3D Movies: Yay or Nay?

I’m going to have to disagree on this one! Honestly, I feel like they’ve just become incredibly tedious with that whole "stuff flying at your face" gimmick. I really don't see the point in shelling out an extra twenty bucks just for some pseudo-immersive effect where objects are constantly darting toward my eyes... it just doesn't feel worth it to me anymore.

Anyway, staying on topic...

Why 3D movies need to die

The way 3D is being utilized right now feels incredibly stuck in its ways, almost overly conservative in how directors approach the storytelling and structure. Honestly, I don't see much of a future in this current direction... for 3D to actually work, it needs to be woven into the very fabric of the narrative, serving a specific dramatic purpose rather than just being a gimmick. It needs a "why," a reason to exist within the scene... but we just aren't seeing that level of integration yet, unless you're looking at some niche experimental indie films. There's also the issue of fatigue; when a movie drags on for two hours in 3D, the effect starts to wear off, making the whole thing feel like a bit of a letdown. It seems much more suited for shorter segments or specific moments in a feature where the depth actually adds something to the experience. Wouldn't 3D make a lot more sense in documentaries—especially in an AMC theater setting? Imagine if we could have high-quality, glasses-free 3D that truly transports you to another place... that would be a massive hit, and it’ll likely happen first in those premium large-format theaters once they figure out the right pricing.😬

Emily Garcia3 said:So, I’ve sat through a handful of those 3D flicks, and honestly? I’m voting a hard pass on the whole thing... mostly because those glasses are just such a massive pain in the neck, and after a little while, my head starts absolutely throbbing from staring through them... plus, if you actually take them off to give your eyes a break, you can't see a single thing happening on screen...
I mean, don't get me wrong, *The Critics* was actually way better than most other movies shot in that format, but even then, I've pretty much decided I'm done throwing my money away just to go through the hassle of watching something in 3D again.

Tell me about it. My head starts throbbing immediately. It’s absolutely awful...😠

Honestly, I don't really give a damn about whether a movie is shot in 3D or if the theatrical release is 3D, because let's be real—you can always just find a standard 2D version on a torrent site anyway.

But since I’m totally exhausted from all this constant bickering and people kicking up a fuss over 3D movies lately, I figured I'd just weigh in and say I'm against them.

The first 3D flick I ever saw was Freddy Krueger way back in the day. Then, a few years ago, I actually went out and bought some 3D glasses just to see if I could get into the hype again, and I ended up powering through a handful of 3D movies over a couple of months. But after that? Man, for the last few years, I haven't had even the slightest urge to sit through a 3D movie ever again.

I haven't actually sat through a single 3D movie yet, though I’ve been itching to try one out. I had my heart set on seeing Herzog’s 'Cave' in that format, but it never even made its way to theaters over here, so that was a total bust. As for this new Scorsese flick in 3D? That's the one I'm planning to catch. Once I've seen it, then—and only then—will I be able to offer any kind of real judgment.

When are we finally going to see glasses-free 3D become a regular thing?

Look, I get that 3D has its niche—you know, for stuff like Jaws or those low-budget creature features—but even then, you pretty much forget you're watching in 3D after a few minutes, right up until the moment some shark jumps out at your face. Plus, the glasses dig into your nose, and you’re paying more for the ticket.
Total garbage.

It’s not just that 3D doesn't add anything; it actually gets in the way.
Take a scene in The Avengers, for example—there's this part where Theseus is chopping wood while having a conversation with a character played by John Hurt.
The wood is in the foreground, the axe is in the second plane, Theseus is in the third, Hurt is in the fourth, and the background is all the way back in the fifth. They’re just having a regular conversation, but I’m sitting there staring at all these layers, and suddenly wood chips are flying out of the screen at me, and I'm thinking... "For what? They're literally just talking!"

I'm completely against this unnecessary so-called 3D crap, and honestly, I'm especially against them ripping off the audience.

Richard Johnson42 said:I haven't actually sat through a single 3D movie yet, though I’ve been itching to try one out. I had my heart set on seeing Herzog’s 'Cave' in that format, but it never even made its way to theaters over here, so that was a total bust. As for this new Scorsese flick in 3D? That's the one I'm planning to catch. Once I've seen it, then—and only then—will I be able to offer any kind of real judgment.

The Scorsese film is in 3D, and word is it's top-tier.

Lisa Ross65 said:The Scorsese film is in 3D, and word is it's top-tier.

Glad to hear it. 🙂

I suppose I could get behind the idea, though I imagine it would only work in specific genres where it actually serves a purpose—like action flicks or animation—whereas in anything else, it might just feel distracting and ultimately strain the eyes.

Even though most 3D movies out right now are total garbage, I still voted "YES."

Just because the current stuff sucks doesn't mean the tech can't be used properly down the road. Honestly, I’m just dying to see what happens when actual master cinematographers start pulling off some insane, virtuosic stunts using 3D cameras. 🙂

As it stands, I’m firmly against it. Until someone who actually understands the nuances of 3D technology steps up to take charge, I’m not buying it.

No, no, NO!😳

Look, people, stop mixing up IMAX with 3D. Watching a movie in IMAX is a whole different beast. Take Transformers, for example—that was insane because you actually felt like you were sucked right into the screen. On the flip side, Immortals in 3D was pretty much just a standard movie with a few random scenes thrown in; it barely even felt like 3D.

But honestly, this is just like those old debates about sound quality. I know plenty of folks who can't stand the audio in an IMAX theater because it’s just way too intense. Look, it's modern technology, just like 3D, designed to give you total immersion. Some people dig it, some don't. I don't get why anyone would complain about 3D movies when you can always just watch any film in a regular theater with normal prices in 2D anyway.

I voted against it simply because most of these conversions are garbage and just a way to force them into every single blockbuster. Only IMAX 3D movies actually make sense, along with a handful of live-action flicks (Avatar, Transformers 3, Final Destination 5—and yeah, Hugo is great), but everything else is forgettable. It’s basically just a cash grab by film studios and movie distributors to get back at people for piracy.

hollowsailor48 said:As it stands, I’m firmly against it. Until someone who actually understands the nuances of 3D technology steps up to take charge, I’m not buying it.

Exactly! You need to shoot 3D properly, like James Cameron or the pros making IMAX documentaries. 3D requires serious work and attention to detail, just like we saw in Avatar. But for the big studios, it's all about rushing the release to rake in the cash.
Most directors behind last year's blockbusters allowed 3D conversions, and it'll be the same story this year. I think Christopher Nolan is the only exception with his Batman stuff.

I watched pretty much every 3D movie last year, and maybe four of them were even passable.
So why did I watch all those 3D films if I voted against them?
Because:
1. They suck.
2. AMC basically blackmails its customers into watching 3D instead of 2D (I'd say the ratio is 8:2 in favor of 3D). Specifically, they schedule the 2D screenings at the absolute worst times so you don't really have a choice.