Why Do People Hate 3D?


1950s-3d-movies

Some gadgets are loved, many are ignored, but only a few manage to be truly hated and warrant a widespread emotional backlash.

First, it was blu-ray. Then, it was the PS3. Now, apparently, it is 3D. I have heard many completely valid reasons why people aren’t interested in 3D, but usually, if you don’t want a new gadget, you just ignore it and don’t think about it. You don’t get all worked up and angry about it.

For example, most people really don’t want an e-reader for a variety of reasons; but almost no one gets genuinely pissed off at the technology like I am seeing with 3D.

Personally, I like 3D. It hasn’t changed the world or anything, but particularly with nature documentaries or movies with elaborate scenery and costumes and cinematography, the 3D effect really adds to the visual immersion.

To me, 3D is like like HD or surround sound. No one *needs* this stuff to really enjoy a movie, but if you aren’t being grouchy and cranky about it, it really does make the movie experience nicer.

Also, interactive games seem like they will make better use of 3D than movies do, but I haven’t had a chance to try this yet.

But bottom line, why do people hate 3D as opposed to being indifferent or mildly pleased by it?


Written by: Darrin - Contributing Editor


  1. #1 by Trieloth on January 18th, 2010 [ 3426 Points ]

    People love to hate, especially on the internet. Its a safe haven for that kind of practice.

  2. #2 by mcloki on January 18th, 2010 [ 2355 Points ]

    It’s a backlash against obsolescence. People are just tired of having “yet one more thing” they “need” to buy.
    Face it, most of the things we have in our lives today are good enough. Houses are nice. HDTV’s are good enough. Computers are fast enough. My PS3 is great and I don’t really see a need for a PS4.
    People just want to get off the treadmill of consumerism for a while and appreciate what they have. Just for a while.

  3. #3 by Legion213 on January 18th, 2010

    Because 3D is a gimmick. It’s something the industry is pushing on us that many people don’t want.

    Now they are coming out with 3D HDTV’s that if you want to enjoy 3D at home you must buy a brand new TV. So all those people who ran out and bought a 120hz HDTV last year. Now have to buy yet another. Why? Because companies only want you’re money. They will slap on any kind of “special feature” to get it. Like the simulated 240hz. It’s still 120hz but with this new scanning backlight feature it like you have 240hz. Do they tell you this on the box. Nope. It’s something you need to research on you’re own. Why not make 3d work with existing 120hz TV’s? Because then you wouldn’t need to buy a new one.

    I was fine when 3D was just in the theaters because you’re didn’t have to see it in 3D if you didn’t want to. But what it is coming to is. Once the 3D tv’s hit the market. Everything will become 3D and you will be forced to buy a 3D HDTV. Like HD is today. And yes, You are forced to buy a HDTV. It’s not something you can go without if you enjoy watching TV and Movies. Everything is filmed for HD now. So if you try watching in SD more things are cut off then you want.

  4. #4 by Legion213 on January 18th, 2010

    Plus who wants to sit there with a pair of glasses on all the time when you want to enjoy playing a game of watching a movie. Then having to buy multiple pairs for your friends and family just so they don’t get a headache when trying to watch what you’re watching or playing a game.

    Until they come out with 3D implants for you eyes. It’s going to be a pain.

  5. #5 by Darrin on January 18th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    “So all those people who ran out and bought a 120hz HDTV last year. Now have to buy yet another. Why? Because companies only want you’re money.”

    Are you saying that you are compelled to run out and buy a new HDTV every time they add a feature or improve the hardware? That’s ridiculous. I haven’t bought a new HDTV in ten years (still using a 480i CRT model) but I never got angry when they added new features like HD, deeper blacks, better backlights, 120Hz, etc.

    Subway just sold me a sandwich. Why? Because they just wanted my money. That’s kind of how businesses work.

    “Because 3D is a gimmick.”

    Gimmick implies there is no real value. 3D is a quality enhancement just like progressive scan or HDMI or 120Hz or LED backlights or whatever. People vote with their wallets and buy what makes them happy and ignore the rest. There is nothing to get all worked up and pissed off about.

    “People are just tired of having ‘yet one more thing’ they ‘need’ to buy. Face it, most of the things we have in our lives today are good enough. Houses are nice. HDTV’s are good enough. Computers are fast enough. My PS3 is great and I don’t really see a need for a PS4.”

    That’s like saying, “How dare Subway offer a new type of sandwich?!?. I’ve already eaten several sandwiches, I’m completely full, and I don’t need that.” If you have enough electronic gadgets, leave the store, do something else, and stop flipping out.

  6. #6 by Trieloth on January 18th, 2010 [ 3426 Points ]

    Darrin, your still using a using a 480i CRT model? I some what feel sorry for you man. Iam on my second HDTV and my first hdtv CRT did 720p and 1080i. And I had that eight years ago. Nobody could pay me enough to use a old 480i tv.

