I asked a bunch of friends the other day if any of them really like 3D movies, and they all said "NO!". Why exactly we're seeing so many of them when we all seem to dislike them is beyond me.
I have never bothered to use the 3d part of my tv and I have yet to enjoy a 3d movie at the theaters. I'm kinda surprised this fad has lasted this long.
This was pushed more by the theatres (extra fees on the ticket price) then pulled by the customers who wanted it. I personally really dislike the 3D experience and always seek out 2D showings - and fortunately that's easier and easier to do. The 3D sequences were often randomly tacked on and not critical to the story, and the rest of the time you had to watch the movie through tinted shades. No thanks.
> Sure you can see those movies in non-3D, but they sure like having a lot of 3D versions in the theaters.
That's because large numbers of people like to watch 3D versions in preference to 2D, especially for movies like those in the Star Wars series (less so for, say, romcoms, which is why you don't see them in 3D at all.)
There are several things that bother me with the current 3D craze.
First - and I'll admit this makes me biased - I'm blind in one eye. This means that it doesn't matter what technology they use, I'm not going to be able to see the movie in 3D.
Second, the only movie I tried to watch in 3D (in the last 10 years), was Coraline. It was a great film, but having to wear the glasses meant the film was very dark.
Third, I've yet to talk to anyone who didn't come out of the film without either a headache or at least a somewhat spacey feeling. The technology strains your eyes, and while I don't believe it causes any lasting damage, it still leaves you worn out after the film. Or maybe my friends and I are just too old.
Still, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you have to wear special glasses, 3D movies aren't likely to be considered a normal part of going to the movies.
It's more of a hint of how much money 3D makes the theater. As far as I can tell, most of my friends are pretty neutral on 3D. I don't like 3D, but I'll go to a 3D movie with my friends, especially if the only time we can find that works is a 3D showing.
I personally think 3D sucks because it is a gimmick that affects the cinematography of a movie. Even if you can see a movie in 2D, you are consuming a product that was creatively compromised by filming it in 3D. I've seen a lot of films in both 2D and 3D, and I do appreciate the gee-whiz factor of 3D for some kinds of movies, but it's really unnecessary for movies where spectacle is not the primary consideration.
Plus, 3D is really immersion breaking. When you are watching a 2D movie directors force you to look at a certain part of a shot by using a shallow depth of field. In a 3D movie, this results in a really disorienting effect where something in the foreground can be out of focus, and despite trying to focus your eyes on it, it will continue to be out of focus, while the part of the image that is further away is still in focus.
Realism isn't the goal of movies, telling a story is, and 3D gets in the way of telling that story.
I don't like them more than 2D movies but I also don't dislike them as much as a lot of people around here seem to. How to Train Your Dragon and Coraline come to mind as a couple movies that I really loved and particularly enjoyed the 3D aspect of. I would have still liked them if they had only been available in 2D but I probably wouldn't have paid to go see them in the theater. For most people the movie theater is the only place where they can watch 3D movies. I think that a big part of the reason that we're seeing so many of them is that 3D draws more people out to the theaters.
I suspect that the studios want 3D to be no more than a blockbuster gimmick. Right now 3D can't be pirated, which probably sounds like a good thing to every studio head in the world. It's an experience that 60" tv's and home surround can't emulate. It's a reason to go to the theatre, and they probably want to hold on to that as long as they can.
This is a great point. Theaters are pushing 3D because it means more money for them. Apparently Avatar was amazing in 3D, and theaters used that fact to make a lot of money off of underwhelming 3D experiences.
I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm not even sure the 3D effects were a net plus for the experience without considering the side effects. Add a 40% premium on the ticket price, and it was a great deal for the theater and a lousy deal for me.
Until the technology changes fundamentally, I'm starting to think 3D movies are like heroin: we'll see a periodic resurgence and decline as the lessons fade away with one generation and are relearned by the next.
I hate 3D movies because it causes eye strain. I hope they pay attention but in all seriousness the market should already do this. I will watch movies in large format if I can and the movie is good .
In the 1950s, it was novel and driven by audiences, who really wanted to see something in 3D. In 2010 it's mostly being pushed by the theaters, who are desperate to have something they can offer people that they can't get by watching Blu-Rays on 50-inch TVs at home, aside from the experience of eating half a ton of popcorn and listening to some jerk on his phone.
I'm stereo-blind, so 3D movies annoy me more than anything. It always annoys me when people want to go see a movie in 3D and I have to decline since it will give me a headache 15 minutes in.
3D movies are also awful, stressing your eyes and even producing headaches. It's also awful for people used to subtitles. In my country it's common practice for movies to be aired in English with subtitles. I couldn't think of a worse combination than subtitles and 3D projection - and movie theaters will rather prefer dubbed audio tracks in the future, which will totally ruin movies for me.
Digital projectors allow for super-sharp images, in combination with a short depth-of-field (for cool bokehs) it's all you need for 3D effects without giving you nausea, not to mention the images are pseudo-3D at best. To make matters worse, I went to the latest Pirates of the Caribbean and the 2D option wasn't available.
To paraphrase other people - 3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension; and it's getting shoved on people's throats, even if they don't like it.
reply