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

[CyBeR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

There seems to be a theme running through the thread

 

[Mouse]

Eye boggling?

 

[sloweye]

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

 

[Dave]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.