  7. #7 by Darrin on January 18th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    Actually I just switched to a $200 24″ 1080p computer monitor in my office for gaming, but I still use my 480i for my living room for family movie watching. I have money, I’m ready to buy, but I figured I would postpone until the 2010 3D ready models are ready to buy :)

  8. #8 by Trieloth on January 18th, 2010 [ 3426 Points ]

    Darrin your a smart man, I would wait a little longer also. The 3D tvs look cool.

  9. #9 by matt on January 18th, 2010

    I think people get so worked up over 3D is that it is most likely going to fail terribly. Programming has to be specifically recorded in 3D. Outside of sports and Discover Channel, what else do you really want to view in 3D that isn’t a movie?

    There is still one MAJOR problem with 3D. There isn’t a standard set yet. Some poor souls will spend $3000+ on a 3D HDTV that ends up with little to no content. I would be pretty pissed about it. Some manufacturers are making 3D HDTVs that can convert standard 2D to 3D, but the results aren’t very good. The Panasonic V25 looked the best by most reports at CES, but it needs glasses.

    I would much rather have better HDTV channels than 3D ones. Right now compression from broadcasters is ridiculous. I feel bad for people who don’t have Verizon FiOS as their cable/sat provider compress the signal even more, creating a crappier picture.

    Bring out 3D when there is a plan. Manufacturers are so worried about image that they haven’t collaborated on a standard with the competition. 3D is going to fail outside of movies, and even then I wouldn’t plan on there being a lot of content.

    Darrin, I wouldn’t wait for 3D tech. It is in its first year and will undoubtedly change drastically going forward. IMO you have been missing out on HD for far too long and should get yourself one as soon as possible.

  10. #10 by Darrin on January 18th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    “Outside of sports and Discover Channel, what else do you really want to view in 3D that isn’t a movie?”

    #1 – Games
    #2 – Movies

    Isn’t that enough? I actually don’t even have regular TV (as in cable/satellite)

    Honestly, even the non-3D enhancements (infinite blacks on 2010 plasmas) are probably worth waiting another two months for.

  11. #11 by yodaddy on January 18th, 2010

    If I could play ps3 games in an 3d-hd format… that would be the bomb… I would wear the glasses

  12. #12 by JimmyMagnum on January 18th, 2010 [ 83111 Points ]

    at $100 a pop for the glasses themselves, no thanks! I’d just go for something with the best possible picture, not whether it has 3D or not. Matt is right on the money about the 3D. Since there isn’t a standard and it’s brand new to the market, your best bet would be to wait a year or two before getting a 3D TV. That way, all the faults and problems that will inevitably come with a new product line would be, for the most part, ironed out. Other than that, I’d personally go with one of Samsung’s LED televisions (plasmas are heavy and have potential screen burn-in issues). Even those would be cheaper than the 3D models (even if 3D is cheap to manufacture and implement into televisions, companies are in it for the money and will try to eek out as much money as they can out of it, so, especially for the first year, you’ll be paying a premium for the capabilities, which, IMO, doesn’t make up for the limited use you will get out of it)

  13. #13 by Darrin on January 18th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    You are definitely right: there will probably be a lot of first-year problems with 3D sets in 2010. If you can wait until 2011, that would be wise…

    I don’t mind waiting another two months, but longer than that? At some point you just have to buy and accept the fact that it will be quickly succeeded by something better that you will not get.

  14. #14 by Catfish on January 18th, 2010

    Only thing is…. 3d doesn’t work for the colorblind all that well. So for me… It’s a no-go.

  15. #15 by Andy on January 18th, 2010

    I’m one of those that just bought a new 55″ LED TV for Christmas, I’m not too fussed about 3D, sure one day I might get one, but I didn’t think Avatar was a better movie because of the 3D, I could have happily watched it in 2D and thought it was visually stunning.

    I’m usually an early adopter of technology, but I think I’ll wait for 3D TV that doesn’t require goggles to view it. I saw an example working TV at the Melbourne museum of the moving image, which was better than wearing glasses.

  16. #16 by Darrin on January 18th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    3D doesn’t work for color blind people? With the old red/glasses I can see why, but with polarized lenses or active-shutter glasses, I don’t see how color-blindedness affects that at all.

  17. #17 by Jonny on January 19th, 2010

    I hate 3D because it is worse than 2D. It hurts my eyes, makes me nauseous and things are harder to see.

  18. #18 by GamesOgre.net on January 19th, 2010

    Most people I’ve talked to (in person) about 3D technology are either excited or simply not interested. I haven’t run into any anger. Is that something you’ve encountered consistently in person or from online chatter?

    If there is anger, I agree with the idea that people can simply chill and buy what they want for whatever price they feel is fair. No one “has to” buy the newest tech…

  19. #19 by Dave Harris on January 19th, 2010

    I think some people will lose alot of money on this pipe dream and I hope it’s not my beloved Sony

  20. #20 by S. Bains on January 19th, 2010

    There are two kinds of people bitching

    1) The early adopters who were not smart enough to have 3D on their checklist before they HD TV upgrade
    2) The laggards who typically do not buy new technology until it hits <$799 and are holding out until glasses are not required

    The fact is #2 will have a very long wait as no theater today is offeing a 3D movie experience without glasses. #1 should blame themselves that they did not spec out what they want and listened to the salesperson

    I on the other hand bought my Mitsubishi DLP 2 years ago with the following specs:

    73" DLP
    HDMI 1.3
    120Hz
    3D Ready

    Any future customers should put together their list of specs, then go shop around, do your homework and then get best price

    3D will be great for the early adopters – both games and movies at home

  21. #21 by Ike on January 19th, 2010

    If its half as good as the toy story shooting ride at disneyworld then it can’t fail
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1oYPEWebSQ&feature=related

    Looks very simple in 2D, but when playing in 3D it is simply amazing. I mustve did that ride like times.

