Who is sick of 3D?

-10 (Is there a rating limit in forums?)

To reiterate what others have already stated...

3D is a Gimmick. It's distracting and fuzzy to me (I only go to 3D movies with my 6y/o son). I can't help myself and always look around the theater to muse at how stoopid everyone looks in the glasses. I imagine the crowd receiving subliminal messages via the 3D format. Zombies who duck and sway to avoid being smacked in the face by the screen popping images. :eek:

What's next...vibrating theater seats?

3D will never be in my home; on the PC or TV. 1080P HDTV is crisp and clear and that's the way I like my movies.
 
People may or may not like it, but its still a gimmick, I draw the same references to the Wiimote being a gimmick. It has potential, but no one is using it right.

The issue with gimmicks is that these game/movies are designed as an afterthought, and its a shame the predicament its in. Only when games/Movies are designed specifically for 3D - as in, that is the ONLY way to view it - will it really be worthwhile. This goes beyond not just releasing a 2d version, but really taking advantage of the hardware without looking back. I'm talking about new genres for gaming and new styles for movies. This is why Avatar in 3d is still gimmicky in my opinion, because the 2d version is still the dominant version and is still amazing. But unfortunatley, the market is too small for 3d for anyone to consider making an exclusive 3d game/movie.

What I really want is the house from Iron Man 2. An entire room where you interface with projected objecs. Thats like if 3D and motion sensing had a prodigious amazing love child, I'd give my first born for a room like that.
 
I like the idea of experiencing 3D with older games. Quake II in 3D — could be good. Mix it up a little.

I'm not going to go out and pay for hardware just to use it, but if I had the opportunity, I'd give it a try.
 
I've never cared about 3D, I will spend zero $ on it until hologram projectors become the norm.
 
I am 100% against anything in 3d, this is coming from a big time home theater guy. I can not stand the way that things are filmed on camera to be for 3d just for "wow" effect. I will take a high quality non-3d picture anyday. I am a big time movie fan, who loves many independent films, story based movies with though provoking situations.

A few examples of my movie preferences:

The Machinist
The Jacket
Fight Club
Donnie Darko
Old Boy
Big Fish (Very Visual Movie too)
etc...

3D brings nothing new to the experience for me, and I do love also love action/highly visual movies occasionaly too. The story is the main concern for me, not the special effects.

If I want to see something in 3d I will go to Disneyland and see the michael jackson 3d thing or like the other ones at theme parks that have other added effects.
 
I hate it and don't understand why it suddenly came back from the 80s 70s earlier whatever ( grew in the 80s so for me then) It's more distracting than enhancing.
 
I guess I should have mentioned that I think the 3D in movies, for the most part, isn't all that great. After watching the Avatar Bluray I have to concede that James Cameron did a good job of not overdoing the 3D effects so that the movie didn't look retarded in 2D. The new Clash of the Titans was horrible with the 3D implementation IMHO. The effect in gaming is a lot better and no one is forced to play a game in 3D if they don't want to.
 
3D gaming is interesting in that I have problems adjusting after playing on 2D my entire life.

The crosshairs are always always wrong. More often than not - they seem to be either painted onto the screen or float 15 feet out.
 
I think the 3D thing is a little out of hand. But I really did like Avatar, its the first time I've actually seen a movie that was entirely in 3D. Kudos to James Cameron for developing the camera's to film it. It was an amazing experience.
 
CanesVenetici said:
This 3D crap rears it's ugly head every 10-15 years or so.
Or whenever there's a new generation of suckers that will be taken in by it.
As has been stated, it's a gimmick. Not a very good one at that.
Not gonna wear glasses to watch a movie or play a game.
Not gonna pay extra at a movie theater to wear the glasses I just stated I'm not going to wear so I can watch a blurry movie.
IMO it's the next craze tryin to butt into the HD craze.
To me it's on par with those HD sunglasses :D

2979920830102954535S600x600Q85.jpg
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Clearly a troll post. Look how happy they are...do you honestly believe they would be smiling like that if it was just a big gimmick? Forget television -- they are experiencing the world in HD -- and it is amazing. He is in awe and she is imagining how his little peener will look in HD...
 
pothb said:
If 3D doesn't require glasses, I don't mind in the least. Though I wouldn't throw down extra money for it. However, 99% of the 3d tvs require said glasses, so screw it.
Click to expand...

