Is It Just Me... Or Should People Stop Moaning About 3D?

Pointless and over-priced or the glorious evolution of cinema?

Just go online and search the words ‘3D’ and ‘crap’ – it’s clear that if the jury went out after James Cameron’s Avatar rebooted the 3D machine, it returned with a resounding “No thanks, this sucks.”

True, the last few years have seen their fair share of stereoscopic offenders. But for every Piranha 3D, there’s been a Prometheus; for every Clash Of The Titans, a Toy Story 3.

Donning a pair of 3D specs has transformed these films from being merely sumptuous pictures into rich, tangible worlds that we’re not just peering at, but part of.

OK, so there will always be films in which 3D is used in a gimmicky way to send objects whizzing out of the screen into the audience’s laps.

But the ‘gimmick’ has grown up; we’ve reached a point where 3D set-ups can be skillfully composed for depth and realism. And yet it’s still dismissed by cinemagoers like an unloved child.

But now we’ve seen what it can do, it’s impossible to ignore.

Three years on, Avatar may now seem like a tired archetype, but it remains a perfect example of a film I now refuse to give a second look in 2D. It’s just not the same.

Once you’ve been immersed in the forests of Pandora, the smoky Paris train station of Hugo, the stop- motion alterna-world of Coraline, revisiting them in two dimensions feels cold, distant and flat.

“But it’s a studio scheme to rob our pockets!” you cry. Similar was said about Technicolor in the 1930s, yet it served the same purpose – bringing the viewer closer to the art.

Roger Ebert hates 3D? Then I demand he bins every colour film he owns this instant, else be accessory to the crimes of progress he’s so quick to condemn.

Yes, Hollywood is still at the teething stage with the medium, but given the space to breathe, the results will flourish.

Peter Jackson’s decision to lense The Hobbit at a game-changing 48 frames per second goes hand in hand with fulfilling 3D’s potential.

“It looks more lifelike and is much easier to watch,” Jacko says of 48fps. “Especially in 3D.”

But he’s hardly the only one pushing the agenda. Scorsese, Spielberg, Ridley Scott... one by one, the big names are pledging the future to 3D, which surely tells you something.

Hell, Hugo would’ve had half the impact if it hadn’t been stereoscopic; the fact that Marty chose to present his ode to cinema in 3D spoke volumes about its future.

But never mind tomorrow: 3D is what cinema needs right now.

At a time when piracy and on-demand services are threatening the art of quality cinemagoing, 3D is putting bums on seats.

Not to mention that it’s given a new generation a chance to see classics revived on the big screen, and for others to relive them from a whole new perspective.

For me, that’s worth the ticket price alone. The sooner we accept that progress is good, the better.

The future of cinema belongs to 3D and its champions, and that can only be a good thing. Or is it just me?

Is 3D a gimmick or a game-changer? Let us know what you think in the comments box below

Comments

    • FBJKilburn

      Aug 10th 2012, 7:12

      I'm blind in one eye so 3D's lost on me;if I can ever sit in a cinema(without glasses)and be able to experience even a fraction of the '3D experience,' I'll consider whether you're right. Until then I continue to track down showings of new releases in 2D. My son went to see Prometheus and said that the only bit where he felt the 3D worked was the map room. Even then in his opinion,the scene would've worked without the effect. Who knows what the experience of going to the cinema will be like even ten years from now. 3D seems to be hanging in there mainly due to the amount of investment(thought it would be interesting to know the figures on sales of 3Dt.vs to see if the bums on seats effect is continuing to the average home audience.

      Alert a moderator

    • MikeyRix

      Aug 10th 2012, 8:27

      I only had the 3D experience with "Avatar" and "Clash of the Titans" (2010) when they were both out in the cinema. "Clash" led to me personally boycotting the format, thus I haven't been back since. Plus, it's another reason for the studios to rip us off, and cinema-going is expensive as is (adult VIP seating [for "The Dark Knight Rises"] costs only 5p MORE than the average CD album - yes, people still buy those). Mind was made up on this, and unless another film comes out that a) I want to see and b) utilises the format as well as "Avatar" did, it will stay there.

