# 3D cinema - Why is everyone so up at arms against it?



## CyBeR (Dec 14, 2010)

Ok, I've read a few opinions here, a few opinions there and I came to realize that people hate 3D. For what reason, I haven't the foggiest clue. 

So, what's the deal? Why do you hate, or simply dislike, 3D cinema?

"It takes from the story"
If a story is crap in a film, it will be crap in 3D and 2D, no matter how they chose to run the film. *Clash of the titans* was a piece of failed cinematography way before it was converted to 3D, simply because it was launching as a remake of a film from an era whose cinematic values are much different than today's...so that meant the film would have to adapt. As such, lost both crowds and that was that. But still, I see a lot of people blame its failure on the 3D, which to me is mind boggling. 

Anyways, I'll be waiting for a few more opinions before I jump back into the discussion. I'm really curious to see why the hate and why the desire to see it die.


----------



## Vladd67 (Dec 14, 2010)

Until they come up with a 3D system that doesn't require glasses you are going to have people against it. Some people who already wear glasses have trouble dealing with the 3D ones, some people just don't like them, others say 3D films give them headaches, many regard it as just another gimmick, I haven't seen Avatar yet but people I know who have say it looks good a pity about the actual film. Some people want films to have a good story plot etc. not just to look pretty. I should admit here the only 3D I have seen is a TV demo so I am in no position to comment but I can pass on views I have heard.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 14, 2010)

I just fail to see the need for it. and yes, i feel its just another money spinner, and a pointless one. 3D glasses used to be a bit of card with coloured plastic and were given away (alot of the time) now they cost...well, alot.
I saw a thing about the TV's where they said (could be wrong/right) that the TV came with two sets of spec's, handy for a family of four and extra sets were around £80-100. seems silly to me, if you can't enjoy the film in 2D why would it be better in 3D?

Just my opinion


----------



## No One (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm with Sloweye on this. If a film engages you emotionally and/or intellectually, then seeing the imagery in 3D can only add superficially, while detracting from what's actually important - y'know, that thing...whassit called...oh yeah, storytelling.

I'd be curious to know though just how much research has gone into the long-term effects of exposure to 3D viewing. Who knows, we could have an entire generation crippled by a money-grubbing gimmick! Okay, maybe that's just paranoid...


----------



## Tillane (Dec 14, 2010)

My own problem with 3D is a personal one.  I have poor eyesight; specifically, I have one eye worse than the other.  The result is that I can't actually sit and watch a 3D film (tried; it gives me a severe headache).  I've no problem with the technology as a whole, just with the cinema when they choose to show a film in 3D only, which has happened a few times where I live.  If there's a choice, no problem.  If there isn't, they're disenfranchising a portion of their audience, and that I have a problem with.


----------



## Iorek444 (Dec 14, 2010)

I don't particularly hate it, but I wouldn't mind if it went away. I do wear glasses, but I just wear the 3D ones overtop and have never had a problem. However, I find that if a movie is good I end up getting absorbed in the storyline and ignoring the 3D altogether, so for me I just end up paying more to see a movie in 3D that would have given me the same experience as a non-3D film.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 14, 2010)

Tillane said:


> My own problem with 3D is a personal one.  I have poor eyesight; specifically, I have one eye worse than the other.



I'm just the same, its bad enough putting safety glasses over my specs at work, unless i pay out for the expensive specialist contacts, which is alot to do for the sake of seeing some special f-x which shoud be rendered pointless anyway if the film was any good to start with.


----------



## alchemist (Dec 14, 2010)

I've seen three films in 3D. The last was Toy Story 3. I found the glasses made the images darker, so spent half the film with them off. As already said, I think it's a moneyspinner. It adds little to the experience.
Then again, I objected to the expense of CDs and DVDs too, so don't listen to me.


----------



## Mouse (Dec 14, 2010)

It does boggle the eyes a wee bit. But I've just been to see Ben Barnes in the Narnia film in 3D so I can't complain. That particular film would've been exactly the same in 2D though really.


----------



## sloweye (Dec 14, 2010)

There seems to be a theme running through the thread


----------



## Mouse (Dec 14, 2010)

Eye boggling?


----------



## sloweye (Dec 14, 2010)

No, just the dislike or couldn't care less vibe.


----------



## Dave (Dec 15, 2010)

I think that historically 3D films have not been cinematography's finest hour. You tended to get sequel number one that was reasonable, sequel number two that was not, and then the 3D sequel that no one went to see. I think that has changed, it is now the top end blockbuster films that are coming out in 3D.