This.

It's old technology, folks. It's been around for years. They used to make commercials based on it. I don't know why everyone is creaming their pants suddenly about it.
 
Stiletto said:
This.

It's old technology, folks. It's been around for years. They used to make commercials based on it. I don't know why everyone is creaming their pants suddenly about it.
Click to expand...

LCD Shutter Glasses are very much NOT old technology. Those crappy red/blue green/blue whatever stereoscopic glasses are old however.
 
Current 3D is a gimmick and I will not pay a dime for it.
I want a slim HDTV that features perfect black and great color accuracy (hue, saturation, etc.) out of the box.
 
To hell with 3d and just give me the matrix already :p

I can't stand all this 3d crap, it just hurts my eyes.
 
I tried a Samsung 3D TV demo a few days ago, and my head could not stand it. I was already getting headaches about 5 to 7 minutes into the movie they were showing-- "Monsters vs. Aliens"-- then I had to take off the 3D glasses. Since I don't wear contacts, I'd have to take my glasses off to put the 3D glasses on. I've only seen one movie in 3D and unfortunately after 15 minutes trying to force myself to sit through it, I sat through the rest of the movie without the 3D glasses. Yes, that meant watching the movie blurred out with red and blue colors bleeding out of the edges of the objects on the screen. And, those 3D glasses that come bundled are pretty heavy on the head, heavier than my own prescription glasses, so it's very inconvenient to use.

Gimmicky? Yes, very much so.

Depending on the person, it can be an enjoyable experience, but unfortunately for people like myself, it's going to be painful to watch. Therefore, I hope it doesn't catch on, and that someday we'll be able to watch 3D movies without the glasses.
 
I find it really annoying in movies. Most people have said how its more suited to action films, but I think it works against them specifically. I find the faster the action, or more complicated the visuals, the more it is blurred and distorted by 3D vision. I remember watching Alice in Wonderland at the Imax, and not being able to see the horse and dragonflys that flew near the camera, in any discernible detail (and I qould have liked to have seen them). I don't think 3D handles motion well at all, avatar included. The more fast paced something gets, the more I HATE the experience. So oddly, I would rather watch sideways in 3D than avatar, but I would much rather watch NONE of them in 3D.

Also, whoever mentioned Old Boy, +1000
 
Brad Gamma said:
I find it really annoying in movies. Most people have said how its more suited to action films, but I think it works against them specifically. I find the faster the action, or more complicated the visuals, the more it is blurred and distorted by 3D vision. I remember watching Alice in Wonderland at the Imax, and not being able to see the horse and dragonflys that flew near the camera, in any discernible detail (and I qould have liked to have seen them). I don't think 3D handles motion well at all, avatar included. The more fast paced something gets, the more I HATE the experience. So oddly, I would rather watch sideways in 3D than avatar, but I would much rather watch NONE of them in 3D.

Also, whoever mentioned Old Boy, +1000
Click to expand...

Alice in Wonderland is a TERRIBLE example of a 3D film. It was never meant to be 3D at all. Buton filmed it as a 2D movie. Almost literally at the last minute did the studio decide to make it 3D. After it was all edited and ready to go to the theaters. Avatar did a good job I thought, though yes some scenes didn't work great.
 
3D is neat and sometimes annoying. I find it detracts from immersion as I am constantly annoyed by the fact that I have no choice in what my eyes focus on. I call gimmick used to sell new stuff to people who do not need it.
 
lunix said:
3D is neat and sometimes annoying. I find it detracts from immersion as I am constantly annoyed by the fact that I have no choice in what my eyes focus on. I call gimmick used to sell new stuff to people who do not need it.
Click to expand...

They need to somehow force people into buying another generation of LCD displays before that tech becomes bargain bin only ;)
 
the problem with 3D is that it is a gimmick that is used in place of good movie making. I saw avatar for the first time on a 22" tube TV and it was absolute shit. It was all sorts of extended "running at the camera" scenes that look good on 3D in place of any real character development or good action. 3D is like the wii, it's new and different at first, which makes it fun and exciting. Unfortunately, it relies on the gimmick instead of depth or true ingenuity. We are already seeing the beginning, and I shudder at the thought of my movie library being as shallow as my wii library.

Roger Ebert agrees.

