Home Opinion Midweek Mouth-off: The Great 3D Debate

Midweek Mouth-off: The Great 3D Debate

1 min read
46

Currently running on the right hand side of the Nu Metro site is a quick poll asking site visitors if they prefer 2D or 3D. At the moment 2D is winning the race with 61%, and 3D is lagging behind at 29%. Clearly the people have spoken even if the studios and distributors are trying very hard not to listen. It’s more profitable that way, seeing as 3D movies are about R15 more expensive than their old school 2D counterparts.

Anyway, today we want to hear your thoughts about 3D, particularly since it’s been a bit of a challenge this past week for many South Africans to find The Avengers in 2D – as opposed to CONVERTED 3D. Do you boycott 3D, and wish the fad would die ASAP? Do you avoid post-production converted 3D but are happy to watch a film shot specifically for 3D? Do you actually love 3D? Or would you rather have IMAX back in the country instead? Let us know.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Critical Hit as an organisation.

Last Updated: May 2, 2012

46 Comments

  1. Mainevent

    May 2, 2012 at 10:22

    3D is shit. I scout for 2d cinemas showing the same movie.

    Reply

  2. Kervyn Cloete

    May 2, 2012 at 10:23

    I have nothing against the technology per se. I have a huge problem with studios using it as nothing but a half-assed attempt to increase a film’s revenue with inflated 3D ticket prices. Same goes for cinema chains trying to force what is essentially (in the case of most post-converted films) an inferior quality picture on me for a higher price.

    Reply

  3. Abigail Holden

    May 2, 2012 at 10:38

    I despise 3D for many reasons, inferior quality, higher prices and headaches among then, and can’t wait til the fad dies like it did back in the 80s or whenever. I managed to track down a decent cinema showing Avengers in 2D last week and was pleasantly surprised at the number of people who had joined me to see it in 2D, even though there was a 3D cinema right next door. Small victories!

    Reply

  4. Henk Roux

    May 2, 2012 at 10:45

    For me it comes down to the quality. “Converted 3D” like Titanic or Star Wars as had been shown recently doesn’t serve the quest or marketing of the tech in any way. In fact, if someone’s introductory experience to 3D was either one of those, they would of course think it’s crap and that they’re getting shafted on the ticket price. Proper 3D films on the other hand (and Avatar obviously is still the best example here for me) is well worth the price difference. Nothing beats swatting virtual flies from your popcorn. If they keep on doing it right and proper, and stop trying to cash in on old movies that was never shot in 3D from the get-go and will never be proper 3D, then I think the current public opinion would slowly falter and the debate would be very different. But cash-in’s are all the rage (with DLC in games as well for instance), and the continuation there-of will be 3D’s demise.

    Reply

  5. Gavin Mannion

    May 2, 2012 at 10:53

    I’m a 3D hater, it completely ruins the movie for me and it takes a special reason to get me into a 3D movie.. If I have a choice I’d rather watch a 2D version and I do check the cinema listings before heading out to the mall to try and find a 2D version of whichever movie I want to see

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      May 2, 2012 at 11:18

      You forgot to mention that you also have a gimpy eye, which – while lending you a sort of banjo playing Deliverance charm – would ruin the 3D effect for you. ūüėÄ

      Reply

      • Gavin Mannion

        May 2, 2012 at 11:32

        This is entirely true but then my genetic flaw isn’t everyone’s problem and I suffer through 3D if I must. However the wife and kids who all have normal eyes are also not fans of 3D at all so it’s still 4-0 in our house

        Reply

  6. Ringo

    May 2, 2012 at 10:58

    Get rid of it. Blurry visuals, head aches, uncomfy glasses, dark movies become black screens with noise (eg. Harry Potter) and inflated prices for poorer quality.

    Reply

  7. Ilden Webber

    May 2, 2012 at 11:05

    The movies that where shot in 3D where ok, but nothing to get overly excited about. Post-production 3D movies need to do a slow death though. Generally I’ll watch the 2D version of a movie. If only the 3D version is available, I’ll find a convenient cinema that has it in 2D, or wait for the movie on Blu-ray rather.

    Reply

  8. Wtf101

    May 2, 2012 at 11:14

    Headaches, blurry screens, eye strain.