    Dave Harris: I think some people will lose alot of money on this pipe dream and I hope it’s not my beloved Sony  

  22. #22 by Ike on January 19th, 2010

    If its half as good as the toy story shooting ride at disneyworld then it can’t fail

    Looks very simple in 2D, but when playing in 3D it is simply amazing. I mustve did that ride like times.

    Dave Harris: I think some people will lose alot of money on this pipe dream and I hope it’s not my beloved Sony  

  23. #23 by Legion213 on January 19th, 2010

    “Are you saying that you are compelled to run out and buy a new HDTV every time they add a feature or improve the hardware?”

    No. I didn’t really imply that. What I meant was those who bought what they thought was the best TV at the time. Now have to buy another if they want to watch things in 3D. Rather then companies designing 3D to run on already existing 120hz TV’s.

    I’m not sure what tech they use to make this new 3D in tv’s. But I know that just a year ago a channel had a 3d special that worked just fine with some free 3d glasses I could get at subway.

    Not to mention Nvidia already came out with 3D. All you need is a full HD 120hz monitor and their special glass’s and software.

    “Gimmick implies there is no real value. 3D is a quality enhancement just like progressive scan or HDMI or 120Hz or LED backlights or whatever. People vote with their wallets and buy what makes them happy and ignore the rest. There is nothing to get all worked up and pissed off about.”

    Who’s getting worked up of pissed off? Maybe the people who just recently bought a new TV. I know I would be pissed if I just bought one only to find out that I can’t watch movies in 3d unless I bought another.

    But yes. 3D is just a gimmick.

    “an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.”

    It is nothing more then something they are using to sell more TV’s, increase movie ticket prices, and probably increase the price of games. In fact. I wouldn’t doubt you would need to buy a whole new 3D receiver for you’re stereo and from your cable/satellite companies.

    3D is unlike all those you listed because it does nothing to improve the overall picture quality. It only give a false sense of realism.
    It may increase your experience with whatever you’re doing but that’s it. Stop making it out to be the next big leap in entertainment.

  24. #24 by SharpDog on January 19th, 2010

    I would say it’s more of a love / hate … at least with me. I held off purchasing bu-ray until the war ended. Then I got PS3 and blu-ray at the same time. 3D is, first and foremost, a means to get more dollars from our pocketbooks, but … It also has the potential to be a kick butt technology for games and movies. Maybe half as significant as color TV vs. B/W and probably just as significant as HDTV.

    However, most folks are probably dismayed at buying new glass and, if 3D does not catch on in a broad sense, having that new glass become obsolete (ie. needlessly purchased).

    That said, I an starting to save my pennies to purchase a new 3D TV (72″ VIzio mmmmm!) maybe next Christmas.

    But if there’s a standards war then 3D will be dead.

  25. #25 by LordCancer on January 19th, 2010

    I don’t like it, from the when I was 5 years old and saw nightmare on elm street Freddie’s dead or whatever they had the blue red glasses… my memory is rather vague but I still clearly remember the negative emotion associated with red blue glasses.

    I’ve seen several of these newer 3d movies in theater and while the tech has improved I still don’t like it. It starts with the irritating glasses. I don’t like wearing glasses that’s why I have contacts. I would presume the majority of other users share the same sentiment.

    I just don’t like it, it requires you wear some form of glasses, cost more and in my opinion creates an unnatural viewing experience that I feel is disorienting to my brain… I think its unnecessary cost that is always wonky in its implementation and I do not think it replicates the way I see with my own eyes.

    I think between movies and games two of the my biggest pet peeves are head bob and 3d. They feel and look unnatural. I almost want to say its more stressful on your eyes and brain to compensate for how unnatural 3d is, maybe its the glasses that distort your vision… I don’t know but, I always come away feeling like I payed more for an inferior viewing experience that my brain and eyes do not enjoy.

    I get surround sound and hd. Surround sound I think does more for creating an immersive three dimensional experience in games and movies and specially in games when you can hear the direction of gun fire or foot steps that’s something that clearly enhances your experience. I also think hd is necessary for creating a more detailed image and when your viewing a tv over 40 inches I think that’s where hd biggest advantage comes in. If you ever viewed and old school big screen tv, then hd is a no brainer.

    Now there gonna try to push this tech into new tvs. I would never pay extra for 3d in my home not for 3d enabled tvs or any kind of glasses, not for games, not for movies. I really think the hatred for this tech is the way it makes people feel, its just not right.

