Monday, May 30, 2011


Recently news broke out that 3-D is becoming less popular among the masses. (Thank goodness!) I was never a fan of it to begin with and hearing it'll be dead in the water made me happy.

I ask you this: what's your opinion on 3-D?


  1. It has to overcome two hurdles:

    1. There needs to be a film that does for 3D what Terminator 2 did for CGI and The Jazz Singer did for sound.

    2. The technology needs to improve to the point where the experience is only changed by the addition of 3D. It should ask nothing more of the viewers, no glasses and no side effects that you don't already get from 2D pictures.

    If can overcome those two hurdles, then I will take it seriously. Just improve the quality of the image more and, to borrow from Leo Laporte, your mind will make it 3D.

  2. Ok, so we all agree that movies are a medium for telling stories.

    There's no question that sound, colour and CGI increased the scope of the medium in this respect. 3D does not: it's a gimmick, and that's all.

  3. For me, 3-D feels like a rare colour of paint on an artist's palette. It can be used for bold effect and create something extraordinary, but if the brushstrokes aren't "just so" it can make a mess of the whole thing.

    I'm still in favour of seeing the odd film in3-D that wants to use it to proper effect (Zemeckis' CHRISTMAS CAROL, U23D)...but I am done paying for it as a surcharge for the average blockbuster.

  4. 3D would be great if they actually used it. In most films all they do is give the image a bit of depth. Last film I saw in 3D was POTC: On Stranger Tides, and the only time I felt like 3D was worth it was during one of the commercials - this giant futuristic sphere was right in front us, with such high quality - that was actually amazing. But having Jack Sparrow's hat an inch closer is not worth the discomfort of wearing those glasses for two hours.

  5. I think it can be more than a gimmick. Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon are fine examples of how 3D enhanced the experience. I think there are larger issues unrelated to 3D (studios only seeing it as a means to pump up revenue, theaters under-lighting screens) that are the bigger problem.

  6. 3D is fine as a once in a while treat for the big & little kids and the occasional tent pole movie but the obsession with studios to cram pointless pointy pointy vision into practically every major release has saturated the market and put most film fans I know off from venturing out to the cinema as much as they used too - "I'll catch it on 2D at home". Ticket costs also being an issue. Less, in the case of 3D releases, is more.

  7. Just a gimmick! They should stop trying to impose it on moviegoers. Glad this is backfiring on them.

  8. I hate it. It's just an unessecary way to jack up ticket prices. I truely hope they nix it before the new Harry Potter movie comes out. (again)

  9. Definitely a gimmick - granted a gimmick that some people will go for but still a gimmick non the less. Certainly not the future. Although the introduction of 3D TVs to the home is a bit worrying - however that could go the way of BETA Max.

    Besides the effect gives me headache


Comments are appreciated. More so if they are appropriate.