Why 3D? WHY??

[Jeivar]

I hate watching movies in 3D. I absolutely hate it. I have skipped watching movies I was really excited for because my local theatre only showed them in 3D. The damn glasses make the picture look drab, which is not something I look for in a visual powerhouse like your typical blockbuster, and the 3D effect just ruins action scenes for me. Whenever something quick is happening on-screen, it just becomes a mess.

3D adds nothing positive to my viewing experience. It's all purely negative.

And wouldn't you know it, my local theatre is mostly showing The Last Jedi in 3D, with 2D only being shown for a week, and only at 22:20.

WHYYY is 3D still a thing?? Does anyone actually like it? I have been griping about this to people around me for years, and I have yet to speak to anyone who prefers movies in 3D. And neither have the theatre employees I have spoken to.

[GrayDeath]

In short. if the Movie does 3D well AND the cinema I am watching it in has up to date tech: yes, vewry much.

In all other cases, no. Also very much.

[Zmeoaice]

WHYYY is 3D still a thing??

So the studio can make more money per ticket sale.

[Cikomyr]

Why does it bother you so much? Cant you just avoid movies in 3D?

[Traab]

Apparently not if he wants to see them in theaters.

[Cikomyr]

Apparently not if he wants to see them in theaters.

We always have non-3d options where I live..

[Traab]

We always have non-3d options where I live..

He says he doesnt. Or at least, the 2d options are at times he cant attend. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a theater big enough to do both nearby.

[Douglas]

The damn glasses make the picture look drab, which is not something I look for in a visual powerhouse like your typical blockbuster, and the 3D effect just ruins action scenes for me. Whenever something quick is happening on-screen, it just becomes a mess.
This does not match my experience with 3D at all, not even the tiniest bit. Maybe your theater just doesn't have good 3D projectors?

[Dienekes]

I maintain the only movie to use 3D well was Dredd 3D. It only used it when characters were on a drug. And the effect was used more to make the visuals look odd but more beautiful than the standard world. Exactly like the drug was supposed to do. It was distracting because it was exactly meant to be the focus whenever it was used.

Other than that. Yeah, 3D is usually a cheap gimmick.

[JoshL]

I don't care one way or another about 3d. I'll go see it if the show is at the time I want to see a movie, but I'd usually just rather go to a 2d showing. It's a gimmick that comes and goes over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it fall out of fashion again sometime soon, but to be fair, these days it does look WAY better than old 3d movies did.

I work in an office with a lot of "normal" people. We talk about movies a lot since that's one of the few things we have in common, and most of my co-workers love 3d movies. So it's clear that lots of people are still really into them. And as long as people keep going to them, they'll keep making them. I'm just glad that the 2d option is still available.

[Douglas]

I maintain the only movie to use 3D well was Dredd 3D. It only used it when characters were on a drug. And the effect was used more to make the visuals look odd but more beautiful than the standard world. Exactly like the drug was supposed to do. It was distracting because it was exactly meant to be the focus whenever it was used.

Other than that. Yeah, 3D is usually a cheap gimmick.
If the 3D comes and goes, it's distracting and that's a problem when it's used for important scenes. All the 3D movies I've seen in the last few years have used 3D for literally everything, though, which means by the time important scenes are happening my eyes have adjusted to it and it's just there, not distracting at all.

[Dienekes]

If the 3D comes and goes, it's distracting and that's a problem when it's used for important scenes. All the 3D movies I've seen in the last few years have used 3D for literally everything, though, which means by the time important scenes are happening my eyes have adjusted to it and it's just there, not distracting at all.

This brings up the big 3D delemna doesn't it?

If the 3D is noticeable it's (usually) bad.

If the 3D isn't noticeable then I am wasting my money on a pointless gimmick.

[huttj509]

This brings up the big 3D delemna doesn't it?

If the 3D is noticeable it's (usually) bad.

If the 3D isn't noticeable then I am wasting my money on a pointless gimmick.

I dunno, I found Jurassic Park in 3D to be pretty dang cool, and I normally avoid it like the plague (never works well over my glasses).

[Douglas]

This brings up the big 3D delemna doesn't it?

If the 3D is noticeable it's (usually) bad.

If the 3D isn't noticeable then I am wasting my money on a pointless gimmick.
That I'm not distracted by it does not mean it's not noticeable. It approaches being like 3D in real life - the fact that I don't usually pay much conscious attention to my depth perception does not negate that it's there whenever I care to notice and that vision with it is clearly superior to vision without.

I've watched each of the last few MCU movies in 3D, and I think each one was better for it even though it stopped drawing conscious attention before the previews finished.

[The New Bruceski]

3D gives me a headache, so I have to avoid it.

[SaintRidley]

I mostly avoid 3D because of the glasses hindering my viewing experience because I already wear real glasses. That makes a problem, but I'll suck it up if the movie does the effect really well.