  26. #26 by matt on January 19th, 2010

    One other thing to consider. You need a HUGE ASS SCREEN to be immersed in 3D. Something in the 100″ range for most viewing distances. This is something I am seeing brought up more and more. A 55″ HDTV from 10′ will be just dumb and not work all that well. Avatar looked awesome because of the screen size. You also need a PITCH BLACK viewing room, which is hard for many people.

    My first dip into 3D will be with a projector 2-3 years from now. By then a standard should be set and plenty of material to view.

    Surround Sound is one of the best things to happen to home movies/gaming ever. IMO it is more important than Video (probably why my audio costs thousands more than my HDTV). Surround has saved my butt so many times in FPS games! I can hear exactly where someone is and know which way to turn. 3D will not help as much but could make gaming more realistic. I just hope it adds something at all to gaming. I hope Darrin gets one and can write an unbiased report!!!

    I am cheering for 3D happily from the sidelines. Being an early adopter of most technology I know about problems of being the first guy with something. I just see this as a long drawn out process. They still don’t have HDMI 1.3 ironed out yet and are bringing out 1.4!

    The new 3D HDTVs are much better 2D HDTVs than what is currently available. I would be all over the Panasonic V25 as many have said it is a Pioneer Kuro with a Panasonic name badge (Panny bought the Kuro tech). No-one will know until one is unboxed and tested. Just don’t be disappointed if it doesn’t get 3D right.

  27. #27 by Kay on January 19th, 2010

    Though I haven’t been speaking out against the technology, I don’t really like it because it gives me a splitting headache every time I’ve used it. As long as it requires me to wear some sort of glasses I’ll have no interest in it. Should it ever reach a point were you don’t have to use anything on your face to view the 3D, I’ll certainly be interested. But since I am a PS3 fan who doesn’t like the current 3D technology, I don’t like the way Sony is going on about it being the future as I’m concerned about how this is going to effect people like me who would rather stay playing their games in HD.

  28. #28 by Darrin on January 19th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    Legion:
    “It is nothing more then something they are using to sell more TV’s, increase movie ticket prices, and probably increase the price of games.”

    SharpDog:
    “3D is, first and foremost, a means to get more dollars from our pocketbooks”

    So, 3D is evil because they are selling it for money?

    How about toothbrushes or #2 pencils or chocolate bars? Are those also just sinister tricks to get dollars from our pocketbooks?

    Several of you are being ridiculous. Every private company has to make money or get shut out of business.

  29. #29 by Darrin on January 19th, 2010

    “I haven’t run into any anger. Is that something you’ve encountered consistently in person or from online chatter?”

    It’s all online. People I know in real life don’t talk about this kind of stuff. But just scan through the comments to this post…

  30. #30 by Legion213 on January 19th, 2010

    It’s almost like you have a personal stake in 3D Darrin. You will defend it to the death.

    3D is nothing like anything you’ve listed in comparison. Because 3D cannot stand on its own. It is an addition to an already existing product. So instead of comparing it to a toothbrush. Something that actually serves a purpose. It’s more like a flashy rubber grip on a toothbrush. No matter what toothbrush you have. You are still going to get your teeth clean.

    It’s a gimmick. I will continue to see it as a gimmick. Because it does nothing to improve the actual quality of what you’re watching. As someone posted on here it actually decreases his enjoyment.

    It’s one thing to make money and it’s something else to be greedy about it. I’m willing to bet that if 3D was something anyone with a 120hz full HDtv could use. It would be better received.

  31. #31 by GamesOgre on January 19th, 2010

    Let’s solve this once and for all. If you think 3D is bad, once it comes out, wear an eye-patch. If you like 3D, no eye patch. Done.

  32. #32 by Herbman82 on January 20th, 2010

    I also can’t understand why people get so angry about it… me personally I can’t wait for 3D.

    And to all the idiots who are questioning why you should buy a 3Dtv if you just bought an HDtv… we’ll that’s just really self-centered, did you stop and think there are some people who have had their HDTV’s for many years already and are naturally looking to upgrade?

  33. #33 by David Macphail on January 20th, 2010

    I guess some people are just very simple – minded when it comes to technology. The same people who will say idiotic things like “Upscaled DVD looks just as good as Blu – Ray” will also be compelled to say equally stupid things like “2D is the same as 3D”.

    I wouldn’t pay attention to what those clowns think, anyone who doesn’t like 3D is either too stupid to understand it or too poor to afford it, simple as that.

  34. #34 by Johnno on January 20th, 2010

    Quite simply it’s because people really do want 3-D but are jealous of others who can afford to adopt it early.

    Avatar in 3-D is making tons of money and will surpass Titanic soon. I’ve seen movies and also games in 3-D and it is amazing! It’s immersive and looks great!

    3-D is not a gimmick. Avatar proves 3-D can enhance the experience with care and proper direction! And game’s are graphically driven so the more imersive the graphical experience, the better! Seeing the MGS4 trailer in 3-D is amazing!

  35. #35 by Johnno on January 20th, 2010

    And of course adopting 3-D now will be expensive, just like ALL new technology. So anyone arguing about the price is simply foolish. There is no gun to your head to run out and buy it.