I also think the technology has improved beyond imagination. I have seen 3D films with red/blue lens in the glasses and it was poor. Then they began with polarised lenses and that was much better. Now you have IMAX theatres and places where 3D films can really be shown properly to a wide audience.

For me though, I agree with those people saying that it 'boggles the eyes'. I think _Avatar_ was too long anyhow, but the 3D made it uncomfortably so.


----------



## jojajihisc (Dec 15, 2010)

I actually like it when it is used in certain action/adventure movies. I think right now though it is being overused and studios will back off when the novelty begins to fade. There have been many movies that were shown in both 2D and 3D and the latter seemed to do nothing to improve upon the film other than provide a means for soaking people at the box office for a few extra dollars.


----------



## clovis-man (Dec 15, 2010)

In the last couple of years, whenever there was an option to see a film in 3D or in regular format, I've chosen 3D. I watched *Avatar* that way twice. I am now watching Avatar in 2D on HD tv. I actually find it more enjoyable because I can concetrate on what I'm seeing instead of what's being waved/shot/catapulted in my face.


----------



## ravenus (Dec 15, 2010)

I'll agree with the above post. Avatar (blu-ray) on my non-3D HDTV was more enjoyable because it looked brighter, crisper and more colorful in its 2D avatar.
I'm not against 3D per se, but the thing is it's being foisted on to film-makers who aren't comfortable with thinking on those lines. Remember here that James Cameron worked with a dedicated 3D mindset and forced the studios to put their money into ensuring that his film would give the best possible 3D experience up to that point, which is why Avatar 3D came out so good. I can't say the same about other recent films I've seen in 3D. The last Resident Evil movie sucked on its own but it was also obvious that the director didn't have as much of a quality focus and 3D depth-oriented thinking that Cameron brought to his labor of love. A 3D film is a bit of an eye-strain since you have to look in a certain way to get the best effect and if the film itself isn't designed to give you the best bang for your 3D buck it's more annoying than with a 2D film because you're not rewarded for the pain of looking through the glasses.
The other aspect is that of theaters cheating the audiences of a good 3D experience by not projecting the film with sufficient brightness (3D film projection requires 2-3 times more than a 2D film), which can make a film look more drab in its 3D avatar. Paying more for a 3D screening and not seeing it in the best way possible is a double whammy.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 15, 2010)

I don't hate 3D - I'm just not interested in it. 

Film is a 2D medium and I find it ironic that playing around with the convergence of a 2D image and getting folk to wear stupid specs to compensate for it can generate so much extra cash.


----------



## Moonbat (Dec 15, 2010)

I agree with alot of the comments on here, 3D does cost a chunk more and it seems to add very little to the film. I too have seen 3 films in 3D. *Avatar* was brilliant and the 3D did add soemthing to the film, I have since watched it in 2D and although the colours were brighter, I think the 3D did have 1 or 2 moments that added to the film, but saying that, it only equates to less than about 2 minutes of 3D for a film that lasts over 2 hrs, and that is pretty poor going. 
As for the other 2 films, well....*Clash of the Titans* was a rubbish film, but I didn't expect much eles, the problem with 3D was that it detracted from my viewing pleasure, I actually couldn't see as much during the action sequences (and to be honest they are the only reason I watch a film like COTT) because of the 3D nonsense, I actually took my glasses off during a few of the action scenes to see if they were any worse in 2D but they did look slightly better (I could see more clearly the action being displayed). As for *Toy story 3*, I don't see why they bother, there must have been a total of 2 minutes of 3D in the entire film, so it seems like a waste, I don't think the 3D moments were that good, and seriously didn't add anything to a film that was mediocre (imho) at best. After seeing *Toy Story 3* I have decided that the next film that I want to see that's done in 3D I will just watch the 2D version (probably)
I have given it a chance, and something like *Tron* might be worth a watch, but for what? A few examples of things flying out of the screen at me, when it detracts from the drama and actual story telling that the film should have as its primary purpose then why bother. If I wanted to see a gimicky 3D film I would go to a cinema 180 at a theme park! Not at my cinema!


----------



## Perpetual Man (Dec 15, 2010)

In my case, I have nothing against 3D per se, as a novelty value it can probably be fun, and if I'm brutally honest I would like to see AVATAR in 3D but...

It seems too much when every new film is released in 3D whether they were made for it or not. 

And as has been pointed out, the process does seem to play with peoples eyes, and because of this I was advised not to go and see it. Although it was a tiny percentage, there is a very small chance that the twisting of ones perceptions through vision could trigger a seizure in an epileptic. 