      Alert a moderator

    • ManicMunky

      Aug 10th 2012, 8:33

      3D films in the cinema (passive) are dull, fuzzy. lack colour depth and appear to be nothing more than a series of 2D planes given artificial depth, much like a child's pop-up book would. Prometheus - arguably the best implementation of 3D so far - shared the same properties. At home, I'm very suceptable to flickering lights, so active 3D glasses result in everything around me flickering. While still producing a series of 2D images arranged on top of one another. The Nintendo 3DS does a similar thing. I would much prefer to sit in comfort in the cinema with a nice bright, sharp picture, and enjoy the film glasses-free. I'm glad there are still some directors out there that can see 3D for what it is.

      Alert a moderator

    • ChrisWootton

      Aug 10th 2012, 8:35

      Why do people keep saying stuff like "this is what cinema needs right now".. cinema doesn't need anything apart from decent films to be shown in them. Most of the time 3D is pointless. I genuinely can't see the point of it apart from as a gimmick.

      Alert a moderator

    • AlfredsDream098

      Aug 10th 2012, 8:50

      What is so great about Toy Story 3D? I thought it looked c**p and sorta ruined my experience of the movie. All that time I was trying to see the 3D when I should have been paying attention to the movie. Took them off near the end. Avatar and HTTYD are the only movies that really immersed me. I have boycotted 3D ever since I saw Thor which wasn't bad 3D but not enough to make that extra ticket price reasonable.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Aug 10th 2012, 9:13

      If 3D is progress, why did it die out? Because it was a fad that grew stale with so many shoddy versions. IMAX maybe less available to the public, but its a more immersive and rewarding movie experience than 3D will ever be and doesn't feel like a cheap cash-in.

      Alert a moderator

    • thedanieljson

      Aug 10th 2012, 9:23

      I've always loved 3D. Prometheus has had the most impressive I've seen so far - even if the film wasn't that good - adding to how visually stunning the whole thing is. I think, when done properly, it can add depth to a film. And on a lower brow level, some horror films (Pirahna 3D, Final Destination 5) have honestly put it to hilarious, tongue-in-cheek use. 3D cinema has progressed massively - it did die out, but that's because it WAS shoddy back then - in many cases it isn't anymore.

      Alert a moderator

    • Drayno

      Aug 10th 2012, 9:48

      "Roger Ebert hates 3D? Then I demand he bins every colour film he owns this instant, else be accessory to the crimes of progress he’s so quick to condemn." What a rubbish argument that's like saying oh you don't like yellow flowers well then you must concrete over your garden. I too have not been impressed by 3D movies, there are only two which spring to mind which i haven't felt like i've been mugged leaving the cinema (Avatar and Transformers 3). I have actually refused to watch films that i really wanted to see because they were only shown in 3D. I am all for new technology in cinemas I saw TDKR in D-box and enjoyed it, but give people the choice my local cinema has 16 screens yet they only show 6-8 different films a week surely they have space for non 3D showings. This is further compounded by the poor upkeep of their equipment like the 1st generation of 3d tvs unless you are sitting directly in the middle you get blurred corners and motion trails. Given the choice of that or waiting til i can rent it for half the price i choose the later

      Alert a moderator

    • Jeffbiscuits

      Aug 10th 2012, 10:03

      I hate 3D when it's all pretentious like Avatar's. Why do I want to see a trees and shrubbery in 3D? My Bloody Valentine has the kind of 3D I like. Gimmicky and with eyeballs and innards flying out of the screen at me. It is just a gimmick but used in the right way it's a fun way to watch a film.

      Alert a moderator

    • CaptainCrazy

      Aug 10th 2012, 10:06

      So far only four 3D films have impressed me and none of them were released this year. It's a shame when the ads are more impressive than the main feature.