    And a standard has been reached for 3-D in theatres and for the home by the blu-ray disc consortium. There are a few different ways of viewing stereo 3-D content, but nobody needs to worry as all these standards will be supported by blu-ray and the PS3, just like you can either watch your blu-ray films through component or HDMI. Wit two speakers or 5 speaker surround or 7 speaker surround. It’s the same disc and it will be compatabile with your setup!

  36. #36 by SharpDog on January 20th, 2010

    The viewing angle and viewing distance factor vs. screen size is a significant obstacle (IMHO) I am looking at a 72″ Vizio i next year and my distance is between 6-7′ which is fine. I love alone and watch TV with my dog (who doesn’t need the glasses anyway) so viewing angle is not really a factor. But I can see why families may have a problem with this tech more than geeks like me with no lives LOL

  37. #37 by Legion213 on January 20th, 2010

    Lol… You’re right. Everyone should just shut up and take it. We should all just shut up and pay 5 dollars a gallon for gas. We should all just shut up and pay when they increase the prices of video games for no reason. We should all just shut up and pay when our cable companies start charging us per GB for internet.

    After all no one has a gun to your head right? No one if forcing you to drive a car to work. No one is forcing you to buy and enjoy playing video games. No one if forcing you to have high speed internet. So just shut up and take it. Pay whatever they are asking for luxuries in life. After all they are just a business right? They are just trying to make money. And damn the consumer in the process. Who gives a **** about him right? If they can’t afford to put gas in their vehicle **** em. Take the bus. Ride a bike. Who cares. As long as I can afford it and the companies are making money.

    This kind of thinking more self centered then anything I have said. That’s great if you’ve had your HDtv for many year and are just in time to upgrade for 3D. I’m happy for you. Truth is HD hasn’t really been wide spread in the home until the last couple years. I’m sure 3D will be the same. It will take awhile for people to adapt it into their homes. Although some very awesome few can afford to have it right away!!!

    Don’t fool you’re self buddy. 3D is, just a gimmick. It might increase your enjoyment of the film. But that is all it does. All it’s there for is to increase the attention, interest, and publicity. It’s the very definition of a gimmick. Just look at what it did for Avatar. If you can’t understand that then I feel sorry for you. Because you must fall for anything. I mean look back at when Nightmare on Elm Street did 3D. It increased the attention, interest, and appeal. But sucked total balls. But there were some who enjoyed it. So you mean to tell me that just because Avatar did it right that it is somehow different now? Come on.

    I just hate the fact that the world is run by greed. It sickens me even more that there are people who are actually willing to sit there and knowingly let it happen.

  38. #38 by GamesOgre on January 20th, 2010

    Like I said above, the only people I’ve seen getting crazy about this issue are online.

    Why is that?

  39. #39 by GamesOgre on January 20th, 2010

    Oh yeah, and Legion comparing essentials like driving to work to nonessentials like a tv is a bit of a stretch.

  40. #40 by Legion213 on January 20th, 2010

    LoL so is comparing 3D to a toothbrush and #2 pencils.

    I used gas as a case to prove my point about companies greed. It’s probably the best example I could use.

  41. #41 by darrin on January 20th, 2010

    “[3D] is more like a flashy rubber grip on a toothbrush.”

    OK, that’s an analogy that I agree with.

    Sure, you don’t “need” 3D, or HD, or HDMI, or built-in YouTube/Netflix, or LED backlights with local dimming, and super-deep black levels.
    Just like you don’t “need” fancy tooth brush shapes and designs and rubber grips.

    But people want them and clearly are willing to pay extra for them. You can go to the dollar store and buy a pack of three ugly crappy looking tooth brushes for a dollar, but only a small minority of people want to do that.

    “the only people I’ve seen getting crazy about this issue are online. Why is that? ”

    No one has time/patience to hear this kind of crap in real life.

  42. #42 by LordCancer on January 21st, 2010

    whats wrong with variety toothbrush packs? its not like your tooth brush is an expression of who you are… just that you like clean and minty breath and shiny white teeth.

    The tooth brush analogy is patently absurd. But hey, by all means if your one of those peeps who gets there ps3 gold plated its only right that your tooth brush match your entertainment system and your teeth…

  43. #43 by sameold on January 21st, 2010

    don’t you realize that moving picture, sound, color, etc all started out with people saying.. it hurts my eyes, it gives me a headache, it’ll never catch on because its a gimmick. listen to yourself and think a little.

  44. #44 by Legion213 on January 21st, 2010

    “don’t you realize that moving picture, sound, color, etc all started out with people saying.. it hurts my eyes, it gives me a headache, it’ll never catch on because its a gimmick. listen to yourself and think a little.”

    3D is not new technology in the entertainment world. They implementing it back in the 50’s. Then there are times when they tried to make it more mainstream. Like in the 80’s and then again in the 90’s. Both times it flopped. So maybe do a little research before you tell someone else to think a little. I’m not saying 3D will never catch on. People will buy just about anything if it appeals to them.

