I’m one of those people who CAN’T see it. Gives me migraines and looks blurry. Even good 3-D.
I’m better if I wear my “never worn, don’t need them” glasses, but I don’t wear my glasses (and now they are 15 years old and I need a new prescription) and until I get old enough that I need to start wearing them, am not investing in glasses to go to movies. And I still get the migraines.
I recently went to see Toy Story 3 with my son in 3D. I liked it. The illusion of depth in the picture made the setting feel more real and made good animation even better.
Last summer we saw Ice Age 3 (I’m sensing a trend here) in 3D. I didn’t like that. That movie used 3D more for the Scary Stuff Popping Out Of The Screen gimmick than for an illusion of depth. Good animation, but the 3D added nothing for me.
So put me down for It Depends.
I love 'em. I don’t actually see that many movies in theater to begin with, so seeing something in 3D is a fun enough bonus.
Plus, my eyes aren’t the best…and seeing a 3D movie is one of the few times my depth perception actually works.
None of it makes me sick, or gives me a headache. And if the 3D is actually used to add meaningfully to the presentation, instead of “just” being a gimmick? Killer. No-lose.
I liked it in Toy Story, loved it in Avatar, and found it to be completely forgettable in… something I’ve forgotten about. I’ve seen bits of Monsters v. Aliens on a 3D TV, and I think that the process for television imay be better than the movie theater process–maybe a little flickering, but no dimming, and somehow more solidity to things emerging from the screen. I find that the glasses over glasses thing is something that I can get used to.
Nah, they’ve had that for ages (projection to the sides and behind), but it doesn’t really add much, and it isn’t 3D, either, since all points on the screen are still the same distance from you.
And I think that the reason that 3D didn’t catch on the first time around was that the technology wasn’t good enough then. Now, it is, and in 10 or 20 years, we’ll take it just as much for granted as we take color for granted now. Really, is color actually necessary for a good story? No, but it helps immersion.
I wasn’t talking about being surrounded by a screen, I was talking about something more like a Star Trek “holodeck.”
Maybe, but I don’t find it good enough now. My impression right now that it’s a gimmick which is supplanting good filmmaking, not enhancing or further enabling it.
No.
It takes money away from plot, setting, & character exposition time.
That reminds me of the other problem I had with IMAX 3-D - I felt like I was only looking out of one eye until I held the dominant eye shut, and forced the other eye to get in on the action. Then it was okay (except for the blinding headache). I should say, I do wear a fairly strong prescription of glasses, and my eyes have traditionally been of two very different strengths.
It was a silly gimmick every other time it was introduced, and it’s no less of a silly gimmick now. So I can’t see it turning out any differently this time around. But then, I’m not a movie kind of guy, so what do I know?
Does it? Or are budgets increased to compensate for it? What about color? Surely that was more expensive when it came out too.
I don’t care to even try it, to be frank. I am already a bit visually challenged, in that I can’t tell the difference between regular tv and HD tv, and those posters that look like dots but then resolve into a picture just look like dots to me, no matter what I do. I have also been known to get nauseous from video games 
But even if it worked for me <I don’t know that it doesn’t, having never tried> the idea of wearing glasses on top of my glasses just gives me claustrophobia, <not real, just makes me feel too enclosed> and I can’t imagine it would be worth it at all.
As I’ve been saying, 3D is a fad. I give it four years, tops.*
3D really adds nothing to a movie, other than an occasional reason to duck. Already the numbers are showing the fad is fading, and that 3D movies are not doing as well as they did in the beginning.
People like the gimmick (and I did enjoy it when I saw It Came from Outer Space in 3D), but it gets tired. It’s really not three dimensional in the first place – it’s just two dimensional cutouts at different depths (like the multiplane animation). It adds nothing to the story or characterizations. It’s hard for many people to see (estimates are as high as 20% of the audience, and it makes no sense to limit your audience that way). It tends toward muddy and dark colors.
People will grow tired, like they did in the 50s, the 70s, and the 90s.
*A year ago, I said five years.
For computer-animated films, at least (and you might as well put something like Avatar in that category), it adds almost nothing to the cost. All it takes is going through the rendering process one more time, and that’s just computer time (which is very cheap), and doesn’t require any extra work by the programmers, modelers, animators, performers, director, etc. (which are not cheap).
This might be true of some 2-D movies that are later converted to 3-D, but for films made in 3-D to begin with, you get the full third dimension, not just cut-outs.
No, I don’t think it’s the bulb. Roger Ebert has given a concise explanation in the past on his website as to why a dimmer picture is inherent in the 3D process. It was a little too technical for me to remember exactly, but it’s definitely a flaw in the process of making it, not projecting it.
I can’t see the 3D effect at all. I have only one good eye, so the glasses don’t work. (I do see 3D in the real world thanks to parallax and other visual cues, but my perception is probably slightly different from that of someone with normal binocular vision.) So I certainly wouldn’t want to go see a movie that was visually compromised to accommodate an effect that I can’t even perceive.
Just a correction. I meant “cheap, low-quality conversions of the kind seen in the Last Airbender may fizzle out”. Of course the movie was based on a show called Avatar; hence the confusion.
(Several others have said the same, not singling out Red but I was too lazy to multiquote)
Yes, and it was a marketing gimmick at first, too. Maybe the 3D movies I’ve seen were all the equivalent of those hand-colored postcards… remember those? Not quite what we call a “color picture” now. I’m sure that 3D will eventually be used in the vast majority of movies, but so far, based on current technology and current usage, the experience some of us have is “not worth it”.
This is puzzling, and not at all true. Three-D is really three dimnensions, which means that you wsee the roundness of objects and their shape. 3D comics in the 1950s were “two dimensional cutouts at differe nt depths” (Except for the comic Real 3D, which actually did show things apparently coming out at you. But the effect was a helluva lot more work, which is probably why there was only one issue.) But even 3D cartoons these days show things in ful three dimension, with defined forms.
It’s true that some of the recent “converted-to-3D” movies don’t have very impressive 3D, with the work carelessly and sloppily done (especially Clash of the Titans, which was rushed through to get it out in 3D only a month after its original declared release date), but that’s not true of 3D in general.
I’ll buck the trend – I’ve been saying for years that 3D was a promising idea that could be usefully exploited. The problem is that most directors haven’t a clue about how to use it, and most executives seem to think that you can take any 2D film and convert it to a good 3D film. “Clash of the Titans” was ctually filled with moments that should have been great 3D – the eagle at the beginning flying downwards through the “hall of statues”, Perseus and Pegasus flying through the Kraken’s limbs and the overpasses of Argos at the end – but they still managed to completely screw it up.
I think 3D has been used effectively in the past, especially when it hasn’t been gimmicky. The Creature from the Black Lagoon used it in a natural way – the clear water of the (non-black) lagoon filled with floating bits of stuff at various distances gave a very natural case of 3D that literally immersed you in the medium. Hitchcock’s Dial M for Murder (which he fought tooth and nail to not have to make in 3D) nonetheless has some clever uses of the technology, especially the scene where Grace Kelly’s being attacked. I thought that Beowulf worked pretty well in 3D.
When you spend half the movie trying to hold back nausea, it takes something away, not adds to it.
So, no, I don’t like 3D movies.
I don’t really understand them, or people who say it adds to the movie. No it doesn’t? The plot, characters, exposition, all of that is what makes the movie. 3D is just a pretty gimmick.