Dr Frankenollie wrote:
I can't believe there are people here who actually LIKE 3-D (I thought most of you were intelligent). If I must, here are the reasons why 3-D is
unequivocally a stupid gimmick:
1.It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience.
2.It can cause nausea and headaches if used too frequently.
3.It is popularised by Hollywood largely to sell more expensive projection equipment.
4.It is popularised by cinema chains to sell more expensive tickets.
5.The image is quite darker than standard 2-D footage.
6.The objects flying out from the screen don’t add anything to the plot or entertainment value.
7.The objects flying out from the screen are annoying, childish distractions.
8.The objects flying out from the screen look gimmicky.
9.It doesn’t work for serious adult films that aren’t action-centric.
10. It limits the genres a director and/or writer can use.
11. It limits the type of scenes a director and/or writer can use.
12. It can’t be used for films unless the film is action-packed or animated.
13. Only easily-amused imbeciles would want to try and grab a character or object that appears to fly out of the screen.
14. It’s a waste of a dimension; our imaginations can add the other dimension in there. In
Star Wars, do you ever think to yourself: ‘That spaceship looks too flat and 2-D.’ Of course not. Our minds use the principle of perspective, and usually if the film is good enough you won’t care if you can pretend to grab objects from the film or not.
15. In tests for 3-D televisions, viewers were found to have sore eyes afterwards.
16. 3-D televisions cost £2400 each, and only 2 pairs of 3D glasses come ‘free’ with it.
17. For 3-D televisions, if you need more than 2 pairs of 3D glasses you have to buy them separately...
18. ...For £100 each.
19. Test audiences felt ill after watching 3-D televisions for only 2 minutes.
20. You might have the expensive 3-D television, but you need a lot of compatible hardware, including a 3-D Blu-Ray player.
21. There’s no point in getting 3-D televisions, because only a few American channels are running 3-D shows.
22. 3-D can’t work for people blind in one eye.
23. 3-D is bad for eyes, as it makes them work in an unnatural way.
24.
Avatar’s 3-D was good only because it was James Cameron’s original vision; most directors and writers are forced by executives and producers to use 3-D in their films, even if they don’t want to. This often happens. There have been accounts of executives not releasing films because the director didn’t want to use 3-D.
25. The reason for the planned re-releases of
Star Wars and
Titanic in 3-D won’t add anything to the popular movies. The only thing they’re adding to are the directors’ wallets, that is if audiences are dumb enough to go and watch the 3-D re-releases.
27. Hollywood should use MaxiVision48 instead, which creates an experience one thousand times better than 3-D. It uses 48 frames per second rather than the standard 24 frames per second, and looks so much better. This is a rarely-used style, which can be used for any type of film, and makes 3-D look even shittier.
28. Wearing 3-D glasses looks stupid (and wearing them on top of prescription glasses looks even worse).
29. 3-D glasses have become fashionable. When people wear 3-D glasses outside the cinema and in public, they probably think that this look is proclaiming that, yes, they just went to see a 3-D movie and are happy to unleash their inner geek. Instead, it says: “I got conned into seeing a 3-D movie, and am unleashing my inner idiot. I also get to look dumb in public...and it says ‘Real 3-D’ on the sides of the glasses. That’s cool, right? Right?”
30. When 3-D has objects appearing to fly out of the screen, the viewer’s attention is drawn to a particular part of the screen; thus, a lot of the work of a cinematographer or animator is wasted as 3-D makes us focus upon a particular thing in every shot.
