Do we all really hate 3-D?

Many filmmakers I talk to today are always mentioning how they hate 3-D. It's a fad, it isn't needed, or it's a plain rip-off at the movies.

I personally don't feel this way as some 3-D films can really immerse you in the film. Especially if the venue you're in can support the proper 3-D specs intended and if the film was shot specifically for the 3-D experience. I agree though, 80% of 3-D movies out in theaters don't need to be in 3-D, a good film shouldn't "rely" on 3-D effects, and yes it's expensive.

If you're not a fan of 3-D, why do you feel that and what experiences really made you dislike it? If you like 3-D in movies, why is that and which movies did you see had 3-D effects that truly enhanced the story?
 
I don't like 3-D, but I've only seen one 3-D movie in the theater during the recent trend. The glasses became extremely uncomfortable, and I think I was allergic to what they clean them with. They probably weren't the proper glasses you refer to, but I still feel like the movie would have been just as good, if not better, if I hadn't watched it in 3-D. Now, if I want to see a movie that's in 3-D, I find a theater showing it in 2-D.

The 3-D cameras Hollywood uses nowadays to shoot big-budget movies create a specific look that is noticeable even when not viewing the movie in the 3-D. I don't know if I like it or not. I feel like things take longer to come into focus. There's something a little off about it, even though it can look extremely sharp at times.
 
Where I am coming from (perspective) --- I have a 73" high def TV (got it new and cheap with no shipping charges and no taxes), bought a new tech 3D (2D to 3D) Bluray player at 50% off, have the old-style, IR glasses (bought a bunch at 60% off due to the company going with bluetooth 3D glasses) and have been surfing the net for deals on 3D movies (new and generally around 60% off). We have about 12 3D movies to date, (none are cartoons). We are NOT rich so we look for baragins and wait until there is one.

I love 3D on our TV. Superior to the 3D on IMAX where we saw Avatar (we compared and juried). Our 'home' picture is far superior in 3D picture and effect with Resident Evil 4 (which we saw as 'TRUE 3D' at local theater).

Captain America and Conan in 3D were stunning on our system. Green Lantern and Thor were fair (but that was due to story not the 3D effect). The key is to HOW the 3D effect is achieved. Using polarized glasses and Anaglyph 3D is mediocre at best (actually, they suck).

We have also watched ESPN 3D sports... WOW (capital letters). Colleg and Pro Basketball, College Football and the X games... AWSOME! I have found that most people who hate 3D have NOT seen 3D like we have in our home. We did spend all our entertainment money on our system so we do not frequent theaters like we used to. But it is paid off and we can now enjoy for many years to come... waiting for more quality 3D movies to come out on BluRay.

My opinion. Probably not worth much. But is an honest evaluation.
 
Thanks for the reviews. My extended family just got 3-D on their home systems and they love it. I will recommend some of those to them. When I made the thread I wasn't even thinking of 3-D for home viewing, but that's big and thanks for mentioning it!




I agree with you in way that the viewing experience can vary depending on the venue/specs. Besides the visual pop, the sound in the venue is important as well.

Many movie theaters these days that are adding IMAX 3-D, don't build the gigantic IMAX spherical theaters that we are accustomed to when going to a museum or amusement parks. Theaters these days now build "3-D IMAX theaters" where all it is, is just adding an extension to the theater, enlarging the screen past the usual size, and then adding 3-D goggles. : -|




Tron Legacy comes to mind when I think of 3-D done right. I remember wanting to see it non-3D, for price reasons and because that day we didn't have time to wait for the next regular showing. It was 3-D or bust. So I put on my glasses thinking it was going to be a dizzy fest, my pocket lighter by about $14.00. What I got was well worth the money and more.

The movie aims to take you into another world and it succeeded via powerful sets and the overall style, but the 3D visual effects amplified this different world. It is probably the best 3D film I've seen to date. I'm not all over 3D and think some films should have never gotten the 3D treatment, but this was done beautifully. It truly felt like you were there. The 3-D depth of field was consistent and not "added in" as foreground like in some movies. Nothing can replace how good the movie as an experience felt.

