« Zack Snyder to do Sucker Punch | Filmstalker | Stalked: Penn and Watts in Fair Game, Cusack and Corddry in Hot Tub, Watts, Pinto and Woody »


Do you really want 3D films?

3D.jpgI make no secret of it but I hate 3D films, partly because of the need to throw things at the camera and utilise the 3D effects at every opportunity, and partly because of the need for coloured glasses, hindering the usual view of a film on a big screen or my high definition television.

However I know people out there really do enjoy 3D films, and a recent survey suggests that fans of 3D want more films and television to leap out at them. However is that really the case? Do you want to see more and more films in 3D at home and in the cinema? Do you want to wear those glasses for everything you watch?

Interestingly I just read on EngadgetHD that the Consumer Electronics Association and the Entertainment and Technology Center at the University of Southern California completed a survey of U.S. adults and found the following statistics.

Nearly forty-one million of them reported seeing a 3D film, and of those some forty percent said that they would rather watch a film in 3D than in 2D.

Now hold up a second. I did a quick check on the current population of the U.S. and that came in around three hundred and five million. A quick calculation revealed that this means that only thirteen and a half percent of the U.S. population have seen a 3D film.

Forty percent of those that have seen a 3D film would rather watch 3D than 2D, well calculate that round and it's just over a mere five percent of the U.S. population.

So five percent would rather watch a 3D film than 2D, and over half of the people questioned (that's everyone asked apparently) said that having to wear special glasses or hold your head still throughout the entire film would have no affect on them buying a 3D television.

What?! That figure immediately stops me in my tracks, and while I was thinking I could believe the survey up until then, I really do now have trouble believing that half of the people interviewed, whatever that figure would be, have no qualms about making their viewing experience more uncomfortable and reducing picture clarity and definition?

Would you seriously be happy sitting with coloured lenses between you and your TV, not moving your seating position or perhaps even your head throughout the performance? Not me.

My problem with 3D films are two-fold. The first is the biggest, the fact that in making a 3D film the studio, writer, director, editor, and whoever else is in control behind the scenes, has to exploit the fact that it is a 3D film, the gimmick of 3D itself.

So despite the film or the story, the camera has to either fly towards and through the action, or objects and/or characters within the film have to fly at the screen, and it has to happen regularly in the film or the 3D is just a waste of time.

This means that the story and/or screenplay has to be written specifically to include scenes like this, the story has to be written around these scenes, or at the worst case scenario, the story has to be rewritten to include these scenes within the screenplay.

The second reason that 3D films really annoy me are the glasses. For so long technology and studios have pushed to get higher and higher definition in cinemas and at home on television, and we wanted that technology, we still do. We're clamouring over the high-definition televisions and Blu-ray, we want HD in everything we can, and providers are supplying it more and more.

Yet now that we've reached this 1080p high nirvana, the studio's are telling us that we need to slap cheap cardboard or plastic spectacles in front of our eyes, spectacles with different coloured cheap see-through plastic “lenses”, and enjoy once again the spectacle of high-definition.

Quite frankly I don't want the quality that has been built over the years to be ruined by these silly glasses. I'm more than happy with the high-definition and superb big screen quality that we're getting in the cinema and at home in the HD televisions, why do I want to cover it up with multi-coloured plastic see-through material?

I've paid for a high definition television and I want to see the high definition, not have it obscured and reduced by mutli-coloured filters between me and the screen.

What are your views on 3D films both in the cinema and at home? Is it something that you want to see more of? Would you like to see all films offered in this way and viewed with 3D glasses?

Or are you more like me, and don't want your view obscured by the 3D glasses and the odd coloured picture, or the screenplay manipulated to include things flying at the camera?



I absolutely love what little 3d i can handle. And for me, the problem is the technology of the glasses.

the two color 3d glasses burn the filter color into your eyes over time, so it actually does some harm to your eyes if you use them very long. so the red/blue or tan/blue tech simply is not sustainable.

there is a better way, however.

there is a technology where glasses with lcd "blinders" are worn, with a computer controlling when the lcd blinder blinds out each eye, which makes sure that whenever one eye is open, the other is not. the flicker alternates so fast that if you look through the glasses, you feel that you're looking through sunglasses and can't tell the flicker. in effect, the glasses are semi opaque and the shade is uniform and constant.

on the screen, the same computer flickers the two images that must be married by your individual eyes to create the 3d, so that if you have your glasses off, you see both images ( the same scene, from slightly different stereoscopic angles ) in ghost translucency. But when you put on the glasse, BOOM. instant, non nauseous inducing 3d. full color. no headache.

the glasses are inexpensive for home viewing. I suspect that as computers and televisions are married in the home theatre over the next decade, there will be a usb port in your computer to wirelessly control multiple headsets, which you can then watch effortlessly, as if you're merely wearing sunglasses. The cool part is, it can be done wirelessly as well.

