Poll: Would you prefer to see a movie in 3D or 2D?

[DeafPoet]

I'll always take 2D if I have a choice. I've been to a few 3D movies at a few different theatres around town and the picture is always impossibly murky. It's a neat little gimmick for awhile, but it just washes out the colours and makes everything so dark. Until they figure out a way around that, I'll stick to the same ol' same ol', thank you very much.

 

[TemporalFlux]

I watched two movies in 2D this weekend (X-men: First Class and Pirates 4), and it was difficult to find an open seat. Certainly not a scientific study, but I think 2D is thankfully still very popular.

I just can't watch 3D; it gives me a headache.

 

[Thestral]

Assuming it was filmed in 3D, I'd be happy to see it that way.

The higher price point means that I'll almost always go for the 2D version though.

 

[MacLeod]

I don't have a real preferrence, if it was filmed in 3D then sure. But then again I've only seen 1 3D movie recently. But saying that I've only been to the cinema once recently

 

[T'Baio]

I wear glasses, and adding the 3D glasses over them doesn't bother me at all.

As for the movies, I want to see a movie the way the director intended me to see it. If it's post-converted, I'm not interested, I'd rather see it in 2D.

But if it's a creative decision by the creative team involved, and it serves a creative and/or thematic purpose, then I'm all for 3D and think it's fun.

The only two 3D movies that I've seen so far and have loved it are Avatar and Tron: Legacy. Filmed in 3D movies for creative/thematic purposes. Thor I saw in 3D and hated it (the 3D, I mean...the film was great.)

 

[Warped9]

I've tried to watch 3D and it doesn't really work or do anything for me. The technology's benefits/advantages haven't been proven to me in the least and I refuse to pay a premium for it.

Presently I'm quite happy with the image quality we have with 2D. I'm more interested in seeing good films rather than a gimmick that adds nothing to the experience.

 

[Ethros]

If it were the same price, and the choice were-
Walk into this theater and see it in 2D
Walk into that theater and see it it 3D

I might as well go for the 3D one. That is of course if it's properly filmed and planned out in 3D, ala Avatar and Resident Evil 4, rather than badly converted later, ala Clash of the Titans.


Fairly simple to me

 

[Scrambo]

i cant see 3D images so im stuck with 2D

 

[Nociod]

I hate 3D movies, have seen some in 3D (latest was the Pirates of the Caribbean), but have decided that from now on I'll rather not watch the movie than see it in 3D.

 

[Winged Victory]

I hate spending the extra bucks to see 3D, so I usually go for 2D, which is fine to me. I've seen "Rio" and the upconverted "Clash of the Titans" both in 3D--what a difference between them. I felt cheated out of my money for "Clash" but wowed with "Rio".

And "X-Men: First Class" was fantastic in 2D--and a very full theater too!

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Really depends on the movie. I prefer 2D over 3D, but if a movie is 3D, I'll see it that way. I like directors who choose not to make a film in 3D, and stick to 2D.

 

[Nathan_Heller]

I wear prescription eyeglasses so I hate 3d glasses. 2D movies for me, thank you.

 

[Geckothan]

2D, because I don't buy into the marketing hype that is 3D.

It's an old technology that gives people headaches, gives film makers and studios some quick money by doing a few generic 'OMG STUFF POPS OUT OF THE SCREEN' shitfests while the kids who don't realise how old the technology is are still wowed by it, and gives cinemas an excuse to inflate ticket prices. That's all. There's nothing more to it.

You can't do anything artistic with it, and unlike colour, you can't use it to simply enhance the picture and make it look more realistic because fake 3D doesn't look realistic at all. It's just a stupid gimmick and that's all there is to it.

It died off before, and hopefully it will die off again.

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

This is an interesting article about how the theater and television industries were strong-armed into adopting 3D technology: It’s good to be the King of the World

 

[Argus Skyhawk]

I was interested in a passage from this article indicating that 3D is losing popularity:

The dew is plainly off the 3D rose, at least domestically, and that's bad news for the studios, which have come to count on the $2-$3 surcharges the format brings. The 3D showings of "Turbo" accounted for just 25 percent of its total box office, which represents the format's worst showing yet, and 3D contributed 30 percent of the $53 million opening of "The Wolverine," a new low point for action releases. 'Monsters University" (31 percent) and "World War Z" (34 percent) similarly sputtered. It's still working overseas, but you have to wonder how long that will last as foreign audiences become more sophisticated.

I'll admit the 3D fad has lasted a lot longer than I originally expected, but it still seems to be just a fad.

 

[Greg Cox]

Given a choice, I always go for 2D--unless it's something cool and retro like THE CREATURE OF THE BLACK LAGOON or whatever. I have fond memories of seeing HOUSE OF WAX (with Vincent Price, not Paris Hilton!) and IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE in 3D as well.

I have yet to see a modern movie in 3D.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I was interested in a passage from this article indicating that 3D is losing popularity:

The dew is plainly off the 3D rose, at least domestically, and that's bad news for the studios, which have come to count on the $2-$3 surcharges the format brings. The 3D showings of "Turbo" accounted for just 25 percent of its total box office, which represents the format's worst showing yet, and 3D contributed 30 percent of the $53 million opening of "The Wolverine," a new low point for action releases. 'Monsters University" (31 percent) and "World War Z" (34 percent) similarly sputtered. It's still working overseas, but you have to wonder how long that will last as foreign audiences become more sophisticated.

I'll admit the 3D fad has lasted a lot longer than I originally expected, but it still seems to be just a fad.

That last bit is more than a tad patronising about "foreign" audiences. I know over here, at least, they've been pushing 3D hard, putting 2D showings on at difficult times, so the main times when audiences will show up the only version on offer is the 3D version. Couple of films with 1 early showing in 2D per day and 3D the rest of the day.

 

[Shanndee]

Another 2D vote.

It may be that wearing 3D glasses over my glasses causes me to miss some of the detail, but I do not enjoy 3D at all. I occasionally will go to an animated 3D movie, but that is only if there is no 2D option available. If there is no 2D option for a live action movie, I will wait until it shows up on Netflix.

The only 3D movies that I felt were well served by the technology are Coraline and Avatar. Definitely 2D for me!

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Wearing 3D glasses over your actual glasses sucks.

 

[MacLeod]

I was interested in a passage from this article indicating that 3D is losing popularity:

The dew is plainly off the 3D rose, at least domestically, and that's bad news for the studios, which have come to count on the $2-$3 surcharges the format brings. The 3D showings of "Turbo" accounted for just 25 percent of its total box office, which represents the format's worst showing yet, and 3D contributed 30 percent of the $53 million opening of "The Wolverine," a new low point for action releases. 'Monsters University" (31 percent) and "World War Z" (34 percent) similarly sputtered. It's still working overseas, but you have to wonder how long that will last as foreign audiences become more sophisticated.

I'll admit the 3D fad has lasted a lot longer than I originally expected, but it still seems to be just a fad.

That last bit is more than a tad patronising about "foreign" audiences. I know over here, at least, they've been pushing 3D hard, putting 2D showings on at difficult times, so the main times when audiences will show up the only version on offer is the 3D version. Couple of films with 1 early showing in 2D per day and 3D the rest of the day.

I agree about the last part being patronising. Remember Widescreen TV's were the norm in places like the UK years before the US, Most films were released on DVD in OAR and on VHS you could get either WS or Pan and Scan versions. So perhaps it's a case that other markets are quicker to embrace changes than the US.

Does it really matter so long as both are offered. If I choose to spend a little extra to see a film in 3D is my choice. The biggest rip-off however is not so much at the cinema but for BR release. That's where they ovecharge you.