      Alert a moderator

    • stonedjohn

      Aug 10th 2012, 10:10

      I have to disagree with everything about this article!! 3D is only fun when used as the gimmick it should be! This whole "screen goes back and adds depth" doesn't add enough to a film to make the extra couple of pound worth it. Fact of the matter is, these 3D films that "go back" instead of coming out of the screen look just the same in 2D, except perhaps lighter due to the lack of glasses and it won't matter where you sit in the screen; the edge's of the film won't go blurry. The argument that 3D is needed to "save cinema from piracy and on-demand services" is b******t too. What really needs to happen for the cinema going experience to be saved is for the cinema chains to actually care about their customers experience rather than how much us mugs can be conned out of on each visit. My local multiplex happens to be a Cineworld and there are three screens in it where the left back speaker has blown - one of these over ten years ago! So now if I ask the ticket seller what screen my choosen film is in and they say "Screen 11, 8 or 7" I'll simply turn on my heels and leave because I refuse to pay a tenner per person for sound quality that's inferior to my home setup - and I don't even mean 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound; I rely on a stereo TV! Also the dawning of the multiplex was supposed to give customers more choice in what they could watch. Whereas you now go to an eleven screen multiplex and have a choice of maybe 4 films, because two of those are big blockbusters that they've timetabled in to start nearly every 40mins and oh, its in freakin' 3D so we better crowbar in a 2D version just in case loosing another screen to the same film (the last Harry Potter film literally took 8 out of 11 screens for three weeks!). 3D the saviour of cinema? No. 3D is adding to the list of reasons to stay at home, because not only will you be over charged for a film that doesn't look better, only darker than its 2D version, it's also shoving out the room in multiplexes that could have gone to other films! Kill 3D now please.

      Alert a moderator

    • durden

      Aug 10th 2012, 10:39

      yeah,it's just you...

      Alert a moderator

    • BasedBishop

      Aug 10th 2012, 12:09

      If I have a choice between 2D or 3D, I always go with 2D. I watched Avengers in both and it looked far better in 2D. The only film I've seen that looked great with 3D was Prometheus.

      Alert a moderator

    • zachjansen

      Aug 10th 2012, 13:38

      "Similar was said about Technicolor in the 1930s..." Expect movie-goers didn't have to pay an extra 50% to see a technicolor movie.

      Alert a moderator

    • LSJShez

      Aug 10th 2012, 13:42

      We should stop moaning about it, and they should stop using it.

      Alert a moderator

    • IHATESNAKES2896

      Aug 10th 2012, 15:18

      One of the biggest disappointments in movie news I had this year was the announcement that Gi Joe Retaliation was being pushed back to 2013 for a 3D conversion. At least that was the official release-but why? I actually have little against 3D (I'll get to that in a bit) but to push a film back just for that is ridiculously mercenary like and and just makes me depressed. On the actual use of 3D, it depends. For example, Fright Night was filmed in 3D and was actually put to pretty good use (though not on the Avatar level). Avengers was a Poat job and I thought was really well done. Avatar (the first "proper" 3D film I saw and first of the new wave was undeniably spectacular-but looks spectacular still in 2D. But I don't understand what people say about the colours being dimmed-in the case of Avengers, I wold lift the glasses up to see the colour difference, and although I saw it, it didn't bother me at all. The best 3D films I have seen are Avatar, Transformers 3, Prometheus, Avengers and The Amazing Spuider-Man. I don't like having to see a film in 3D because a 2D version is not being screened at my local cinema, but if the film itself is good, the 3D doesn't bother me as much. There are some cases however, like the ones above, when I really felt like the 3D was worth it and not a waste of time and money.

      Alert a moderator

    • dyatesy88

      Aug 10th 2012, 15:29

      I'll stop moaning about it when people stop trying to shove it down my throat. This simply isn't progress, I have watched several films in 3D and whilst some have been good (Toy Story 3, Hugo, Prometheus) I have to say the 2D showing is always vastly superior. The colour is richer, much better lighting and a lower ticket price trumps a visual gimmick every time. I also hate the whole "it's the future so get used to it" line, it's not. The idea of 3D itself is almost as old as cinema itself and there's a reason it has never taken off. As for it saving cinema's, recent figures actually suggest less people are watching films in 3D since Avatar was released with the price hike because of 3D showings putting people off going. The future of cinema is better upkeep of cinema's, better customer service and wider range of film's shown.

