Anyone else NOT care for 3D movies and tv?

[mistyt]

There is so much hype lately about movies being shot and shown in 3D and even televisions being sold now with 3D capabilities.

Am I the only one who just doesn't care for this? I would much rather watch a movie without having to put on glasses and have everything jump out at me.

 

[Mrs. Charming]

Me too. I just don't see the appeal.

 

[bicker]

You're not the only one, but that's not unusual, especially when something is first introduced. Generally, you get myriad folks who don't care for any change, don't care for the specific change, etc. Even in the long-term, some folks won't see the point, or won't even care enough about the visual experience part of a movie to try to see the point, etc.

For most films, 3D is useless. The point of those movies isn't the visual experience. All that matters for movies like that are the characters, or the plot, or both. By the same token, there are a lot of movies, especially action movies, where the visual experience is a major aspect. Those movies are the ones where 3D matters, and fans of movies that provide that kind of visual experience are the folks who will care about and enjoy 3D most.

 

[sms]

Don't give a hoot about it. I do however LOVE the 3D shows at WDW!

 

[mistyt]

Don't give a hoot about it. I do however LOVE the 3D shows at WDW!

yes! those are about the only ones I want to see as well!

I don't even know what it is about it that I don't like, I just can't seem to get on board with it!

 

[cybrkitn]

Me. There are a few that are worthy of being in 3D IMO, like Tron (which was excellent in IMAX 3D btw), but most don't need it. Besides, as one who wears eyeglasses everyday, having to wear 3D glasses over my regular set can be a PITA.

 

[Belle Ella]

I can't stand them!! Partially because of how much it drives the ticket prices up at the theater, but I cannot focus on 3D to save my life for more than half of a film and by the time I can I have the worst headache. I'm just wishing it would go away again.

 

[eduk8r26]

I wouldn't have a 3d TV because I do more than watch TV. I read, am on the computer, etc., while watching. So 3d would drive me nuts.

 

[bicker]

I can't stand them!! Partially because of how much it drives the ticket prices up at the theater

I'm confused. Our local IMAX theater charges $11.50 per seat, regardless of whether the movie is 3D or not.

 

[mistyt]

I wouldn't have a 3d TV because I do more than watch TV. I read, am on the computer, etc., while watching. So 3d would drive me nuts.

I never even thought of that but gosh that would be a pain!

I'm usually on the computer when watching TV and can see how that would be a hassle!

 

[Belle Ella]

I'm confused. Our local IMAX theater charges $11.50 per seat, regardless of whether the presentation is 3D or not.

IMAX maybe, but I don't go to any IMAX theaters so I don't know what their prices are here. It's an extra $3 to see a 3D movie at the theaters I go to and sometimes if I want to see it with friends, I don't have an option. Plus if people keep paying it, they'll probably just raise regular ticket prices even more.

 

[figment52]

I can't stand them!! Partially because of how much it drives the ticket prices up at the theater, but I cannot focus on 3D to save my life for more than half of a film and by the time I can I have the worst headache. I'm just wishing it would go away again.

ITA. I am good for about 10 minuts and then the headache starts. I see it as a gimmick and do not get the appeal.

 

[bicker]

IMAX maybe, but I don't go to any IMAX theaters so I don't know what their prices are here.

I would never bother to go see a 3D movie that wasn't on an IMAX screen. If it is all about the visual experience, then these days IMAX needs to be part of it, afaic.

Plus if people keep paying it, they'll probably just raise regular ticket prices even more.

Prices for all discretionary spending is going up faster than the rate of inflation, now that the economy is in recovery, making up for how those increases were depressed during the recession.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I don't like them because they give me a headache. But I can't play video games like Halo (where you're walking around) without getting a headache and getting really sick to my stomach, either.

I think they're kind of cool, in short doses (a la It's Tough to Be a Bug, etc).

 

[Belle Ella]

I would never bother to go see a 3D movie that wasn't on an IMAX screen. If it is all about the visual experience, then these days IMAX needs to be part of it, afaic.

I can see that. Personally for me I definitely can't do IMAX. It's just an overload for me and last time I tried it gave me a severe panic attack, lol. Hence why I don't do IMAX 3D or otherwise.

 

[bicker]

I can see that. Personally for me I definitely can't do IMAX. It's just an overload for me and last time I tried it gave me a severe panic attack, lol. Hence why I don't do IMAX 3D or otherwise.

It is interesting... 3D is really just one more layer of it, but the long-term trend in home entertainment, and really in filmed/recorded entertainment in general, is toward a more immersive viewing experience. It "started" (at least as far as I'm concerned) with multi-channel audio ("surround sound"). With some shows, that immersiveness is really tweaked - The Unit really sticks in my mind - with the sniper rounds flying back and forth and feeling the explosions, rather than just hearing them. Then came wider screens, higher definition, etc. 3D is just the next step of immersiveness.

But greater immersiveness is unquestionably more intense. You know how they say, "May be too intense for certain viewers..." Well, intensity, especially with regard to action, is not a straight-line equation, between age and how intense you like your video entertainment to be. It's a person-by-person thing. Kind-of like roller coasters. For some folks, no matter how old they get, that kind of intense ride is not going to be pleasing, while for even some young children its the best thing since sliced bread.

And so I think that's really going to be the differentiator: How intense do you like your video entertainment. And just like theme parks, there will be people who like the more intense stuff and folks who don't. What is changing is our ability to provide the more intense experiences... that's something that is improving steadily over time.

 

[Mrs. Charming]

I don't like them because they give me a headache. But I can't play video games like Halo (where you're walking around) without getting a headache and getting really sick to my stomach, either.

I think they're kind of cool, in short doses (a la It's Tough to Be a Bug, etc).

I know what you mean-- I tried to play Black Ops with DH, and omg... I just can't do it. Made my stomach turn!

 

[mistyt]

But greater immersiveness is unquestionably more intense. You know how they say, "May be too intense for certain viewers..." Well, intensity, especially with regard to action, is not a straight-line equation, between age and how intense you like your video entertainment to be. It's a person-by-person thing. Kind-of like roller coasters. For some folks, no matter how old they get, that kind of intense ride is not going to be pleasing, while for even some young children its the best thing since sliced bread.

.

I agree with that. I'm 24 and don't like 3D or thrill rides.

Ugh...maybe I am just boring like everyone keeps telling me

 

[Belle Ella]

I agree with that. I'm 24 and don't like 3D or thrill rides.

Ugh...maybe I am just boring like everyone keeps telling me

That's me too!!

 

[Wall-E1]

I really enjoy seeing 3-D movies in the theaters. I recently saw Tron at Downtown Disney in that newly revamped theater (supposedly the only one like it in the country - new projection and sound system). It was amazing. I haven't seen any 3-D tv. I don't have one, and none of my friends have one either. I'm still waiting for odorama to make a comeback - like what they used for John Waters' Polyester. Then, we will truly have achieved the 21st century moviegoing experience.