    I’m not against 3D. I just don’t see the wide appeal of it. If you do, more power to you. There are a few movies wheres it’s like “Hey I wouldn’t mind seeing that in 3D (Avatar)”. But it’s getting to the point where every movie coming out has to be in 3D now.

    There are some movies where there is just no need or reason to have it. I mean would you want to see a movie like Public Enemies in 3D? There is no reason too. But everything is going to be in 3D if it catches on.

    It’s different when it comes to HD. So it’s pretty silly when I see people compare the 2. HD is something that improves the quality of any movie. It’s something that is almost necessary when it comes to watching things on a bigger screen with a higher resolution. Otherwise you get a grainy stretched out picture. But no it’s not something you have to have, But if you do get it. You can see the improvement and would never go back to standard def.

    If 3D catches on. I’m sure I will adopt it at some point. You’ll almost have to if you’re into movies and games. I just don’t see the wide appeal atm. I don’t see the need to watch TV, every movie, and game in 3D.

    @darrin
    I don’t think people buy toothbrushes based on how cool they look. When I buy a toothbrush all I care about is the bristle softness. It doesn’t mean I’m paying more because I like medium strength bristles.

    There is no right or wrong answer here. You don’t have to agree with me and I don’t have to agree with you. If people want to be angry about “having” to buy yet another TV. I say why can’t they? If people don’t think 3D is worth having at home. Who says they have to? Just because someone doesn’t see your point of view. Doesn’t mean they are wrong when they speak their mind.

  45. #45 by stupid_topic on January 21st, 2010

    seems to me it’s nearly always the same people who don’t like the idea of 3d, their comments start with, i’m blind in one eye or i have extreme vertigo because i am myoptic or i can only see when i hang upside down like a bat. maybe if you’re visually impaired you should pick another medium to enjoy, you don’t get many deaf people listening to music.

  46. #46 by sameold on January 23rd, 2010

    “I mean would you want to see a movie like Public Enemies in 3D?”

    Interestingly, in Avatar, I thought the scenes that worked best for me were the office scenes and the close up of faces, eyes, hands etc. and found the fight scenes quite dull, they looked a bit like a video game.
    So yes ‘Public Enemies’, or a film like ‘Breach’ or ‘American Beauty’ would be incredibly cool in 3d for me, much more so than ‘Matrix’ or Terminator 2 or Transformers. But my pinnacle would have to be ‘House of Flying Daggers’ in 3d, that would make me cream!!

  47. #47 by Corey on January 29th, 2010

    The reason I hate 3-D is very simple, they haven’t perfected it yet. For 3-D to work, it should be like looking at real life, and it didn’t pass that test for me when I saw Avatar. There was depth from one object to the next, but the objects themselves didn’t appear three dimensional. It was like a bunch of 2-D layers. I’ll get on board when it looks as real as looking out the window, until then give me 2-D.

  48. #48 by Larry on February 7th, 2010

    not as much detail in 3D as with 2D image and it makes my HEAD HURT!!!

  49. #49 by Rich on May 19th, 2010

    1 – It Sucks. It looks “cool”, but it does not look “good”. From a videophile perspective, it is an inferior picture. It’s also not 3D. It’s a very unnatural “effect”. If it really were 3D – and not a visual special effect (a trick of the eye) – it would look natural. At best it’s a distraction – at worst it’s sickening.

    2 – It’s inconvenient. As a eyeglass wearer, I don’t need goggles to enjoy my HD.

    3 – I HATE it mostly because I might not have the option. At my local theater, they sometimes only show the 3D version. Which I will not go to. Once you start taking away my choices, I get mad.

  50. #50 by Happy Space Invader on May 20th, 2010

    Biggest problem with 3D TV – it isn’t 3D! It’s just a parlour trick. It’s just two separate 2D images being fed to each of your eyes to trick you into thinking you’re looking at a 3D image.

    It’s the exact same trick that has been peddled since the late 1890’s, only instead of binoculars with images fed to each eyepiece, or multicolored lenses (1950s cinema) to suggest to each eye that they’re seeing something different, or polarised glasses (BBC’s “Tomorrow’s World” – 1980s), we’re now being asked to purchase these £100-a-pair (nevermind $100) active shutter glasses. But it’s the same thing – you keep your head still and let the content creator manipulate the image separation and depth effects for you… which is the exact opposite of what happens in the the real world. If they get the separation wrong (and let’s remember that our eyes aren’t all the same distance apart), the effect can quite literally be nauseating…

    Back in the real world, YOU MOVE in order to be able to look around objects and the all important parallax effect helps you to perceive depth and judge distances. A real 3D display would be one in which no glasses are required and the 3D effect is dependent on you shifting your position relative to the screen. Not necessarily being able to look around it, but something along the lines of those holographic images you’ve no doubt seen (which have also been around for scores of years).

  51. #51 by Happy Space Invader on May 20th, 2010

    Also, comment #47 is spot on.

  52. #52 by Volkstech on July 6th, 2010

    Comment #47 is correct about the multiple 2D layers. I sat in the Sony store and viewed the Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs demo. It didn’t feel natural. I actually felt like I was viewing a seperation of 3 2D layers. (Back – Middle – Front) I’m not sold.

