Why does everybody hate 3D?

[CLEVERSLEAZOID]

Who is it that you complain about 3D, but are using all of this other tech... so far, from what I've read of replies, I conclude that it's one of those general, undeserved hatreds, like english dubbed anime.

I'm not a massive fan of 3D and I see it is a gimmick. I have a HDTV. HD gives me clearer screen quality and images. I see all this motion capturing hardware [Move/Kinect] as a gimmick.

I am allowed to just dislike something, or must I give a valid reason? Oh yes, the valid reason being everyone is different and have different takes and viewpoints on things.

That does not give you the place to say anyone who doesn't like these things is merely 'jumping on a bandwagon' of 'undeserving hatred'

srsly, grow up.

Also, I agree with this:

3D has been around for FORTY YEARS. They only use it now to try to impress people who watched avatar and as an excuse to take more of your money for almost no improvement. That is the only reason people are including it in everything. If 3D was truly an advancement it would have been commonplace by now. People are just beating a dead horse. 3D is a gimmick because it was ALWAYS A GIMMICK. 3D comes in FADS and if it hasn't established itself in the forty years of its existence then it never will. It comes and goes, the same as the last forty years. 3D isn't pissing people off, its the fact these avatar FANTARDS forcing 3D down people's throats. People FORCING 3D will only make people hate 3D.

Although I changed Avatar wannabies to Avatar fantards. Because I think the people who loved Avatar that much more because it was in 3D must be 'tarded. I also don't see them painting themselves blue.

 

[captaincabbage]

Meh, I don't hate it, I just think it's unnecessary.

I agree with how most people are saying it's not so good and etc, but this is exactly what I was going to say. For me it really just doesn't add anything extra.

The only thing it adds to my viewing experience is a headache.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I have a medical excuse for hating it. Stupid brain unable to process images correctly.

 

[Voodoomancer]

Funny how many, many of the arguments against 3D in this thread point out stuff like tacked on 3D and headaches and stuff. When done Properly, 3D can/could make a movie or a game absolutely stunning visually, and incredibly immersive. 3D for the sake of 3D (examples: Clash of the titans, every time they pull a "poking you in the face" scene) Is horrible, but when done well, like in Avatar, it's awesome.

It's Just A Gimmick? You could say that about making movies in color, too. Gimmicks can become improvements.

 

[Random Argument Man]

It depends on how it is used.

If it's only a few objects throwed out of the screen, that's cheap 3D.

If it's to enchance the environment, that's good 3D. I once watched a documentary about undersea creatures at a 3D theatre. I really felt that I was in the ocean. That's good use of 3D and it makes the film better for it.

 

[Keith K]

It's an extravagance. People can't wrap their head around the idea that all new technology is inevitably expensive. They can't afford it so they default to negativity. If you can't afford something, then everyone who can must obviously be a self-indulgent snob. And by association, the extravagance in question must also be stupid.

Only a few years ago "I don't need HDTV. There's no difference."

 

[Jim 028]

My problem with 3D is I am half blind in my left eye, so when I try and watch something in 3D my brain can't put the full 3D image together, makes for lousy depth perception when trying to catch something as well.

 

[Tegual]

I have no problem with 3D, except i can see 3D the way it is currently shown, because of an eye condition. So to me it is an unnecessary expense on movie tickets, TVs and discs (if they decide to charge more).
I saw the 3D and 2D version of Avatar (not that it was a great movie or anything) but to compare the difference for me. The 3D version for me was dull, flat and very grey. Whereas the 2D version was vibrant and full of life. My biggest and only problem (apart from not actually being able to see the 3D effects) with 3D is it always looks washed out compared to the 2D version.

 

[Verlander]

Adds nothing to films, costs too much, is irritating to those who wear glasses or aren't sat in the right sport, and makes the film look worse. They should have invested in higher frames rate films, cos they look fucking incredible

 

[scar_47]

I just haven't seen it used as more than a gimmick in the few movies I've seen it in, as for games or a movie where it's an integral part it might work I don't know I don't have a 3d capable tv and won't for quite some time and most of the 3d tv demos in my area have either been broken or looked like crap. Maybe it's the new hd I don't know and even if it is I'll be a late adopter tv's are frickin expensive ans I can't justify purchasing a new one for another 5 or 6 years. So I'll withhold judgement until then.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It seems to me that most people who hate 3D are either viewing it wrong, they have an inaccurate perception of what it is, or are just cheap.

As a good subtitle to this theme would be...."looks can be deceptive"

There's 3 main reasons to dislike 3D, none of which have to do with viewing it wrong or being "too cheap".

Seriously? Wanting to save money is a bad thing now??

1) True 3D spoils stories: When you're mulling a story, your attention needs room to drift. With 3D storytelling, everything has to rotate around you. That either leaves you away from the plot, or with it rammed in every second.

2) True 3D is impossible. The Uncanny Valley effect is there for a reason. It helps you to decipher what is real from what is false. Overcoming that will cause perception problems, not overcoming will cause perception straining - thus story failure.

3) It's painful. Whether it's from eye-strain, nose-weight, perception filtering, motion-sickness, blinking/re-establishing, subliminal notices or simple lack of depth perception - this latest 3D isn't helping a lot of people.

And the last one - it's just not very good. It's been tried every 20 years since we've had film and it's never been more than a gimmick to boost prices while lowering story. CGI has had a similar problem - but at least pure CGI films like Pixars actually help.

 

[Circusfreak]

i acutally think 3D can be kinda cool. i thought avatar was really immersive and looked amazing. id probably buy 3D equipment if there was more support for it. (more games compatable)

 

[Mukil]

I see in 3D everyday. Sometimes I just want to sit down in front of a screen and escape from it.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

"3D" is being confused here.

There's CGI 3D where you have computer-enhanced graphics for awesome stunts in live-action and fully CGI movies.

And there's jump-out 3D that you wear glasses to enjoy.

The latter is a gimmick that appeared in the 80's and flourished in the 90's before dying rapidly. Its resurfacing in the 2010's is an abomination because it ruins the movie experience. I fell for the trap and watched Avatar in jump-out 3D and there wasn't a single goddamn scene in there with jump-out 3D (the ads before it had better jump-out) and the fat plastic frames were painful to wear.

 

[kahlzun]

I don't think anyone hates 3d in general. It's kinda like CGI- good in small amounts, or when used appropriately, but carries a great risk of being overwhelmingly gimmicky and detracting from the movie.

It also destroys the 4th wall a lot, which sucks.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

I love 3D, It's a great way to watch a movie, it may cost a few dollars extra but when your going to the theaters you want to have the best experience.