[Knaight]

This brings up the big 3D delemna doesn't it?

If the 3D is noticeable it's (usually) bad.

If the 3D isn't noticeable then I am wasting my money on a pointless gimmick.

I'm no fan of 3D*, but this isn't a particularly convincing argument. The exact same argument could be made regarding the introduction of sound, then the introduction of color in movies.

*Particularly since I switched from contacts to glasses. I'm not wearing two pairs of glasses on my face if I can avoid it, as everyone else here who also wears glasses can attest. Sure, I could just watch the movie without it, but at that point the slight blurriness more than counteracts any theoretical benefit of 3D.

[Bohandas]

I too am surprised that this stupid fad has lasted so long this time. Luckily once it does peter out it should stay gone for thirty years if history is any indication.

It does add one thing to the movie however, cost. It costs more to see it. That's the only thing it adds.

[Bohandas]

I maintain the only movie to use 3D well was Dredd 3D.

The Muppetvision 3D short at Disneyworld is good too, but that has several gimmicks working together in concert and lampshades all of them ("Did somebody say 'cheap 3d tricks'?")

[Yora]

I always want to focus on things in the background but I can't and it stays blurry. Which makes the whole picture filled with chaotic noise. I've let myself be dragged into 3D movies a couple of times now and I'm done with it.

[Psyren]

Yeah it's a fad, and yeah it doesn't add anything. Speaking personally, my movie purchases are typically made spur-of-the-moment or at the last minute, so what drives a purchase for me is showtime more than anything else - and if the timeslot that is most convenient given all the other stuff my friends and I want to do that day happens to be a 3D one, we suck it up and buy the 3D ticket.

Others have answered the "why is it still going on" question - it makes more money. One, because "3D" sounds like "more stuff" and thus lets them justify the higher ticket price (much as "IMAX" sounds like "more stuff.") Two, because it's one of the few differentiators movie theaters have left over home entertainment setups - in-home 3D adoption isn't great for a number of reasons. (Watching TV is a social activity but 3D is a more solitary affair unless you have a bunch of cash to blow on multiple pairs of glasses, upkeep and charging of said glasses is annoying at best, and very little televised content is broadcast in 3D anyway.)

What's really going to be scary/annoying is when they start trying to make VR movies happen in earnest.

[BWR]

Generally I'm OK with 3d. The movie I thought did 3d worst was Avatar. Teething problems for the technology, I think. It was so exaggerated and made things look like those pop-up books - several layers of flat stuff rather than truly 3d objects. I've seen it used very well, like in Amazing Spider-Man 2. At its best it adds a sort of 'fullness' to the viewing experience rather than certain things popping up out of a flat background.
I have seen a few cases where 3D action gets a bit blurry but I think that has more to do with the movie or the projectors than the technology as a whole since I've seen action sequences that were just fine.

I'm not so wedded to 3D that I will always choose the more expensive ticket over 2D - some movies don't need to be in 3D and avoiding wearing two sets of glasses for 2+ hours when I don't have to is nice (even if I did buy the expensive, comfortable 3D glasses made for people like me).

[Eldan]

I've seen a few movies where it was done well and I felt like it added something. Dredd was mentioned above. Overall, though? I think something may be wrong with my eyes, but I can often not focus properly on 3D and get the feeling I see everything slightly double. It's irritating.

[Noldo]

How often you have seen the same movie in theaters both in 2D and in 3D? So far I have never managed to do that but I wonder if such an experiment would allow me to appreciate the 3D more - or prove conclusively that 3D is generally unnecessary gimmick.

It feels that in 3D versions there are often scenes where the camera focuses on a person or object in front, and the background is all blurry and hazy, and at some point the camera focuses on the person or object on the background, turning the person in front unfocused. And these scenes irritate me as the effect seems completely unnecessary and gimmicky way to show off the 3D effect.

[Jeivar]

How often you have seen the same movie in theaters both in 2D and in 3D? So far I have never managed to do that but I wonder if such an experiment would allow me to appreciate the 3D more - or prove conclusively that 3D is generally unnecessary gimmick.


When I was able to watch The Force Awakens on plain old DVD I found it a much more pleasant experience.

So that's settled for me.

[DanyBallon]

I’m not a fan of 3D either, especially when it’s blatant they’ve added scene afterward only to be able to sell the movie as a 3D movie. But I like it when the movie is designed around it, like animation (Toy Story 3 to name one) or when the scene with 3D really add to the experience; the last one I’ve seen done this way was the latest Ghost Buster, where the 3D was mostly done to enhance the ghost and give them more «life».

[BWR]

To be honest, when people complain about 3D I'm reminded of the people who complained about talkies, about color film and about CGI.
"It's terrible, it's unnecessary, it looks/sounds terrible, just stick to the old stuff which works just fine."
It's a relatively new technology, nothing is perfect from the start and everything can be done well or poorly.

