3D movies-Do you like them?

Post Reply New Topic

Do you like 3D or they bother you?

I like them if the 3D actually ADDS something, otherwise, I think it's a waste of money. (We have to pay $3 extra to see a 3D movie at my local theatre.

What about you?

I watched one 3D film... never again. It gave me a headache because I was having to constantly concentrate in order to focus on the screen.

I don't really like them that much. I end up with a headache afterward.

I prefer the kind with the old-fashioned glasses, the plastic with the brownish lenses. I saw a re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" a couple of years ago in that kind of 3-D and that was perfect. It never had much color to begin with so it didn't affect it negatively that way, and it did add to the movie. Coraline, for similar reasons, works as well.

I have found them a pain to wear with my glasses. I could takes mine off, but I would see blurs at any distance beyond the first few rows. Holographic technology, come quickly.

I don't like all the hoopla over 3D. It seems that every single movie coming out these days is being put in 3D, and I'm sick of it. I only like 3D if it's an essential aspect to the overall movie, but 3D for 3D's sake irritates me.

I despise 3D because, quite simply, it's a waste of two bucks. It doesn't add anything; it's just a gimmick by the theaters to make a few extra dollars. The glasses are weird too.

the glasses are a bit of a pain. present-day 3d technology is akin to early stereo audio recordings. i would like to see true 60 frame per second full motion holography which is akin to infinite-speaker surround sound from all directions. holographs don't require those clunky glasses. can't wait 'till technology catches up.

The only movie I've seen that I admired the 3D effects was Avatar. It was only an ok movie from a story perspective, but the technology behind it was amazing. I haven't liked 3D in other movies.

captain EO was the only real [non-red and blue] 3d movie i've seen, and it was a total experience, what with 3D and surround sound and kinetic simulation and steam. if hollywood wants more asses in seats they are going to have to go into the direction of stuff not readily duplicatable at home, namely things like sennsurround and smellovision and synthetic movement/vibration in addition to glasses-free 3d.

I would say I enjoy 3D, but not justfor the hell of being 3D.

I saw Avatar in 3D and I thought that it was quite amazing, the 3D helped me feel more imersed into the world of the movie and was quite the delight for my eyes, and I remember more then a few times trying to touch things. Also seen Resident Evil: Afterlife in 3D, might be the accusition that it was needed, but it was great to watch and was able to make the action feel even more involved and I cringed a couple times not from just "lets throw something at the screen becaus it is 3D" but because it felt like the action involved me.

Also saw Nightmare before Christmas before in 3D, hey it did not really add to much, but it was still all right.

Still won't just like something that is going woah we are 3D watch out for the ping pong bat which is now popping out of the screen. A funny example makeing fun of it I remember seeing in Fairly Odd parents.

depends if the movie is good

I've avoided going to the cinema to see any film in 3D as I'm worried it'll just be sensory overload for me.

I did see Kunfu Panda at teh IMAX once and that was pretty interesting, I enjoyed it but I think because it was a kid's film so I know nothing remotely scary was going to happen in it and it wasn't in 3D, just plain 2D.

I don't think it adds anything to the story any more than stereo/surround sound or color do, but it certainly does make the story more engrossing if done properly (so long as you aren't one of the folks that get headaches from it).

I only have seen a 3D film twice. If the film is good in 3D it will be good in 2D and if the film is bad in 3D in will be bad in 2D.