quite frankly, unless the 3D is going to enhance the experience (and not just make pictures fly at your face), it not really worth it. I would just wait for the Blue-Ray of a movie that I believe would have greater clarity in that format.

Plus, 3D is a pain to watch. I can handle maybe 1hr 30ms, but anything more than that is a real eye sore.

 

[Aurgelmir]

from the movie review robert to angry joe, a lot of people are expressing a strong dislike for 3d. why? I felt that avatar and harry potter order of the did a great job with it and would love to see more 3d enabled tvs. i mean have you see those things at best buy? amazing.

Mostly it looks Horrible, as most of the movies are not shot in 3D, but made 3D after the fact.
3D adds very little to a movie in therms of telling the story the movie wants to tell.
3D movies becomes darker, due to more or less only half the light reaching your eyes.
Also you need to wear those glasses which for some people is a pain (if they already wear glasses). Some people also get sick from watching 3D to long.

So yeah, I don't like 3D movies...

 

[targren]

It's a headache inducing gimmick that adds very little to the movie as a whole.

That's not true at all.

Everyone knows it adds at least $5 to the admission.

 

[RadiusXd]

I really don't think it adds to the experience all that much. In fact that is so much the case that despite the screen in front of me being 3d capable and the glasses are within arms reach, i simply have no desire to put on the glasses to see everything darker and slightly blurry looking. No Sirieeee. I will keep the crisp textures for most occasions thank you.

 

[Ferrious]

As I have only one correctly working eye it doesn't work for me, and it gets all my hate because I keep finding cinemas ONLY showing a given film in 3D and making me pay extra. I wear glasses anyway so I don't give a monkeys about having another pair on, regardless of how stupid it looks.

Let me bring me optical records and let me off the ticket price, and I'm cool. I'll still mock the industry for bringing a technology to market that doesn't enhance a film, can't be comfortably viewed by a significant portion of the market and costs more.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I... wait a minute are you a spam bot trying to sell us 3D TV's!? Dirty bastards are starting to get clever.

Anyway it adds nothing but a headache to the experience, which isn't my preferred sort of entertainment.

 

[Brainpaint]

It's just another development in film and gaming, like colour and sound or polygons and bump mapping. If used well it enhances the experience so much more in a way in which you wouldn't even notice it happening. If used badly like the two times I've seen bad 3D in movies (One converted in post, "Scar 3D" and another that threw things at you so fast and from all angles that it sent my dad to the hospital after it aggravated an ear condition he had at the time and made him start puking and passing out in the aisles, "The Final Destination"), or like in the 3DS where you have to be at a specific angle otherwise your brain just screams WTF and runs away screaming IN A HANDHELD CONSOLE, it's bound to set a bad example for people that haven't experienced enough of the good stuff.

The first 3D movie I saw in the cinema was Beowulf. And there's some stupid gimmicky bits in that movie. But when there was a scene involving arrows shooting out I ducked just like everybody else at the screening and realised "GAH! This is actually an awesome new thing I need to see more of!"

But after the above incident with my dad it kinda made the rest of my family scared about seeing it again, even though I kept tellin' them over and over again that it was shit 3D anyway and if dad hadn't barfed first I would've.
It took my sister and her boyfriend seeing Toy Story 3 and a family trip to see the last part of Harry Potter that finally convinced them all otherwise.
We all just gotta persevere. Give bad 3D bad reviews, give good 3D good reviews and eventually the crap cash-grabs and gimmicks will be mostly weeded out. It requires patience but it can be done.

 

[FamoFunk]

Because it's crap and spoils the whole movie for me, wearing glasses over glasses is annoying, and I find it makes the colours of the film really hit, too. I hate 3D, and I hate the cinema that only show a certain film in 3D now.

 

[Indeterminacy]

3D is a cute gimmick, albeit just that. The problem isn't the 3D itself, but the apparent need for manufacturers to plaster it everywhere that annoys me.

Actually, I was equally annoyed by the move to HDTV. The reason is that this new technology becomes the new "baseline" for watching TV. I don't give a crap about any of that! I don't particularly want to have my TV decked out with all of these fancy features and paying 20 times the price for it! I just want a simple monitor that I can watch the news or play video games on. But nobody wants to cater to this market; everyone would rather justify the large pricetag on such technology with reference to New Innovations.

That's fine when the innovations are something like recordable TV, or increased programme interactivity. HD maybe makes multi-angle viewing a plausible technology, which is its primary saving grace, I think. But I just can't see any practical value to the 3D effect, and that we're supposed to think that it's an essential aspect of TV viewing, to the point that manufacturers focus on adding it as a feature rather than driving down production costs, seems like just another moneymaking scam to me.

 

[TJC]

Really, as most said: 3D adds little to nothing.
I watched Avatar in 3D and thought it was pretty jolly and a year later I watched it on my completely two dimensional TV and it was even jollier.
This made me realize that there's no reason for the 3D effect at all.
It might make a decent movie slightly more immersive but it sure as hell won't make a bad movie suddenly good just because the moving pictures are now pushed into our face

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

It comes and goes and never stays. It was a gimmick the first time and it's a gimmick now. It jacks up ticket prices and TVs for no reason. The glasses are annoying and for many of us (myself included), it gives me a wicked migraine from the eye strain.

 

[thylasos]

It's distracting, gimmicky, and it gives me a headache?

It also shoves an extra couple of pounds onto the cost of my cinema ticket, or it would if I ever went to the cinema. As it is, I detest the entire experience, but that's another discussion.

 

[Technetium]

yeah, the only difference 3D makes is 2 extra letters on the name of your TV, a few more headaches, and a lot less money in your pocket. Of course they're glitzy and fancy, but tbh, I would rather spend money on an HD TV set before I buy 3D, the technology simply isn't quite advanced enough yet for the idea to catch off. It's great, but way too far-fetched.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Imagine 3D is a really nice cake, and the movie industry is getting that cake for us.
Infact, they've got 2 cakes baking, the first cake that they're going to give us is going to be a taster of the fully baked cake to come, but as a consequence, they take the first cake out of the oven earlier than the second one, so it's a sloppy half risen mess of a cake that gets all over your shirt and gives you sticky hands, and doesn't taste as good as if it had just been left to bake like the other one.

(They're trying to put in the 3D technology before they've perfected it)

 

[dickywebster]

As someone who wears glasses, i cant watch 3D films at the cinema, the 3D glasses just keep slipping off my nose. And if i take off my normal glasses, then it a 3D blur. Until they invent 3D that doesnt need the glasses then its just a pain for me.

Also, most films dont do 3D, they might be released in 3D, but thats usually the odd scene, i found i could watch mosto f thor in 2D as it only went 3D for the fight scenes where i ended up holding my glasses there so i could think "this 3D seems kinda pasted in".

As for the 3DS, better idea, shame u need to be in a certain position.

In all, the techs been declared great before its even got set up properly, give it a few years so they can do 3D that can be watched or played from all angles, then maybe less people will complain.