[Manga Shoggoth]

It's a relatively new technology, nothing is perfect from the start and everything can be done well or poorly.

It's hardly new. In film it goes back to 1915, and apparently had a "golden Age" around 1952–1954 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_film).

[Anonymouswizard]

I personally hate 3D, because I have two choices.

I can not wear my glasses, in which case everything is slightly fuzzy and I don't have any depth perception.

I can wear my glasses, in which case I am wearing two pairs of glasses and as others have mentioned, that doesn't feel right. Plus I barely have more depth perception than with my glasses.

Yeah, I have a squint and as such don't really have binocular vision. Most of the depth perception I have is with size, with a very small amount of binocular vision when I wear my glasses (which are actually mainly for this, my eyesight without them is just 'slightly fuzzy and headache inducing). Therefore with 3D movies I'm pretty much literally seeing one of the pictures meant to cause the 3D effect, which makes the price increase less than worthless for me and I always watch 2D if I can get a ticket.

The only exception is when I'm carrying 3D glasses and the cinema is doing a 'no extra money for 3D showing, but we don't provide free glasses' thing. But I haven't seen one of those in years/

[Pex]

What I don't like about 3D movies is that the 3rd dimension is projected into the screen instead of out of the screen towards the audience. You notice the depth, but it's far away. The fun factor of 3D is having the image be in front of you. Otherwise, there's no point.

The technology exists to have the image in front of you. Disney does it at their theme parks with their Muppet Extravaganza and their Donald Duck movie where he steals Mickey's sorcerer hat if that attraction is still running.

[Dienekes]

I'm no fan of 3D*, but this isn't a particularly convincing argument. The exact same argument could be made regarding the introduction of sound, then the introduction of color in movies.

*Particularly since I switched from contacts to glasses. I'm not wearing two pairs of glasses on my face if I can avoid it, as everyone else here who also wears glasses can attest. Sure, I could just watch the movie without it, but at that point the slight blurriness more than counteracts any theoretical benefit of 3D.

It’s not an argument for the technology not existing. So long as it makes money and people happy then it’s fine.

It’s more an argument why I don’t personally want to spend money to see it.

[Bohandas]

Generally I'm OK with 3d. The movie I thought did 3d worst was Avatar.

Avatar was a pretty bad movie in general.

[Bohandas]

It's hardly new. In film it goes back to 1915, and apparently had a "golden Age" around 1952–1954 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_film).

And, IIRC, a comeback in the 1980's. Hence my prediction that once the fad ends it'll be gone for about 30 years. That's how long it stayed away the last two times

[Anonymouswizard]

Avatar was a pretty bad movie in general.

I was going to ask 'space smurfs or airbenders', but then I remembered that both are bad movies.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing The Ultimate Space Samurai Wizard in 2D sometime this month. I just feel like I appreciate special effects more when there's no 'look how 3D this is' glasses on my face and I can appreciate the screen as the screen it is. Plus the entire depth perception issue, I like special effects but I prefer ones I can see.

[GrayDeath]

What Movie would that be?


Also, this time it was around widely far longer than the last times, and the tech is much better (unless you watch 3d in an old Theater of course...), so it might be here to stay, who knows?

[Cikomyr]

I suppose i have an emotional stake in 3D. My father has been medically diagnosed with having no 3D vision (and thus was barred from joining the RCAF). 3D movies are the thing that makes him closer to see the world in 3d.

[Silver Swift]

What Movie would that be?

If you're referring to The Ultimate Space Samurai Wizard, that's a cheeky way refer to The Last Jedi (I'm guessing).

[GrayDeath]

Ah, thanks.

I thought it could have been some swipe at Marvel, or similar, but that makes sense. :)

[Anonymouswizard]

If you're referring to The Ultimate Space Samurai Wizard, that's a cheeky way refer to The Last Jedi (I'm guessing).

Yep, wasn't trying to be obtuse at all. Ultimate can sometimes mean the same as last, and Jedi are wizard samurai multiclasses in space.

Honestly, if I was making a swipe at Marvel I'd be making some joke about teamups. However I thought Thor: Ragnarok was worth recommending to friends even though I hate Avengers 3: Captain America Is Right.

[GrayDeath]

You mean Captain America 3: Iron Man is WRONG^^


And yeah, I enjoyed Thor Ragnarok immensely myself, even if I had enjoyed it more with say, 33% less laughs. ;)

[Velaryon]

I'm with the OP. I have no use for 3D, and will choose not to see a movie at all rather than seeing it in 3D if that's my only option. I do wear glasses, but that's actually got nothing to do with my opinion, as I disliked watching movies in 3D even when I still regularly wore contacts.