      Alert a moderator

    • directaur

      Aug 10th 2012, 15:39

      who wrote this? it is terrible. i love TF but damn man this is rubbish especially the bit about roger ebert. u can like your stuff in colour but it dont need to be 3D. i like looking at my photograph book with colour pictures but i dont wanta F*****g pop up book. 3D gives mea sore head that simply doesnt happen with 2D wether my eyes are failing i dont know but that shouldnt matter. i have been impressed with 3D movies and D-box but if i never use either again i wouldnt mind. especially 3d the lights in the background always split into two lights which isnt what it should be. life is in 3d my movies become 3d in my mind when i watch them i dont need a headache with it

      Alert a moderator

    • SiMan

      Aug 10th 2012, 16:05

      Has anyone else also noticed a slight tint to the colour when wearing the 3-D glasses. I've often quickly glanced at the screen without the glasses, just to see if it is truly blurry (don't ask me why i do this), and i've noticed that on the screen the colours seems brighter and more vivid, but when you don the glasses again there is a almost a grey tint added. I for one thought that when i saw Avatar in 3-D it was the future of film-making, but until they can come up with a way to watch it without the glasses it will still be a gimmick for me.

      Alert a moderator

    • Hadouken76

      Aug 10th 2012, 16:24

      A movie magazine promoting the use of 3D? I smell movie -Payola.

      Alert a moderator

    • Mickey6chins

      Aug 10th 2012, 16:33

      I don't like 3D I dont really have an argument for why. However one of the worst arguments supporting 3D has to be this one, regardless of 2D or 3D comparing Piranha 3D and Clash of Titans to Prometheus and TS3 it is obvious which two films will always be regarded as inferior.

      Alert a moderator

    • thedanieljson

      Aug 10th 2012, 18:04

      I am apparently the only person bar Hugh Langley - oh and Ultraculture loves it too - who like 3D. ho hum.

      Alert a moderator

    • portland6

      Aug 10th 2012, 19:41

      The fact that the list of good 3D films resorts to Coraline, now nearly 5 years old, tells you how many good examples of the format there have been recently!

      Alert a moderator

    • SlundNZ

      Aug 11th 2012, 1:37

      3D is awful on many films... In fact, on most it is very unnecessary. However, there are a limited number of films where it is beneficial. Prometheus being on of this years best, and John Carter too. Every animation looks stunning in 3D. I think that if not every film was released this way it would be a far better system.

      Alert a moderator

    • EwanMcTeagle

      Aug 11th 2012, 7:15

      I remember I was going to Avatar with quite high hopes - not only for 3D, but for James Cameron as well. He can deliver rubbish, but most of the time he provides solid entertainment. But what a let down the Avatar has been for me. 3D or no 3D the movie was just plain cliche - painfully predictable. The story hadn't engage me into it and the 3D didnt help nor did it stand in the way. It was better than anything before, but had the same problems as all 3D has - weird experience of imagery depth. The same was with the "U23D". Cool at times, annoying at times. But the main problem is that 3D doesnt really bring anything substantial to the storytelling. I mean imagine your movies, like: Maltese Falcon, Amarcord, Goodfellas, Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, Matrix. Did any of these movies (maybe except some scenes in Pulp Fiction and Matrix) would gain anything from 3D. Would it have brought anything to the story, to the characters and your engagement? I don't think so. Basically - 3D or no 3D - a good movie is a good movie. I've watched "Hugo" in 2D and it was nice, but I didn't go crazy about not because it lacked 3 dimensions, but because I found the story predictable and not that engaging. Technically it was top notch - wouldn't expect anything less from Scorsese. And while I'm at Scorsese - I 've found "Infiltration" not interesting, because it looked like a toned down version of the original - will all the cliches imported into it, like the love triangle that was absent in the original and flet forced in the remake. The movie woudn't have gained anything from 3D. It just wouldn't have had saved the story (for me). And that basically sums it up. I don't have anything against 3D per se - it's just it doesn't have the quality that would not distract me from enjoying the movie + it doesn't do "that much" of a difference. Plus it's not really universal - it's great for action and horror flicks, blockbusters, but it won't make film noir more noir, Bergman more deep philosophically nor will it make Shawshank Redemption more touching. It could've made the "needle in the heart" scene from Pulp Fiction more incredible, but it wouldn't have made "the story of the watch" scene any better.