And that is something I'm not prepared to risk - if on the offchance it did happen, the pain in the neck of having the lights go up, the film stopped as the paramedics had to come and rescue me! (And more importantly losing my driving license again... just for a stupid special effect. Nah.


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 15, 2010)

Film is a medium that has been continuously evolving since its inception over a century ago, adding sound, colour, physical sensation and even smell to enhance the reality of the experience. I don't know much about the 3D side, although this is not its first incarnation, nor, I suspect, will it be it's final form, but I am fairly well acquainted with surround sound developments, its audio equivalent.

Each step forward is associated with a film that really needs the new effect – Star Wars, for Dolby Stereo, Earthquake for sensurround or Apocalypse Now for 5.1 – and followed by a block of productions climbing on the bandwagon, where suddenly you have to have sounds zooming all over the available space, otherwise the director doesn't know he's got surround, and can't use it as a sales argument. After a while, having auditory information coming from all around you in the theatre seems so normal that you only notice it when it stops - like colour in the Wizard of Oz – and mixes are done with more subtlety, though cinema owners continue to wind up the surrounds at the expense of the dialogue, in order to feel they're getting their money's worth from the system.
So, look for a couple of years of every film having a monster or police car crashing through the screen into the auditorium, of the first wide screen 3D viewable without glasses, of TV advertisements where the kitten knocks the toilet roll into your living room; you know the people who're doing this, you weren't expecting good taste, were you? And casualty where you can see how deep the doctor is cutting (stereoscopic footage of various surgical procedures already exists in the public domain from experiments on remote control operations, and for training future surgeons; are you willing to bet TV channels will not buy the footage.

Oh, and the pornography, obviously; surround sound never helped much there…

Happy viewing.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 15, 2010)

It's probably worth keeping in mind that what we call 3D is not 3D at all, merely an illusion of 3D. If it were true 3D, you'd be able to walk around the image and not be constrained to looking at a flat screen with specs.


----------



## TK-421 (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm not in arms about it.


----------



## Dave (Dec 15, 2010)

But are you up about it?


----------



## CyBeR (Dec 16, 2010)

I will not quote since my eyes are a bit stingy at this moment and am in no shape to search for the exact comments. 
But, I would like to ask: what is up with "it detracts from watching the story"? 

I understand people being upset with cinemas about how they force 3D upon them, or with the price ticket or simply having bad eye sight. But how can 3D influence you paying attention to the story of the film?
It's mostly just extra depth to the image that's added and the odd special effect where things fly at you shouldn't be that distracting to a viewer. 

I remember when I watched *Avatar* in 3D, I was really engrossed in all that Pandora was. I felt so sucked into everything on screen, that when a piece of pollen flew past the screen, right in front of the viewer, I actually flinched for it...and I don't mostly flinch at anything in films. That's immersion and I always felt that it adds a lot to any story, no matter how drab. And a bit more depth to the image I found to help a great deal with that...
So I'm at a loss here...I honestly can't see how the 3D would interfere with following the story in a film.


----------



## Star Girl (Dec 17, 2010)

Yes some films look pretty in 3D... but I really don't like it. It hurts my eyes and it's to expensive.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 17, 2010)

CyBeR said:


> I will not quote since my eyes are a bit stingy at this moment and am in no shape to search for the exact comments.
> But, I would like to ask: what is up with "it detracts from watching the story"?


 
I can only speak for myself here but what it means for me is that if I'm going to sit through a 2 or 3 hour movie, I need to feel comfortable to be able to focus and get the best I can from the movie. 3D specs are extremely uncomfortable on the eyes and generally irritating as a whole. 

I won't tolerate spending my hard earned cash to get sore eyes and a headache for anybody. 

As I said - merely my own view.


----------



## Dozmonic (Dec 23, 2010)

I've seen a few things in 3D, and in most it did little to add to the experience. The 3D just doesn't work very well except for adding a minor depth perception to scenes. A lot of the time it's overdone - like photoshop lens flares - and doesn't add much to the movies. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D, and the latest Jackass movie. Most of the others have done little for me to the point that, unless I really feel that I have to, I watch the 2D versions.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 23, 2010)

Currently, even given the best it has ever achieved, I think it is a technique which is being overused. Ideally, it should be used where it would really enhance the effect of the story, not simply be a gimmick on the level of William Castle. And, yes, 3-D has seldom (though not never) been used wisely or well.