I also saw Avatar in 3D. With this film, it was the opposite. I had seen it 3 times in theaters because of family and friends seeing it all at different times and inviting me. I would say the 2nd time, it had the best visual "pop." But overall it didn't "add" anything. It just seemed like eye candy vs working it into feel. It honestly felt like I could have watched it in 2D and nothing would have felt lost. So some movies work well with 3D.




So while I am more of a fan of it, I still don't think 3-D effects should compensate for a bad movie and I don't think it should be abused to take extra dollars from viewers. After all if I'm going to dizzy myself to watch your 3-D movie, it better be a damn good one.
 
For the most part, I find 3-D to be a joke. Which is sad because a few years ago I was a huge 3-D nerd and wanted 3-D films to be released more often. Most of the movies out there are converted in post instead of actually being filmed in 3-D, which gives mediocre (read: nonexistent) results. The best 3-D I've ever seen is in the IMAX nature documentaries. I think this is because on an IMAX screen, there are actually two separate images being projected at the same time-there's one reel of film for the left eye, one for the right. Digital 3-D works with only one projector constantly switching between the left and right eye images, which for some reason gives sub-par results (at least, that's my understanding of it, correct me if I'm wrong). The last movie I saw in 3-D was DreamWorks's Puss in Boots, which was "filmed" in 3-D (separate images were created during animation for the left and right pictures) as opposed to converted, and while it wasn't IMAX, it was one of the more impressive displays of 3-D I've seen.
 
I'm excited to see the Hobbit in 3d and 60p, I had an epiphany while watching the production diaries... he's not glomming onto the latest and greatest gimmick, he's actually trying to make Middle earth a real place, not cinematic, but real, so the 60P thing and the depth being added has the potential to make the audience feel like they're actually there.
 
For the most part, I find 3-D to be a joke. Which is sad because a few years ago I was a huge 3-D nerd and wanted 3-D films to be released more often. Most of the movies out there are converted in post instead of actually being filmed in 3-D, which gives mediocre (read: nonexistent) results. The best 3-D I've ever seen is in the IMAX nature documentaries. I think this is because on an IMAX screen, there are actually two separate images being projected at the same time-there's one reel of film for the left eye, one for the right. Digital 3-D works with only one projector constantly switching between the left and right eye images, which for some reason gives sub-par results (at least, that's my understanding of it, correct me if I'm wrong). The last movie I saw in 3-D was DreamWorks's Puss in Boots, which was "filmed" in 3-D (separate images were created during animation for the left and right pictures) as opposed to converted, and while it wasn't IMAX, it was one of the more impressive displays of 3-D I've seen.

Hey I know what you mean. What I find is that there are many movies that are marketed heavily by the 3D content - They emphasize that it's "filmed" in 3D. Two things come to mind when I watch a 3D movie in theaters A) You can just tell when they added foreground effects to give the feel of 3D and B) Some movies that were intended from the beginning to be shot in 3D...... just don't pop or are so inconsistent with the 3D effect, it comes out mediocre.

In the case of A, I tend to feel cheated. A bit of an insult to my intelligence. With B, it's just sad because you know they had good intentions and they could not pull through.


I'm trying to figure out what makes some 3D films more engaging with 3D and why with some films the added effect is really just "so so." I think with Tron Legacy, they had extreme wide shots with the talent in the foreground and we see the vast vast background. They also did longer cuts to help us appreciate this "depth of field." If there's a strong 3D pop in a movie, it's hard for that to matter if it's only quick cuts or if the shots aren't framed in a particularly impressive way. The best 3D is when they think and plan the shots for 3D presentation or succeed in immersing you in a different world.

The Hobbit 3D I'll definitely be catching in 3D. To me The Hobbit = different world = perfect chance to test if the 3D really places you in that world.
 