      Alert a moderator

    • alexsoneill

      Aug 11th 2012, 13:16

      Agree totally with the above from EwanMcTeagle. 3D is purely an attempt to distract us from a film's lack of originality, story and engaging characters. Film isn't about the wiz-bang, nothing beneath the surface gloss. It's about stories. The fact that Christopher Nolan, possibly the best mainstream storyteller around at the minute, will not use 3D speaks volumes. I was a supporter of 3D but now, after paying more for films that lack a decent plot and 3D that adds nothing - so much so that you forget the 3D's there - I've decided to stop watching films in the format. My regular movie-going partner - who has a 3D TV and was a huge 3D fanatic - now shares my view. IMAX is more immersive, with a clearer brighter picture and better sound quality. That's the future not 3D. And as a final rant, this article is one of the worst I've read on the subject. Not because I disagree with it, but because the Roger Ebert argument is utterly ridiculous...

      Alert a moderator

    • johndagenham81

      Aug 11th 2012, 16:22

      I agree that 3D is a lot better this time round. When 3D has been used in the past, it's failed because the technology just wasn't good enough. But now it is. It's just got to be a case that directors use 3D to fit the movie, not the movie to fit the 3D. And it won't develop unless people such as Ebert and Kermode (and others) stop bashing it so severely. Yes, it has problems, but just let it grow. I do think people would be a lot more behind it if it didn't come with a more pricey ticket...

      Alert a moderator

    • kcacolice

      Aug 11th 2012, 19:18

      After the disastrous conversion of Nightmare Before Christmas to "3D" a few years ago, I do not cater to see a movie specifically because it's in 3D. If for some movies, that are not offered in 2D at all like the Titanic re-release, then I am given no other choice but to see it in 3D. The only other time I saw a movie in 3D was Hugo at the AMC Best Picture Showcase, which again I would have chosen to had seen it the regular way. I find it harder to see newly released films in 3D because I feel it's a gimmick to add thrill to a weak story. Could The Dark Knight Rises been in 3D? Yeah, but what for purpose would it had added? None, in my book. Now, there are some classic films I wouldn't mind seeing re-released in 3D (http://www.thedramallama.net/2012/06/3d-movie-wishlist.html).... Is 3D an essential part of my viewing experience at movie theaters? No, and it won't be for a long time, sorry!

      Alert a moderator

    • Ramirez

      Aug 11th 2012, 22:51

      The argument that 3D is the saviour of cinema against the evil of piracy is totally floored. If going to the cinema didn't cost a ridiculous amount of cash, if food and drink wasn't over priced, if cinema chains managed the theaters to make sure people would SHUT THE F*** UP, then the piracy market would be defunct in days. Piracy is a convenient excuse to justify the even higher prices that 3D brings. Perhaps we should stop moaning, but I'll stop moaning when cinemas start showing the 2d versions of films on as many screens and on as many occasions as the 3d version, this is currently not happening. Ultimately I am a grown up and can happily choose not to watch a film in 3d so I don't.

      Alert a moderator

    • Ramirez

      Aug 11th 2012, 22:53

      Oh, and the last (and only 2nd) 3d film I saw was Phantom Menace, and guess what - it was still pants.