Disclaimer: I hate ebert normally, but he is right on this. Also, I'm a wii owning nintendo fanboi who has owned every single nintendo console since nes (minus virtual boy!)
 
ryken said:
the problem with 3D is that it is a gimmick that is used in place of good movie making. I saw avatar for the first time on a 22" tube TV and it was absolute shit. It was all sorts of extended "running at the camera" scenes that look good on 3D in place of any real character development or good action.
Click to expand...


Well theres your problem. Had you seen it in the movie theatre in 3D you would have a different opinion I'm sure. thats the equivalent of watching Lawrence of Arabia without letterbox on a 4:3 display, you just don't see the movie the way the director wanted you to see it.
 
Anyone want to watch a action movie in 3d? Put your glasses on knock on my door I'll open it and punch you in the nose lol..
 
Krenum said:
Well theres your problem. Had you seen it in the movie theatre in 3D you would have a different opinion I'm sure. thats the equivalent of watching Lawrence of Arabia without letterbox on a 4:3 display, you just don't see the movie the way the director wanted you to see it.
Click to expand...

You really want the argument to boil down to this?

"Your opinion on Avatar is invalid because you didn't sink X amount of dollars in order to watch it precisely the way the director intended you to view the action"

Yeah...that's good...
 
Dreaz said:
You really want the argument to boil down to this?

"Your opinion on Avatar is invalid because you didn't sink X amount of dollars in order to watch it precisely the way the director intended you to view the action"

Yeah...that's good...
Click to expand...

Thank you for the common sense post Dreaz, this is more along the lines of my feelings. A movie has to have xxxx minimum requirements on your Home theatre to be good.......:D, what a laugh. STORY > EFFECTS, everytime.
 
ryken said:
the problem with 3D is that it is a gimmick that is used in place of good movie making
Click to expand...

Up is an excellent film with or without 3D. 3D just adds to the experience, visually Up is the most impressive movie I've seen to date, and that includes Avatar.
 
Krenum said:
Well theres your problem. Had you seen it in the movie theatre in 3D you would have a different opinion I'm sure. thats the equivalent of watching Lawrence of Arabia without letterbox on a 4:3 display, you just don't see the movie the way the director wanted you to see it.
Click to expand...

you're missing my point. the point is that 3D movies just rest on the 3D aspect and forgo the substantive parts that make a movie great.

Spewn said:
Up is an excellent film with or without 3D. 3D just adds to the experience, visually Up is the most impressive movie I've seen to date, and that includes Avatar.
Click to expand...

I'll check that out.
 
ryken said:
I'll check that out.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to clarify, since I re-read my post and thought it might be confusing; The movie is great without 3D, but when you add the 3D in it becomes incredibly impressive visually. There was one scene that actually looked real to me, my brain was telling me "That must be a set of wooden cutouts moving along in front of a sunset background".

It also helps that I love my wife very much, and we've watched it together several times now. :)
 
Since I can't see in 3D, all I have to contribute is this-- If 3D does become mainstream, I just hope they don't make it so those of us that can't see in 3D can't view movies and games properly anymore.
 
I was more impressed with the 3D hdtv than the theaters Real D technology.

Maybe i was sitting to close.
 
As long as I still have the option of watching the regular version in the theatre or buying a 2d tv im good.
I want my blockbuster moar explodey movies in 3d on a giant screen at ear-splitting volume. This does not mean that I can't enjoy a non-explosion movie as well, I just don't see the point of paying 2x10$ for roughly the same expierence I can get at home for 5$ on pay-per-view (well they are good for dates every once in a while.)
 
I see how some guys say it's a gimmick and how you can't have 'true 3D' but I still like the effect when I'm watching an animated flick. Avatard was pretty impressive visually but I don't think I'd have the will to sit through that POS story&plotline a second time to compare it to a full HD home theater experience.

It seems that most folks really mind the glasses; my wife and I don't really but we've never dealt with the wired/shuttered system; just the regular left/right eye dealies in the movie theaters.

The demo I saw in the Sony store looked pretty good on some loop showing a dirtbike video game clip and some zoo animals but then I saw another mitsubishi demo in the Microsoft store and it looked pretty bad and the image never really looked clear.
 
I think 3D is a headache inducing gimmick. It adds nothing to game play. I think wide screen gaming adds the most to game play. And 3D just raises costs and adds to development time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top