    I did enjoy Avatar 3D.

    My 2 cents….

  53. #53 by Alex on July 12th, 2010

    Darrin’s basic point “if you don’t like a gimmick, ignore it” is sound, but his logic isn’t.

    The fact is we’re being FORCED to watch 3-D if we want to see these movies. Yes, I know they’re being issued in 2-D but no theatres where I live stock the 2-D versions of things like Toy Story 3 or Last Airbender. Yes, we can still choose to ignore the gimmick, but it disenfranchises us because our only option is to not go to the theatre and wait for the Blu-Ray to come out later.

    If ignoring 3-D was a true option, then I’d agree the anger and upset is misplaced and inappropriate. But it’s being forcefed to us, and that’s what upsets a lot of people.

  54. #54 by Darrin on July 14th, 2010 [ 17143 Points ]

    @Alex, I’m sorry you are forced to watch 3D movies in theaters against your preference, but you have to admit, your preference is going against that of the mass market.

    If I like a certain type of sandwich, beverage, toothbrush, whatever, but the mainstream masses prefer another, guess which type the stores are going to stock?

    In the end, the stores are trying to please the largest quantities of people that they can, but they can never please everyone.

    You can’t blame the movie theaters. They aren’t centrally controlled and they really don’t care about forcing any bigger picture technology choices on people. Theaters are individually trying to make the most money on ticket sales and please the largest number of people they can in the process, and if you’re in the minority that doesn’t like their changes, well, they just can’t make everyone happy.

  55. #55 by LordCancer on July 14th, 2010

    Actually some stores will stock hard to find or less popular items be it a brand of bacon, razor blades, or garbage bags. when stores drop items they often receive backlash and some stores will restock an item if you speak to a manager about it.

    And saying that hes going against the mainstream isn’t correct, more like hes going against an ad campaign. The mainstream never asked for this. hollywood and tv manufactures are spending massive amounts of money to convince people they need to spend more money on movies and tvs. 3d hasn’t made any movie better. if the story is bad or the actors horrible the movie stinks even 3d. If you payed more money to watch it in 3d then your a fool.

    I hope that with extended viewing of 3d content that people go blind, suffer brain hemorrhaging and die. gimmicks kill people.

  56. #56 by GamesOgre on July 14th, 2010

    I ran out of money, so I’m hot-wiring my Virtual Boy to my VCR. 3D TV Rules!

  57. #57 by Benhard7 on July 15th, 2010

    This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that people who defend 3D are pretty selfish. I wouldn’t mind 3D if there was always a 2D alternative option at movie theatres. But where I live, movies like Toy Story 3 are 3D only, and the tickets cost almost twice as much. To me, 3D is just distracting and doesn’t make the movie look any better, infact, it makes it look worse.

    Some people may prefer 3D, and that’s OK, but not all of us do. The film studios just don’t care about what potential viewers think, it’s ALL about making more money. That’s why every other 2D film is being converted to 3D. If someone were to ask me if I like 3D, i would get just as worked up about it as I do when posting on the Internet. I wish more people would speak out against this type of thing, maybe the film studios and theatres would realize that what they’re doing just isn’t fair.

  58. #58 by Tosh on July 15th, 2010 [ 1102 Points ]

    I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and honestly wasn’t impressed. Would rather have seen it in 2D but at least I didn’t have to pay for it this time, lol.

    But what does annoy me about 3D a little is the IMAX screen never shows the 2D version of the film anymore just 3D :(

    Avatar was great in 3D I’ll admit, adds a great sense of depth to the movie.

  59. #59 by alaoo on September 12th, 2010

    People hate 3D because it is being forced on them. Quality-conscious folks will immediately notice the lower picture quality in 3D (strobing, ghosting effects, dim gloomy picture, less vivid colors, etc, etc). But more often than not (at least lately) the theater ONLY shows a 3D version, or there simply IS NO 2D version (see Avatar SE). So if you are interested in the movie, you will have to settle for low picture quality and a headache, and a higher ticket price (about which I would not care). That’s why people hate 3D.

  60. #60 by itsme on September 19th, 2010

    I don’t like 3D because it is simply lowers the picture quality compared to 2D. But I *HATE* 3D since in the past couple months, a lot of movies are not even showing in the 2D version anymore. So the low quality is forced on me if I want to see the movie. I am a movie enthusiast. I wonder why so many viewers are apparently wow’ed by stuff flying in their faces while accepting the obviously lower quality of the pictures. The 3D picture is extremely gloomy, there are double “ghosting” images present (especially further out from the screen center), there is obvious strobing in fast sequences, close-by 3D objects are often not in focus (how annoying!) when one looks at them, etc. etc. Moreover, many people are forced to wear two pairs of glasses (the 3D glasses over their regular prescription glasses), which is annoying and definitely not relaxing. Even worse, in many cases, the 3D effect is done very poorly, so one’s brain wonders which item is supposed to be in the front and which one in the background. This is not relaxing at all. Personally I have never needed 3D in a movie in order to tell in a which is the foreground and which is the background. So why do studios try to hammer this down on the audience using 3D. This is completely unnecessary and gives me a headache. The video-game playing kiddie generation might get a brainless “wow” from it, but sadly I just want to go to a movie to relax and enjoy a beautiful picture. The 3D craze does not allow this relaxed experience anymore. Movies have become a thrill-ride. Sad.