      Alert a moderator

    • ilikescifi

      Aug 12th 2012, 11:23

      Imax 3d looks amazing, when I say that I mean the Imax produced films with the imax cameras. They try to present objects as the eye sees them. I don't think hollywood has accomplished good 3d yet. Its always too flat or poorly composited, post-conversions are completely fake looking. Yes you are being taken for a bit of a ride but at the same time investing in something that can and will get much better. it's early days

      Alert a moderator

    • Venny0492

      Aug 12th 2012, 21:29

      Ive seen a few 3d films, and really for me it doesnt make a difference, In fact in gave me a headache so....I wouldnt pay extra for it. Plus it is abit pricey to go to the cinema in the first place then adding an extra £3-£5 then its abit like WTF

      Alert a moderator

    • julianchan

      Aug 13th 2012, 9:21

      "3D is what cinema needs right now." No. What cinema needs right now is an original idea. "3D is putting bums on seats." The amount of cinema goers right now has no correlation to the advent of 3D. What a stupid comment. The ONLY movie I've seen that was worthy of the 3D price hike was Avatar. It is a gimmick to charge the public more for tickets. Imagine how much lower the Avengers' gross takings would have been without 3D. Given the choice I would always choose 2D. 3D makes the movie darker, duller and more uncomfortable. I took my glasses off for 50% of Spiderman and it made NO DIFFERENCE! I guarantee you that if you showed a movie in 2D and 3D in similar cinemas at the same showtimes no one in their right mind would line up to watch the 3D. Unless of course you're an idiot who writes for TF. You really should get a new job, pal. Thank God for Chris Nolan.

      Alert a moderator

    • RaveyDaveyGravy

      Aug 13th 2012, 12:17

      The answer seems to be an overwhelming no. No we shouldnt just shut up and get used to it. No, its not the future, good story telling is. No its not justified. No, it does not improve the viewing experience, due to the 20% light loss. No I will not pay to see 3D. If there is no 2D Ill wait for Blueray. 3D is a marketing gimmick, its the emperors new clothes. Look how amazing it all looks in amazing 3D!! With a small extra charge of course.

      Alert a moderator

    • TheMovieWaffler

      Aug 13th 2012, 18:19

      I had to check it wasn't April 1st as this article must be a complete wind-up. "Donning a pair of 3D specs has transformed these films from being merely sumptuous pictures into rich, tangible worlds that we’re not just peering at, but part of. " What exactly do you mean by "merely" sumptuous? And if you just "peer" at films you're obviously not qualified to be writing about them. "“But it’s a studio scheme to rob our pockets!” you cry. Similar was said about Technicolor in the 1930s, yet it served the same purpose – bringing the viewer closer to the art." Audiences rejected technicolor originally because, just like 3D now, it was released before it had been perfected. Watch any early technicolor films and you'll see how poor they looked. It was only when it was perfected in the late thirties that audiences accepted it. When I see a movie that does for 3D what The Wizard of Oz did for colour, maybe I'll accept 3D. "Roger Ebert hates 3D? Then I demand he bins every colour film he owns this instant, else be accessory to the crimes of progress he’s so quick to condemn." What an insane statement. 3D isn't progress. Sound and colour gave new tools to film-makers, 3D hasn't. Technology doesn't always equal progress. How many men shave with an electric razor for example? Very few. "Yes, Hollywood is still at the teething stage with the medium, but given the space to breathe, the results will flourish. " Ah, so you admit it hasn't been perfected. Why is Hollywood charging us for their experiment? "“It looks more lifelike and is much easier to watch,” Jacko says of 48fps." Wow. Does Peter Jackson really find 2D movies difficult to watch? "But he’s hardly the only one pushing the agenda. Scorsese, Spielberg, Ridley Scott... one by one, the big names are pledging the future to 3D, which surely tells you something." Yes, it tells you they can't get movies made by a major studio unless they use 3D. "Hugo would’ve had half the impact if it hadn’t been stereoscopic". So Taxi Driver would be twice as good if Scorsese had shot it in 3D? "3D is putting bums on seats." Explain the success of TDKR then. Yes 3D movies make wads of cash but that's because they're hugely commercial movies to begin with. How many new fans did Herzog and Wenders win with their 3D efforts? "Not to mention that it’s given a new generation a chance to see classics revived on the big screen". Er, what "classics" exactly are we talking about? I don't know of many classic movies that were filmed in 3D so you're talking about converting classic 2D films into 3D? My God, what kind of a philistine are you? "The future of cinema belongs to 3D and its champions, and that can only be a good thing. Or is it just me?" It's not just you, it's the studios who paid you to write this propaganda.