    Oh, and add to that the fact that I already wear glasses.¬† Have you tried to wear two sets of glasses at once?¬† Not fun.¬† I spend more time battling to keep the 3d glasses on my face than watching a movie…
    And before you ask: I am not a candidate for contacts, unfortunately…

     

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      May 2, 2012 at 11:16

      Both Nu Metro and Ster-Kinekor now stock clip-on 3D lenses for your prescription glasses. If I recall correctly, they were R30 a pair.

      Reply

      • Abigail Holden

        May 2, 2012 at 11:24

        Sounds stylish!

        Reply

      • Wtf101

        May 2, 2012 at 11:43

        ¬†R30.00 a pair, as opposed to the R5.00 you pay for the regular glasses?¬† i REALLY would like to know how they justify that…

        Reply

        • Kervyn Cloete

          May 2, 2012 at 11:52

          That, unfortunately, I cannot help you with, but I’m guessing that it’s the same logic applied to their confectionery prices.

          Reply

          • Wtf101

            May 2, 2012 at 12:08

            ¬†Yeah, ‘there is something the movies.co.za can investigate ala Carte Blanche style:

            Confectionery Prices and your cinema:  How they are telling you to bend over and take it like a man!

            How about it Gavin?

          • Theuberutang

            May 2, 2012 at 13:16

            Read up somewhere that they(cinemas) actually make very little from the movie ticket price, so they stack the snack prices to make some money.

          • Kervyn Cloete

            May 2, 2012 at 14:03

            Yeah, I have a link about it here somewhere, will see if I can find it. But the gist of the article was ¬†(and this was straight from the mouth of a cinema chain owner) that contrary to popular belief, movie houses were not in the movie business, due to them making almost nothing from the movies themselves. No, they were in the popcorn and coke business, and the movies were just there to get you inside their “stores”.

    • Abigail Holden

      May 2, 2012 at 11:24

      Heartily agree. Can’t stand wearing 3D glasses over my normal ones!

      Reply

  9. Geoffrey Tim

    May 2, 2012 at 11:15

    I’ll echo the comments here. films that were specifically shot for 3D are okay (just ok!), but post-conversion nonsense just means inferior quality, blurring and headaches – at twice the price of admission. ¬† ¬†In those circumstances, I’d happily rather wait for a blu-ray – because 9 times out of 10 hunting down a 2D version on cinema just isn’t worth the trouble.¬†

    More 2D, thanks.

    Reply

  10. Theuberutang

    May 2, 2012 at 11:16

    Really does not bother me one way or another. Price wise it is still fairly cheap on Vitality Club.
    We (2) saw Avengers 3D for R60 or so. Not bad for a new movie, even in 3D.

    It does look 100% better at home on bluray however. More crisp, better seats and way cheaper snacks!

    Some movies (Sea Monsters 3D) is just mindbogglingly cool in 3D, other movies can do without, but really not up there on my moan list.

    Reply

  11. Kervyn Cloete

    May 2, 2012 at 11:21

    I’m lucky in that I do not suffer from the eye-strain inducing headaches, so I can’t comment on that. As to the dark visuals, this would be a non-problem, if directors (and cinema houses) follow James Cameron’s lead by having the film overly brightened, so that it appears perfectly normal with the 3D glasses on.¬†

    While 2D will always be my first choice, I do feel that there is a place for 3D. It’s just that that place is NOT in 99% of 3D movies being released.

    Reply

    • Henk Roux

      May 2, 2012 at 11:27

      James Cameron pioneered the recent push. Avoid other director’s efforts. Unfortunately he struck out with Titantic… it’s a blemish on his record and doesn’t serve to prove the point for 3D.

      Reply

      • Kervyn Cloete

        May 2, 2012 at 11:34

        Not all other director’s efforts are to be avoided. Martin Scorsese did amazing 3D work on Hugo, and Michael Bay *spit* showed a very unexpected deft hand with the 3D on Transformers: Dark of the Moon *spit*

        Reply

  12. Geoffrey Stokker

    May 2, 2012 at 11:40

    I hate 3D and when I went to see the Avengers I searched for a cinema that was showing the 2D version and enjoyed the hell out of the movie.