That said, I can't say I'm against it; theoretically, at least, I am for it, if used properly. This may be because I have had the experience of seeing *The House of Wax* (with Vincent Price) in 3-D in a theatre many years ago; as well as both *The Creature from the Black Lagoon* and *It Came from Outer Space* (along with a few other films, the majority of which were quite forgettable). These three, I think, did make some good use of the technique (especially *Creature*, where I felt it did add to the looming menace of the action sequences), but even in them there were plenty of spots where it was simply superfluous.

So, while I have enjoyed some of my experiences with 3-D films... and in fact, would not at all mind seeing these again, as well as others I haven't seen... I'm still waiting for it to be used to its best potential. If you have a screenwriter, director, and cinematographer who keep in mind the impact the technique can have when creating the thing, you at least have the potential for one _hell_ of a good moviegoing experience; something which would be well worth the trouble of going to the theater to see it.

As an analogy... I saw Abel Gance's *Napoleon* when it was on tour with a live orchestra, using the three screens for certain sequences, etc. This was back in the early 1980s, and it cost my wife and myself over $50 to see this film... and I consider that to be money well spent. _*That*_ is the sort of experience 3-D is theoretically capable of producing if used wisely. I would just like to see that kind of intelligence brought to bear when making the film, rather than indulging into more gimmicks and gewgaws....


----------



## Connavar (Dec 24, 2010)

When used fully,well it can be amazing but 99% its a tag they put on movies that arent really made in 3D.  Just another money spinner people are tricked into following like they were sheep.

I have no interest in it.  I like to see good movies i dont care how they look.

But then i havent even seen Avatar so im not easy to trick.


----------



## Dave (Feb 10, 2011)

> 3D cinema - Why is everyone so up at arms against it?



Maybe because it's dangerous?

Yes, 3D can damage your health:
BBC News - Could 3D television be dangerous to watch?


----------



## J Riff (Feb 11, 2011)

Not good for very young children. 

This started when an Ontario mayor tried to rent out_ Piranha 3D,_
which can cause brain damage even in 2D.

_'An LG spokesperson said that there has been no issue with people drinking and watching 3D TV in pubs.'_  Whew.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 1, 2011)

Almost all 3D systems up to now are parallax 3D — meaning they feed a slightly different angle of view to each eye. Real 3D environments cause our eyes to "track" closer together for nearer objects, as well as vary focus. The problem with parallax 3D is that everything is really at the same distance, yet our eyes automatically try to track and focus based on parallax cues. Hence, eye strain. 

The circular polarization used in *RealD 3D* does not darken the image as much as older systems (anaglyphic, Pulfrich, linear polarization, etc.), but it is still a parallax system.

There are truly "whole image" (_holographic_) technologies, like transmission or reflection holograms, and newer systems that project onto smoke or mist, but they are not practical for cinematic purposes — at least not yet. Until such a system is worked out, it is my opinion that 3D will remain nothing more than a gimmick. To put it another way, watching picture and audio out-of-synch is unnatural and pushes one "out of the movie." Until 3D systems are subtle enough for a sense as discriminating as sight, they will be unnatural gimmicks.

Suppose such a holographic system is introduced next year — what happens to filmmaking? Movies become more "realistic," more immersive, right? If the system delivers a fully holographic image, then blocking a movie becomes more like a stage play, and all the 2D techniques are lost (more on that in a moment). But suppose a "point-of-view" holographic system is developed; the image might be true 3D (and not parallax), yet still restricted to the camera position. This would insure that everyone in a cinema sees the same thing, rather than radically different views, as in a stage theater.

POV-holography might still destroy much of the movie makers' toolbox. 2D photography allows the director to juxtapose objects within a scene, for example the sun directly behind a character's head to create a halo effect, or antlers from a stuffed animal head on a wall appearing to come out of a character's head. (There is such a shot in the 1971 _Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory_, and I'm guessing it was done on purpose.) 2D cinematographers can also control depth-of-field and many other variables. With any kind of a holographic system, all that "language" will be lost, and movie makers will have to invent something new.


----------



## J Riff (Apr 2, 2011)

Nice explanation Metryq, it looks like a long way off then, holo-flix?
I don't see 'movie makers' inventing anything other than a way to make a cheaper movie, but some genius scientist could revolutionize the industry.... but would it be cool to go to a movie and have a different POV than folks on the other side, like in theatre? Hadn't thought of that.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 2, 2011)

A single image parallax system may not be that far off — as paradoxical as the name sounds. For example, while watching Cameron's _Avatar_ on video, I noticed the constant camera motion. If the camera was not craning, dollying, or trucking, then there was a constant "rowboat-like" rocking. This helped push the multiple planes of the scenery — and the filmmakers were very conscientious about filling every scene with multiple planes of action, whether it be control rooms with lots of screens and people moving about, or jungle scenes with flora and fauna everywhere. The lesson here is simple: 3D is more than a twin lens on the camera.

