Why 3D cinema is to be disliked

There are a lot of people who do not like watching movies that come out at the cinema in 3D. I know there are some that don’t have a problem with it, or even like it, however I disliked it from the first one that I watched in 3D at the movie theater, that film being Avatar.

Maybe I didn’t realise it at the moment but after watching a lot more 3D movies, I’ve come to the conclusion that 9 out of 10 times it doesn’t work. I know that 1 time out of 10 it might produce incredible results and an amazingly immersive experience like Gravity, but that’s quite rare.

When it doesn’t work it ends up having a negative effect on the movie, with loss of brightness being the worst aspect. Not to mention that the position of your seat has an impact on the picture, with seats in certain areas you will experience loss of colour. This is very irritating especially in fast paced action sequences because it becomes very difficult to make out exactly what is happening. The picture becomes so dark it requires the complete focus of the eyes, sometimes resulting in straining them so much headaches occur.

I prefer to avoid all the antipathetic effects of 3D, thus, whenever given the choice I opt to watch films in the more enjoyable, conventional two dimensions instead.

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. i do have to ask what was it about Avatar that made it less immersive than Gravity (i haven’t myself seen Gravity)? Avatar was built from the ground up as a 3D film and immersion was Cameron’s #1 goal with it, so i would count it as a film that 3d helped it become a bit more noteworthy than it really was.

    Like

    1. I never said anything about the immersion of Avatar, but if you watched the movie in 3D and then watched the Blu-Ray release, it’s easy to see the difference between picture quality.

      Like

      1. i do apologise if i misunderstood your statements i had thought as you were talking about the immersiveness of Gravity that it would apply to Avatar, as that was what Cameron’s goal was in doing it in 3D (as well as just wanting to tinker with new technology as he always does) and is generally the stated goal of pushing 3D (that and the added surcharge).

        so is the blu-ray release superior in your opinion? Avatar was meant to be projected on a screen and in 3D and things like brightness and depth of field concerns were taken into account to give the audience the greatest effect as possible. In fact i believe the 2D Blu-Ray is inferior for that reason, as its not the creator’s original vision. I also saw Avatar projected in 2D and would again say that it was inferior as the projection didn’t fill the entire screen and once again that the 3D version was how Avatar was the intended way of it being seen.

        Like

      2. I did think the Blu-ray release was superior. When I watched it in 3D it felt like the life was taken out of the movie, the colors were much darker. However it’s all about taste and opinions.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I completely agree with you about losing something while watching a 3D movie. While there may be plenty of supporters (and yes, some scenes do ‘pop’), overall I find it rather gimmicky and not worth the extra money. Give me 2D over 3D any day!

    Even worse than 3D was 4D. I spent half the movie clutching on to my rattling seat, getting squirted by water jets and jumping out of my skin as air whooshed past my ears. Horrendous!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s