  61. #61 by ralph on September 21st, 2010

    i hate paying more to see it i hate wereing the glasses i hate that they ask for the glasses back i hate 3d in games i hate everything about 3d it is not cool it is just stupid all of the best movies of all time like the godfather good fellas and so on were not in 3d after working all day i dont want to were those glasses i just want to watch tv if i did not make my self clear I HATE 3D !!!!!!!

  62. #62 by Irfanie on October 7th, 2010

    People hate 3D because it is being FORCED on them! 3D spoils the picture quality (dark, gloomy, ghosting, strobing), and is harmful for your eyes (a large percentage of people report headaches and nausea). Yet, many people are movie enthusiasts and really WANT to watch a particular movie (in good quality, i.e., in 2D). However, many theaters do not even offer the 2D version anymore, because hordes of brainless kiddies and adolescents swoon over 3D (and because 3D makes the theater owners a bigger buck to boot). So the only choice for quality oriented moviegoers is: Get a headache and sit through a low-quality and distracting 3D movie experience, or you won’t get to watch the movie at all, peroid. What kind of “choice” is that?

  63. #63 by E.W. Swan on December 27th, 2010

    Not only does 3D add very little, it actually detracts from my experience. With the ghosting, reflections, and the dimming (the biggest nuisance of all IMO) I’m done paying more at the ticket counter. Wherever I have the chance, I’m going to the 2D showing… a choice I hope to continue to enjoy in the future. No way in h*** am I paying more to bring this abomination into my home theater.

    I scoff at the idea that this is what consumers want. It’s what the enterainment industry WANTS us to want.

  64. #64 by Joseph on January 12th, 2011

    I think 3D is the future, whether nay-sayers like it or not. It’s like when Technicolor was introduced, DVD’s were developed, and HD movies first came out. People complained and were fundamentally resistant to change. Why? I think that it has a lot to do with obsolescence and money. People are poor and can’t afford to keep up with the tech that their friends are buying. Consumerism has its teeth in our hearts, and if our friends get it then we can’t let them one-up us! Right?

    The headaches will go away. I’m really tired of people claiming headaches. There are easy ways to avoid headaches while watching 3D. Just like there are easy ways to avoid headaches while watching TV. Additionally, new glasses-free TV’s are in development that significantly reduce eye strain. People need to just be patient and stop being haters. Grow up please.

    And to all the nay-sayers out there: Get used to it. If you don’t, you’re just gonna be one of those old people that resists change and technology. Seriously, it is the future whether you like it or not. 40 years from now, I’ll tell my grandkids about life before 3D TV and they’ll marvel at the thought. “Grandpa, why would people wanna watch movies and play games all flat and unnatural,” they’ll probably ask? And I’ll laugh and remember all you old nay-sayers and share a wink, “Oh, I guess its because people just didn’t know any better.”

  65. #65 by rcreele on January 12th, 2011

    I played Xbox and PS3 in 3D. Waaaaay cool. I can’t afford a Nintendo 3DS, but oh man if I could afford one I would totally be all over that when they come out.

    Games were meant for 3D. No question.

  66. #66 by GranTur on February 6th, 2011

    1. I wear eye-glasses, so 3D glasses are almost impossible to wear. If I force it, it is uncomfortable.

    2. It’s hard to have peripheral vision. My eyes are strained, so it’s hard to get a smooth overall viewing.

    3. It’s a gimmick to pinch a few more pennies out of people’s pockets.

  67. #67 by Marc on February 15th, 2011

    When it says the film is ENTIRLY shot in 3D, does that mean that it won’t be available to watch in 2D ect, tbh im gettin a little bit tired of all this 3D stuff as im blind in one eye, would be nice if they realised that not everybody can see out of 2 eyes and that some peoples brains can’t even understand 3D even with the sight of 2 eyes?!?!?!?

  68. #68 by Darrin on February 16th, 2011 [ 17143 Points ]

    Marc, no, if the film is entirely shot in stereoscopic 3D, the S3D is always still an option when you watch it.

    Sorry to hear you are blind in one eye.

  69. #69 by Steve S. on May 1st, 2011

    Hate to open this up again, but…3D movies and tv’s don’t piss me off. I don’t like 3D so I’ll just avoid them if possible. The fact that they only show a movie in 3D instead of offering both formats is what gets me riled up.

  70. #70 by Darrin on May 2nd, 2011 [ 17143 Points ]

    Steve S, personally I love 3D, but that’s the reasonable anti-3D complaint: “I don’t like it, but as long as it’s an option, more power to those who enjoy it”. Lots of movie theaters offer both 2D and 3D screenings of the same movie to satisfy everyone, but unfortunately, that’s just not practical for many theaters, and they have to pick the one option that they think most of the customer base wants.


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Like trophies? Like giveaways? Want to speak your mind? Register here!