Last edited:
I can wait for the Hobbit 1 & 2 to come out on 3D bluray... to watch over and over... can't wait.

More information --- Active glasses (even our out-dated IR 3D glasses, the current technology is replacing them with rechargable bluetooth active 3D glasses) will always be far superior over any form of passive 3D glasses (polarized, like you see in the theater). I just viewed the 'NEW' passive 3D TV put out by a major TV manufacturerer, I got to tell you, don't waste your money... the 3D picture they had on the viewing floor isn't very good. Let me repeat that. Passive 3D isn't very good. Our 2D to 3D conversion is even better... and that is not saying much.

Like I have said many times... most people that have seen 3D and dislike the experience... have not seen the 3D we watch on our home screen. Many friends and family have come over, watched our system and leave our house loving 3D...

Stay away from passive 3D. Active glasses are heavier and have a smaller lense -- but the picture is superior.

MrDirecter wrote "I agree with you in way that the viewing experience can vary depending on the venue/specs. Besides the visual pop, the sound in the venue is important as well."

Clarify...

When we built our 'dream' house, back in 1989, (I helped designed and modified several existing floor plans that went into our house's final layout), my goal was to have a large and open livingroom. I built into the ceiling a dolby digital surround sound speaker system, (using large, high-end but hidden) speakers. My wife would not allow me to build into and under the floor the sub woofer that I really wanted. Rats. It would have been awesome. Earthquake? You would not only hear it -- you would FEEL it!

Yes. Sound is very important, 50% of the production.
 
One of the big problems with home 3-d equipment is that we are all just getting comfortable with blu-ray and high def. DVD is finally in its death throughs and for the most part we're not looking to upgrade for the fraction of movies that are in 3d, and the even smaller fraction that we want to buy.

How many must own 3-d movies came out this year? (enough to validate upgrading?)

I've seen a few movies in 3d.. I never had any problem with the glasses themselves but "Things take longer to come into focus" is a good summary.
I'll occasionally get disoriented and for a few seconds not really know what's going on on screen, particularly when the images are busy. Still if you pay attention good 3d can be pretty impressive..

But here is my main thing.. I watched Toy Story 3 in 3d, and at some point I realized that there was absolutely no difference one way or the other between 2d and 3d once i got involved with the characters.

that being said - I'm a huge proponent of 3d for gaming. I think that's where it's greatest potential lies.

For film, it's still up in the air weather it's going to fizzle out or not.
 
Last edited:
Don, I was referring to how the venue you watch the 3D movie in can affect your experience. There are theaters that are well equipped to give you the best 3D movie-going experience and some that are lacking. An extreme example would be watching an IMAX 3D film in one of the giant IMAX omnimax domes VS the IMAX 3D in conventional theaters which is just a slightly bigger projector screen and they toss you 3D glasses. They charge you about the same amount for a mediocre, downgraded, version.

Aaron, Toy Story 3 is an amazing movie. I wasn't expecting it to be what it was. Fantastic storytelling, great focus on the characters, great subtext. I could imagine why at some point, the 3D didn't matter. I haven't tried 3D gaming yet, have you? Does it immerse you more into the world or enhance the story? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm just curious.


One of my mentors mentioned he wanted to shoot his company's feature film in 3D. I really want to ask him if it's just to get a bigger audience or if he actually has plans to work it into the story / put the viewer deeper in the film's world. We've never actually talked about his intentions with it.

I guess it brings me to another question within the topic. When we refer to movies in 3D, we tend to refer to huge blockbuster movies with big name directors or producers boosting the film. If you were given the opportunity to shoot your next movie in 3D, would you go for it knowing it could stand out and get you more of an audience or just skip out on it? I personally feel like it would be a huge burden and more meticulous planning.
 
Filmmakers, indie and Hollywood, alike can barely make watchable 2D feature films. Going all out with new 3D tech while most filmmakers have not even mastered the basics of great storytelling is cart putting before the horse on a grand scale.
 