    I have never seen what the big fuss about 3D was and wasn’t that impressed with the only real 3D movie to be released so far (Avatar).¬† Yes, those floating dandelions were pretty cool but they didn’t add to the movie in any way.

    Reply

  13. Noelle Adams

    May 2, 2012 at 11:51

    Avatar, Hugo and Coraline are my top 3 films shot specifically for 3D. I’ll happily watch a 3D film if it’s made by a master who grasps the full creative potential of the medium… however, I now refuse to watch conversions.

    My biggest problem with 3D is that after a while I no longer notice it, making it pointless. After a while my mind starts phasing out the visual¬†gimmickry¬†to focus on the plot etc. instead. I mean, if you’re fixating on the graphics, the film isn’t really doing a good job of engrossing you.

    Reply

  14. Noelle Adams

    May 2, 2012 at 11:54

    For the record, this is a handy guide as to what is “shot in 3D” and what is a conversion:¬†
    http://realorfake3d.com/

    Reply

    • DadGamer

      May 4, 2012 at 13:01

      ¬†aw, thanks! I’ve been searching a long time for a site like this ūüôā

      Reply

  15. Kervyn Cloete

    May 2, 2012 at 12:06

    Just a quick suggestion, but if everybody can actually go and vote in that poll (get your friends and family to do it as well) on http://www.numetro.co.za/ then maybe they can actually see that people do not want to have this inferior third dimension rubbish forced on to them.

    I would like to think that it was my anti-Avengers 3D tirade, and the subsequent outcry from others who picked up on it on Twitter two weeks back that prompted Nu Metro to suddenly include additional 2D screenings in the Western Cape. So you never know, your vote could actually make a difference.

    Reply

    • Tracy Benson

      May 2, 2012 at 12:49

      I went and voted but, as this debate shows, it’s not as black and white as “do you prefer 2D or 3D?” meaning that there poll’s results will be skewed.¬†

      Reply

  16. Tracy Benson

    May 2, 2012 at 12:47

    I agree with everything said, when done right it’s awesome but post 3D is a cheap cash-in. And my eyes. Good grief. I loved Avatar in 3D but it hurt the hell out of my eyes, even ignoring just how uncomfortable those glasses are on the bridge of your nose. I wear contacts normally and I had trouble focusing my eyes, they want to focus through the 3D effect. It’s not worth the extra $$ for me personally.¬†

    Reply

  17. Valshen

    May 2, 2012 at 13:20

    I hate 3D. It feels like it is sluggish and laggy. Also blurry and battles to track fast action. Paying more to see less? No thanks you gits. If I wanted to trick my brain into seeing things, I would take psychoactive stimulants. 

    Reply

  18. Charl

    May 2, 2012 at 13:21

    I prefer watching movies in 2D their are the exceptions though like How To Train A Dragon and Avatar which were both brilliant in 3D. 
    I guess my biggest gripe is 3D is that it is mostly used to pop things out of screen and almost never uses to add depth.

    Reply

  19. Ben Kelly

    May 2, 2012 at 13:21

    I was a big fan of 3D when it launched but it makes my eyes tired and many of the other side effects that have already been mentioned. If I have the choice I will watch any movie in 2D rather than 3D. I did see Hugo in 3D and that was pretty impressive. 

    Reply

  20. Craig Lotter

    May 2, 2012 at 13:49

    I don’t have a problem with 3D – sometimes it adds some pretty neat touches to a movie, those most of the time it does feel a little… gimmicky.

    Reply

  21. Oethman Khan

    May 2, 2012 at 15:33

    3D sux, it was a novelty at first… but no, whenever there is any action it loses clarity, gives headaches and just looks poor. besides i dont usually wear glasses so its damn irritating. and its not worthit, there aren’t any real ‘3D’ effects, just more depth given. the only place 3d looks good to me is in animated or those CGI movies. then it might be worth it. but Avengers… should have watched it in 2D

    Reply

  22. Justin Hess

    May 2, 2012 at 16:10

    I could see the point of 3D if you could argue that it brings something of real value to films. All the major technological advancements in cinema have done just that but I can’t say the same for 3D.

    The moving image present a new way of looking at the world and taking in stories.
    Then sound made it so that that story was more textured and layered. Colour gave it energy and more texture. Animatronics, CG and other SFX allowed films to show their audiences things that were before, only imaginable and things that weren’t even imaginable.