      Alert a moderator

    • chickensandwich

      Aug 14th 2012, 13:36

      3D is quite tiring to watch and showing movies exclusively in this format excludes those people who cannot see it. I believe it actually hurts the box office takings when 2D is unavailable or hard to find, e.g. Hugo. As for saving cinema, the reasons many people stay away are the behaviour of other people and the quality of the cinema experience (e.g. lack of projectionists, unhelpful staff - i'm looking at you Vue). The worst though is people using mobile phones - the screens ruin your night vision and hurts your eyes. Every time I have been to the cinema in the last 2 years I have had to ask some selfish idiot to turn off their phone. I am starting to dread the confrontation and annoyance that comes with what should be a relaxing, enjoyable experience. Then there's people who talk through the film, come in late; the list goes on. 3D is not going to fix any of these things.

      Alert a moderator

    • chickensandwich

      Aug 14th 2012, 13:37

      Another pet hate - no paragraphs on comments!!

      Alert a moderator

    • SanFran51

      Aug 14th 2012, 16:15

      The only reason there are 3D Films is because Avatar 3D was a success and filmmakers constantly use 3D as an excuse to make more money and cover up bad movies 3D was a moneymaking gimmick and it will always be a moneymaking gimmick.

      Alert a moderator

    • SanFran51

      Aug 14th 2012, 16:24

      Also Green Lantern was also in 3D and guess what it still bombed.

      Alert a moderator

    • cjdavies

      Aug 17th 2012, 12:56

      I wear glasses, so wearing 3D-glasses over them is annoying when you have to keep pushing them up.

      Alert a moderator

    • ianhowick

      Sep 7th 2012, 16:35

      I have just come home after having walked out of the cinema for the first time "ever". If someone had suggested to me that I would walk out of the new Judge Dredd film I would have said "No Way" but my precise reason for walking out was because of the "Awful" 3D. I don't believe that enough good solid research has been properly carried out yet on this "supposed" revolution in film making technology. I watched only 45 minutes of the film before I became acutely aware that my eyes were literally "Burning" behind the glasses. Some of the early scenes are done in slow motion in order to maximise some of the 3D elements & I could feel my left eye struggling to register what it was seeing. It totally ruined it for me as I sat in my seat trying to adjust and then enjoy & that shouldn't be a part of being a viewer. One of the effects I find especially unpleasant is that of height. When they attempt to provide you with a view straight down the side of a tall building it makes you squirm. I truly hope this is just a trend & that our precious eyesight isn't going to be sacrificed for the latest "Five Minute Wonder".

      Alert a moderator

    • FBLKirkwood

      Sep 21st 2012, 14:15

      I think 3D is good, as long as you know how to use it properly. Like with Avatar and Pirates Of The Caribbean that were both shot in 3D, have a 4/5 chance (Native) of dazzling the audience with that format. But films like Clash Of The Titans and The Last Airbender that were both converted for 3D, have a 2/5 chance (Converted) of again, impressing the audience. My point about this, is to stop moaning about 3D and leave it alone. If you don't like it, then don't watch it.

      Alert a moderator

    • Foreo

      Sep 28th 2012, 19:46

      A totally shameless piece of studio propaganda and good to see so many people seeing through it.TF has always been a bit too hand-in-glove with the big studios for my liking but this 'article' sinks to a whole new level. Also glad to see that, yes, it is just you! 3D has nothing to do with cinema and those appreciate real cinema know it. But the big studios don't care about that. The sole purpose of 3D has only ever been about making tonnes of cash - getting more families in with kids (the only people that actually like 3D) and who then buy loads of over-priced food. For me personally, it only ever feels distracting and annoying and, more often than not, it's usually a way of getting us to see empty c*p films. As the saying goes - you can jam a candle in a turd but it's still a turd

      Alert a moderator