# Do you like "3D" movies? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [September 6, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740 "2010-09-06T01:58:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/81 "2010-09-08T18:24:35Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > **Larry Mudd** , you’re clearly the advocate here. What would you say is the very _best_ 3D production to date, the one that really showcases the process done well and what it can _add_ to a film? That is an awesome question and I look forward to the answer. If it’s Avatar though, I am going to pull my hair out. Never has a movie actually made me more furious as I watched it. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/82 "2010-09-08T18:30:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Larry Mudd, you’re clearly the advocate here. What would you say is the very best 3D production to date, the one that really showcases the process done well and what it can add to a film? **Larry Mudd** can choose his own, but I’ve already advocated **The Creature from the Black Lagoon** and **Dial “M” for Murder** upstream. (post #58) ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/83 "2010-09-08T19:08:34Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I’ve already advocated **The Creature from the Black Lagoon** and **Dial “M” for Murder** upstream. > > (post #58) Two 1954 productions are the best showcase? That doesn’t exactly bode well for the future of the concept. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/84 "2010-09-08T19:12:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Two 1954 productions are the best showcase? That doesn’t exactly bode well for the future of the concept. What can I say? recent practitioners haven’t been the best. The recent 3D animated films and, yes, **avatar** are probably the best of the recent crop. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/85 "2010-09-08T19:15:16Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > There isn’t really much comparison between the 3D used in the _It Came From Outer Space_ (or even in _Jaws 3D_ or other '80s 3D films) and current 3D movies. Does that mean that those other versions of 3D would have taken more or less than two minutes to start giving me a headache? ---
**Author:** ![Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eyebrows_0f_doom/32/3119_2.png) [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eyebrows_0f_Doom)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/86 "2010-09-08T19:19:44Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > > [@spark240](#): > > > > **Larry Mudd** , you’re clearly the advocate here. What would you say is the very _best_ 3D production to date, the one that really showcases the process done well and what it can _add_ to a film? > > That is an awesome question and I look forward to the answer. If it’s Avatar though, I am going to pull my hair out. Never has a movie actually made me more furious as I watched it. I’d say the best use has been in \*\*Avatar \*\*and **Up**. I don’t know why you’d be annoyed to hear that. Even those who disliked the storyline pretty much all praised the look & effects of the film. ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/87 "2010-09-08T19:19:46Z")
I like “deep” 3d, like when there’s a shadowbox effect, but nothing breaks the plane of the movie screen. “Despicable Me” mostly followed this rule. I don’t like things popping out toward me - it gives me a headache. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/88 "2010-09-08T19:21:54Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > One thing I don’t like about 3D, and I think I’m right with this one, is that with real world 3D our eyes can instantly focus on something and the rest of the image our eye sees is a safe out of focus blur that lets us comfortably ignore it. > > With fake 3D all of it is in focus, no matter how far away each element is pretending to be, done that way so your eye can rest on anything in the shot and see it clearly, and our brain can’t defocus the extraneous ones in the same way as the real world, because they aren’t really in a different focal plane, it’s just an illusion; so instead they remain rigidly in focus, and not for just the length of the shot, but the length of the movie. > > Headache inducing, confusing to the brain, and a frustrating reminder of its artificiality. That could be why everything (in the few minutes before I gave up and left the theater) appeared to be either ten millimeters or ten parsecs from my eyeballs, with nothing in between. > [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > That said, get used to it for the spectacle movies – and don’t despair, with the ubiquity of 3D movies, more and more film fans who wear glasses and don’t like contact lenses will opt for [a set of 3D glasses in their prescription.](http://www.techfresh.net/gunnar-3d-glasses/) There are still only a few fru-fru outfits offering these so far, but it’s only a matter of time before it’s a stock option at LensCrafters. Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in special glasses that are guaranteed to become obsolete in a few years (even if the 3D fad in general survives, the current specific implementation thereof surely will not). ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/89 "2010-09-08T19:31:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in special glasses that are guaranteed to become obsolete in a few years (even if the 3D fad in general survives, the current specific implementation thereof surely will not). I can’t say I disagree on that one, but then, there are a lot of folks out there not in their right mind. And I’m not sure I buy the argument about focus: It is true that everything in a 3D movie is at the same focal plane, but unless you’ve got extremely sharp vision and are seated in the front row, everything on the screen is going to be at an effectively infinite distance, as far as your eyes are concerned. The distance from your eyes to the screen is much, much greater than the focal length of your cornea. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/90 "2010-09-08T19:38:02Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > > [@Anaamika](#): > > > > That is an awesome question and I look forward to the answer. If it’s Avatar though, I am going to pull my hair out. Never has a movie actually made me more furious as I watched it. > > I’d say the best use has been in \*\*Avatar \*\*and **Up**. I don’t know why you’d be annoyed to hear that. Even those who disliked the storyline pretty much all praised the look & effects of the film. Because I hated every bit of the storyline and all of the characters in Avatar, barring 1? To watch it again, even in 3D would mean I’d have to put up with all of those people again. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/91 "2010-09-08T20:08:30Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Even those who disliked the storyline pretty much all praised the look & effects of the film. If the best technical examples also happened to be ones where other values, other filmic qualities that made the greatest films of the past endure, were lacking, that would appear to support the suggestions that technique is _replacing_ those values, not enhancing them. And if we think “storyline” is more important to making a great film than “effects,” that means that _Avatar_ (or whatever example) is worse for being “3D,” not better. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/92 "2010-09-08T20:18:00Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > > [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > > > Even those who disliked the storyline pretty much all praised the look & effects of the film. > > If the best technical examples also happened to be ones where other values, other filmic qualities that made the greatest films of the past endure, were lacking, that would appear to support the suggestions that technique is _replacing_ those values, not enhancing them. And if we think “storyline” is more important to making a great film than “effects,” that means that _Avatar_ (or whatever example) is worse for being “3D,” not better. Thank you for saying it better than me. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/93 "2010-09-08T20:23:12Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > I’m with Ebert on this, don’t like. Now 3-D porn would be worth a spin; has it been done? 3D porn has some major obstacles to overcome. The first one being that people don’t go to “adult theatres” downtown to watch porn anymore. Pornography is now experienced withing the privacy of the home. So it’s not going to become popular until 3D televisions do. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/94 "2010-09-08T20:41:16Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nobody in their right mind is going to invest in special glasses that are guaranteed to become obsolete in a few years (even if the 3D fad in general survives, the current specific implementation thereof surely will not). Fashion will drive people to change their glasses before they become obsolete. Don’t expect the glasses themselves to change for some time - there isn’t a lot of room for advancement there; circular polarization seems to be about as good as it’s going to get. Market forces will ensure that some form of circularly polarized system is standard for many years to come. (Dolby 3D is a great technology, but the dichroic filters are prohibitively expensive and easily damaged, and it seems unlikely that it will ever get a toehold for this reason.) Expect advances in projection and reflection to improve the tech overall, but it’s a safe bet that circularly polarized filters are with us for a bit, and handedness is already standardized across platforms. > [@spark240](#): > > Larry Mudd, you’re clearly the advocate here. What would you say is the very best 3D production to date, the one that really showcases the process done well and what it can add to a film? That’s personal, of course - but in the most general terms I think any huge spectacle movie is a good candidate, and animated features are way better in 3D. (Sorry, **'mika** , I think Avatar is pretty much the gold standard, technically.) I saw _Inception_ this week-end and found myself frequently distracted by the thought, “This should _definitely_ be in 3D.” Nolan has been very tactful when explaining his decision to eschew 3D, but I think “3D is just a gimmick” is writ small between the lines. Too bad. (Still a great movie, of course… but _darn_ it..) What can it add? It makes it feel bigger, and it makes it feel more tangible. _Despicable Me_ was an okay feature, and I like Steve Carrall in just about anything - but some sequences stood out more for the use of 3D. (The roller coaster scene was actually pretty exhilarating.) I don’t generally approve of “This bit is to capitalize on the 3D effect” scenes, but if you’re going to have an action sequence like that, it’s a lot more fun in 3D. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/95 "2010-09-08T20:45:34Z")
Then if you would please start a thread when a really really good movie gets made in 3D and I promise you, I will watch it with an open mind, in exchange for absolutely refusing to watch that pile of dreck called Avatar again. Really, I will. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/96 "2010-09-09T04:00:57Z")
One of the more upscale shopping centers in Bangkok, The Emporium, a couple of years ago installed 3 TV screens all throughout the place to play ads. It looked awful, positively tripe. The technology would have to improve A LOT before we’d even consider getting one. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/97 "2010-09-10T14:32:40Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > Then if you would please start a thread when a really really good movie gets made in 3D and I promise you, I will watch it with an open mind, in exchange for absolutely refusing to watch that pile of dreck called Avatar again. Really, I will. Beggin’ your pardon, but seeing _Avatar_ without 3D is kind of like watching _2001_ with “SCENE MISSING” cards in place of all the effects shots. Actually, I think you could turn that around—“seeing 3D without _Avatar_” might be more apt. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/98 "2010-09-10T15:57:12Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > Beggin’ your pardon, but seeing _Avatar_ without 3D is kind of like watching _2001_ with “SCENE MISSING” cards in place of all the effects shots. Ha. I am a little surprised by the vitriol, there. For sure, I don’t think anyone was betting on _Avatar_ for the Best Original Screenplay category, but it didn’t really have pretensions in that direction. It was a lot like _Star Wars_ in that the story was a pastiche of things borrowed from earlier films, the characters were paper thin and the performances matched, and no one would ever mistake it for a _deep_ movie, but the technical work was so far above what had ever been done for that sort of film before that it was exhilarating to see. You don’t use the same metric to evaluate _Star Wars_ that you would for _Network_. How does it hold up against _The Planet of the Apes_? _Avatar_ was gorgeous, mindless fun - but man, was it ever fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/99 "2010-09-10T16:55:03Z")
I only see out of one eye so it would make movies unwatchable for me so no… ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740/100 "2010-09-10T19:41:06Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > I saw _Inception_ this week-end and found myself frequently distracted by the thought, “This should _definitely_ be in 3D.” Nolan has been very tactful when explaining his decision to eschew 3D, but I think “3D is just a gimmick” is writ small between the lines. Too bad. (Still a great movie, of course… but _darn_ it..) I can guess some of the scenes that gave you that thought… but I don’t perceive anything missing. If the film is just really well-made, my _imagination_ is plenty good enough to take over the job of immersion. I get deep into movies, if they can accommodate it. Assuming the director’s accurate in his comments about image quality, > [@Christopher Nolan](#): > > There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film. And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways. So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that, I feel confident saying that I’d enjoy a fabulous 2D image much more than a merely very good 3D one. (Perhaps analogously, I’m devoted to terrific stereo sound–great equipment, never lossy formats–but I don’t find much value in “surround.”) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-like-3d-movies/552740.md?page=6)