I'm going to go see HUGO, just to see the 3D. I'll have an opinion after HUGO. I haven't seen AVITAR.
Well, I saw HUGU in 3D. It's a very well thought out movie, well written with an A-List Cast. I'd give it an A+. I will probably watch it again tomorrow or Tuesday in 2D. I am interested in the difference between 3D and 2D.
 
GuerrillaAngel, LOL. Not totally disagreeing with you...

BUT.

Give me the meager funds to buy two Sony F3 Cams with the necessary hookups for 3D (combining the two cameras) to turn DEATH WALKS BEHIND YOU into a 3D movie (please feel free to add the funds to pay my cast -- note -- I work cheap and so do they) WE will amaze audiences internationally and make a huge, big profit... I love 3D and I am not intimidated by what it can and cannot do.

Almost sounds like a spam fraud E-mail from King Phil... who ever he is...

The sound you might not hear, but is extremely loud as I type, is my laughing out loud (not at you, but with you)... my two cents worth of response (hint, hint, DEATH WALKS BEHIND YOU, it is a fantastic script) to your above comment... and DEATH WALKS BEHIND YOU will work sooo well in 3D !!!!

All comments are in fun with crossed fingers... and smiley faces (tis corny). Yes.

I believe 3D is here to stay. And I do NOT do porn...

Had too many beers at the Browns vs Ravens football game... excuse me... still laughing (Browns lost again).
 
If done right, I think it's great. I would equate it to the visual equivalent of surround sound. Surround sound is more "immersive" than stereo, right? When done right, so is 3D more immersive than 2D.
 
I don't know why, but whenever I watch 3-D films my eyes can't stand it! I often have to take them off and put them back on while watching the film. In some cases, I do think the outcome of using 3-D cameras looks great, but I'm quite alright watching 2-D films.
 
Well, I saw HUGU in 3D. It's a very well thought out movie, well written with an A-List Cast. I'd give it an A+. I will probably watch it again tomorrow or Tuesday in 2D. I am interested in the difference between 3D and 2D.
Well I just saw it again, now in 2D. I think the movie was just as good in 2D. This is an excellent movie with an A-List cast and Crew. It's a tough call, I really like 3D, but as I said this is a fantastic movie in 2D also. It will be interesting to compare the box office in 3D and 2D. What did the movie cost, (real figures) and what would it cost to make "just" in 2D. Can the studio justify the extra expenses of 3D? Good 2D movies will still fill the seats, and bad movies in 3D are still bad movies. My girlfriend has been out of town, when she gets back I'll take her to the 3D version, see what she thinks.
 
I wear glasses, so 3d will always be a little annoying in terms of comfort. I've been to a few 3d movies, though not all that many. I usually choose 2d. I haven't seen anything where 3d is necessary to the experience, and not just a gimmick. The most positive experience I've had with it was Kung Fu Panda 2...and I liked that just as much in 2d.

My main problem as far as the home game is concerned is this: I'm rarely doing just one thing. I'm watching a movie, and talking with my girlfriend, practicing guitar, eating dinner, writing notes, etc. My leisure time is limited, so I cram a bunch of stuff into it! I like a fully immersive experience, but if that's what something demands, I rarely have time for it. The idea of putting on a pair of glasses just to watch tv holds no appeal to me.

Don't get me wrong; the tech is impressive. Even films where it is generally distracting (Thor comes to mind...much better in 2d) it definitely has impressive moments. I'm a big dork, so I'm excited about rewatching Star Wars in 3d, and one of the 15 or so times I see the Hobbit will be in 3d. But, for the most part, 3d doesn't fit in with the way I choose to consume entertainment. I am personally not that interested though I get why many people are.

All that said, I try to be open minded about everything, so if anyone can point out examples of why we need films to be 3d, other than "because we can", I would be interested.
 
When no glasses are required it might finally stick. Until then it's never really going to get traction.

As far as film making. It puts some tools in your hands, while taking others out. No interest in it personally, but whatever.
 
Back
Top