Anyway, back to the single plane "parallax" system. Perhaps you have seen the many 3D head-tracking videos on YouTube? While the computer screen is only 2D, a 3D model on the screen reacts to the user's head movement and shifts the point-of-view. Despite the 2D image, the user can still "look around" the edges of foreground objects just by shifting his head. I've read that Apple, Inc. is developing a similar system that will work for multiple viewers — face tracking coupled with some kind of micro-lensing setup, rather than a lenticular screen. Meanwhile, there exist parallax video screens that do not require glasses of any kind. Everything is still single plane (the same distance away), but the techniques are getting more and more subtle. POV-holographic may not be that far away.

(CAUTION: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!)


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 3, 2011)

I might read the whole thread later, but for now, here's my 2 cents.

It's not the technology itself I don't like. Movies used to be silent and black and white, so it was a big deal when got sound. A lot people hated it, and several actors and actresses either quit or lost their jobs because of the sound. Then we got technicolor, and once again it was a huge thing. Some hated it, a lot of people loved it. Then there was "true" color, and some hated it, some loved it. And now we have 3D.

Except... we don't. As a random example, _Friday 13th Part 3_ was released in 3D back in 1982. If you think that's a long time ago, think again. Most people say the first 3D movie was _Bwana Devil _from 1952, but that's not entirely correct. The real first 3D movie was actually _The Power of Love_, from 1922. And _that _was a long time ago. 

My point is 3D isn't new. It has been around for a very long time, and we have had a lot of movies made in 3D. Some are good, some not so much. The first 3D movie I watched was _Journey to the center of the eart_, starring Brendan Fraser. It was actually pretty good, too. But unlike modern 3D movies, I had to wear those ugly red and green glasses. Still, it worked. Modern 3D is much better, and you get the colors much better. Not only that, but I'm a proud owner of a Nintendo 3DS, the very first handheld concole with real 3D that doesn't require you to wear stupid glasses. True, the picture blurs easily if you look at it from the side, but that's why it's perfect for a handheld concole. And you can watch movies on it, too. So all in all, I love 3D.

What I don't like is what most people do with it. _Avatar_ had a pretty nice 3D effect, but I hated the movie. Good 3D can't save a crappy movie. But other than that, most movies I've seen care too much about throwing stuff at the camera to show off the 3D effect. I think the worst one was Piranha 3D, that even showed a woman throwing up on the camera in 3D. Huzzah for technology.  It took six years to develop the technology, and we use it to throw up towards the screen? Is that what the human race has come to? God help us all... 

The problem is While I had no hopes for Piranha 3D to begin with, it's not exactly unique. Far too many movies do the same thing. We got 3D now, so they feel they have to throw stuff at the camera to show it off. If this had been part of the story, that would be fine. But I've seen several movie-sequels in 3D, and every single one of them were far worse than any of their 2D installments. So if you look at it like that, 3D has been quite damaging to most movies. It could be the next big thing, and yet it's mostly used to throw stuff at the camera for no better reason than it's 3D. What they should do instead is film it in 3D, but focus on the story like they used to.

Bottom line is 3D isn't exactly new, but the reason it's kicked off now is because Avatar got so popular and people want to cash in on the success. I hope it won't last. If it doesn't, it means we can get more great, normal 2D movies, and some movies in 3D that doesn't focus on throwing stuff at the camera. Or throwing up on it. 3D should be something you can take advantage of, not something you feel you have to use to be taken seriously.


----------



## Metryq (Apr 5, 2011)

*Gamers complain 3D Nintendo leaves them feeling ill*



> Thousands of customers have reported suffering headaches and dizziness after playing the three-dimensional machine, which works by flashing separate images into each eye, creating the illusion of depth.
> 
> But some are angry that they are only being offered partial refunds if they return the console to some retailers.


----------



## Lemmy (Apr 5, 2011)

You don't say. There's a reason why scientists say kids under six years old shouldn't use them. As for me, I'm past thirty and have played on one for seven hours non-stop (damn you, Ghost Recon)  and didn't feel anything other than getting tired. But then again I started just after midnight, so...


----------



## CyBeR (Apr 5, 2011)

It varies with people from what I've read. The sweet spot for holding the device is as well varied from person to person.


----------