    How does 3D push cinema forward? Far from pushing cinema forward, I find 3D to be a hindrance, something that takes me out of the movie instead of pulling me in. 

    Maybe that’s because I’m far to¬†conscious¬†of it. Maybe, generations that grow up with 3D as a norm won’t be so conscious of it and will instead accept it as part and parcel of the cinema experience as they do sound, colour and SFX.

    Regardless, the question remains, what does 3D bring to cinema that it was lacking before? So long as that question remains unanswered and so long as filmmakers can’t find a way to justify 3D beyond it being a means to “turn up the volume” on the¬†spectacle, it will remain a useless addition to cinema that doesn’t pull us into the story but instead reminds us of the general contrivance that is filmmaking.

    And as a filmmaker, hiding the contrivance, and making the audience forget that the film has been put together is rule numero uno 

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      May 2, 2012 at 18:48

      Know what all of the “best” 3D films I had in common? None of them made use of throwing stuff at screen, dodging in your seats tactics. With Hugo, I felt like I was in that train station when the steam, snow and the dust was billowing around me.

      Is it anything groundbreaking? Not really, no. But it does up the immersion factor. WHEN USED CORRECTLY, THAT IS!

      Reply

      • Justin Hess

        May 3, 2012 at 09:50

        But that immersion factor ALREADY EXISTS with good storytelling and performances. 
        I’m already immersed in Raiders of the Lost Ark from frame 1, and Raiders, which is over 30 years old is still better than any 3D film yet made.

        So tell me again, what does 3D bring to cinema that it was so lacking prior to 3D’s inception?

        Reply

        • Kervyn Cloete

          May 3, 2012 at 11:14

          Damn it. Why’d you have to go and bring Raiders into this? You know I can’t argue against that. That’s just unfair!

          Reply

          • Justin Hess

            May 3, 2012 at 12:42

            No argument can ever best Raiders of the Lost Ark ūüėÄ

  23. Martin du preez

    May 2, 2012 at 16:10

    2d in the Cinema then I’ll get the 3D/2D blu ray for home viewing. Cinema 3D is kak.

    Reply

  24. CaptainNemo42

    May 2, 2012 at 18:23

    Biggest issue I have with 3D is the darker visuals. And for that reason alone, I will have to say 2D is better. I’ve seen a few movies that were great in 3D. I think the latest Transformers and Avengers were great, because as they say, it’s the way it was shot.

    On TV 3D is awesome, but I think it uses better technology than the local cinemas. Wish I could afford a 3D TV.

    Reply

    • Kervyn Cloete

      May 2, 2012 at 18:44

      Simple science really. Your LED/LCD has a backlight which is bright enough to overcome 3D’s inherent gloominess.

      Reply

      • CaptainNemo42

        May 2, 2012 at 18:52

        I realise that, I was referring to overall 3D experience on a television set compared to cinema. I know that the gloominess does have an impact, but the quality 3D on TV is just better than cinema. Some of the visuals stand out better and there is much less blurriness.

        But maybe you are right and it is just the brightness that makes all the difference.

        Reply

        • Kervyn Cloete

          May 2, 2012 at 20:28

          Well despite the high res of the film actually being projected up on the cinema screen, I still don’t feel that it matches the sharpness,clarity and colour of a Full HD TV, so yeah, it would look slightly better at home.

          Reply

  25. DadGamer

    May 4, 2012 at 13:10

    I’ve been a fan of anything 3D since I was a kid, but I’ve now “gotten over it”. I don’t see the 3D version of movies by default anymore, but a few are definitely worth it. Avatar was great but the best use of 3D for me was ‘Journey to the Centre of the Earth’ and its sequel ‘Journey 2’. You can tell that these movies were made for 3D from the get-go by very experienced crew – which is very important.
    3D is still a relatively new technology and most productions are still trying out stuff and experimenting with what works and getting their heads around the technical, scientific aspects of the medium.

    I’m hoping that the industry will eventually grow out of the gimmick stage and make less 3D films that utilise the medium better and with more experience/knowledge.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Marvel’s Avengers beta date announced for early August

PlayStation players will get in earlier than anyone else, followed by PC and Xbox players …