I think I max theatres tend to use this nowadays but i could be wrong.

I would personally like to play some fps video games in such a manner.

There are 3d technologies coming through development that don't require some stupid [expletive removed - Richard] glasses, Panasonic seem to be the ones closest to cracking it.

great comment. the use of choice language shows us how socially useful and badass you can be.

you are now the king of the conversation. and i'm impressed by your knowledge of technology that is still years away.

short of special screens or bionic implants, however, stupid glasses are THE only way to go. And cost effectively, they will be for decades to come.

Im very much against 3D. Ive never watched any old 3D movies that require the red/blue glasses but I have seen two movies that use the RealD 3D techonology that only requires big nerdy looking glasses with non-coloured lenses. I wear glasses myself and having to wear another pair is pretty annoying.

The first 3D movie I saw was Journey To The Centre Of The Earth and it was pretty unspectacular. I also found the camera not always being in focus very distracting.

The second one I saw the other week was My Bloody Valentine. Crap movie and really only worth seeing in 3D. However I thoroughly enjoyed it and so did the friend I went with and that because it was a very bloody, violent, gory movie. If it hadnt been as bloody as it was I would have skipped it altogether. Once again the camera being out of focus for some parts of the shots was totally distracting.

For me I will only see 3D if its something thats worth seeing in 3D, and it would seem that would only be gory horror movies. Anything else for me is a waste of time, not to mention money. Costs $18.50 to see a 3D movie and not only that afterwards you have to give the glasses back (not that I have in either case). If the increased price is for the glasses surely giving them back should mean we can get some money back. Why cant I pay the standard price and use the glasses I kept from the first 3D movie I saw??

I dont think 3D is the way of the future for movies and certainly hope it wont became just that.

I've seen a few films in 3D, both in and out of the IMAX in Manchester. The only one that truly worked im opinion was the U2:3D concert flick.

The reason for this? Simple really, the 3D fitted around the show, they didn't bend the show to fit around 3D. When I saw Journey and Beowulf, they had parts that were put in due to the 3D, and it just didn't fit with the overall movie. Especially when I re-watched them in 2D.

I'd say suck it and see, its early days technology wise, with about 3 or 4 different methods to bring 3D into our homes, it could end up with another Beta/VHS or HD-DVD/BluRay style fight.

Hey Mogulus, I never knew about that technology, that's rather interesting however so far I've only seen the cheap cardboard/plastic ones in use, and even with fancy ones I still think it's detrimental to the viewing experience.

That's an interesting point Firebug, why do we have to pay more for 3D film? Especially giving back the glasses. Hollywood says the way of the future is more expensive films for the audience - who'd have guessed?

Mark you've hit the nail on the head for me. You cannot make a film to fit the 3D process, you have to create the film that just happens to work in 3D.

I'd be interested to hear what the technologies are that I can have in my home now, I didn't think there were any as yet.

However for me the technology has to be totally unobtrusive and not change the experience at all, apart from putting it into 3D, for me to buy it. In short I want a TV that could deliver 3D and still show it in all the stunning detail and realism of 1080p HD without anything extra thrown on my face.

I suspect that's years off.

I'm against 3d. As i am colour blind the glasses dont work for me at all. I cant see 3D.

One thing Hollywood is refusing to recognize is that there are a lot of people out there that cannot see in 3d. Poeple who have limited vision, people who have certain types of color blindness, etc. I'm not suggesting that Hollywood would ever entirely remove 2d movies, but to make movies in 3d is to exclude some people from being able to watch a movie, unless they want ot watch it in an eye straining haze.

That's a really good point John, does DDA go out the window with 3D films?

I hate having to pay extra for 3d movies and most of the time they are the childrens movies. I have 4 so almost all of the time we have to tell them to wait until it comes out on video. We can not afford them and it seams they are always the kids movies

They are always the kids movies, I wonder why that is? Perhaps they know adults won't fall for the gimmick so easily and kids have a great sway over parents when demanding something - the latest toy, the latest 3D film.

Do you go and see the 2D in the cinema instead, or just wait until DVD for everything? The price difference is incredible.

Why wouldn't you want 3D films. 3D technology is beginning to take huge strides, and it won't be very long until we start to see 3D TV revolutionize the way we all view our entertainment. It's still in it's early stages but will soon be viewing 3D movies in our living rooms in the same way that we view 2D movies at home now. The added effect of 3D in movies is phenomenal, but I think alot of people still think 3D Movies are like the bad old jaws 3 days.



Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

All articles

Reviews only

Audiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes



Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34