Why Are Trekkies Against 3D?

[Aike]

On every forum or news site that I visit the general consensus among trekkies seem to be that 3D is bad. The large majority doesn´t want the new movie to have 3D effects and many people seem to have lukewarm feelings towards other 3D movies.

Still, I find this odd since a big part of Star Trek is about new technology and many trekkies seem to be tech geeks.

So why do trekkies dislike 3D?

 

[Misfit Toy]

I think it's probably due (in part) to 3D not being (often) used as part of the storytelling process, but instead used as a "gimmick", many times tacked on in an effort to bring in extra $$. But that's just my opinion.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^ Well said. Directors are having a very hard time integrating the technique successfully into the story. Cameron came close with Avatar by using it as a way of immersing the viewer in that alien world but even then it was still mostly a gimmick. Thirty minutes into the film and viewers would have forgotten about the 3D if he wasn't reminding them every so often with a "Look! It's 3D!" moment.

But I don't particularly care for it due to the ginormous headache it tends give me. Even watching short 3d movies will give me a migraine. But after seeing Avatar I thought my skull was going to explode. It was so bad I could barely see to drive home. After that I started say "no" to the 3D. It just wasn't worth the torture.

I also find 3D to be another empty gimmick that doesn't add all that much to the experience story wise. In some ways I find it actually detracts from a film rather then enhances. Besides, a ticket to regular 2D movie offers the same experience but without the headache or bloated price.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I don't think it's specifically Trekkies against 3D. I've seen the same backlash on pretty much every forum I've visited. I think people are getting tired of the oversaturation of low quality movies cashing in on the current 3D trend like it's a selling point in its own right. At best 3D is something that enhances the visuals, but it is not a selling point on its own, and it does not make a shit movie better.
Whether or not 3D ultimately catches on, the fact is that at the moment it's being milked like a cheap fad, and people are sick of it.

 

[Avon]

the lens flare will injure people

 

[Bishop76]

For pretty much all the reasons listed here already. It's a technology from the 50s, too, btw, not a fancy new technology. Moreover, it's a technology that has no application outside of the film industry and even within that industry, it's an entirely superficial tech. I, like previous posters, have never had a storytelling experience enhanced by 3D.

 

[The_Baroness]

But just because is doesn't enhance the movie doesn't mean we should go without it. It adds to the atmosphere, and the immersion and surely that's a good thing?

It makes it feel more real and you feel more like you're a part of it.

Having the film in colour rather than black and white doesn't make any difference to the story either, but I bet no-one would want to go back to black and white movies.

The same can be said for surround sound, or even visual effects.

(well...there was a lot of complaints about visual effects in the last movie to be fair...but they didn't detract from the story either...)

the story would be the same with or without all these things, but that doesn't make them bad!

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, but they don't charge extra for those other things. Moreover, a visual gimmick doesn't immerse me in a film - great characters and stories do. If a modern movie were in black and white but had an amazing, compelling story, like say... Schindler's List... I don't think the black and white would bother people.

 

[The Wormhole]

Not only is 3-D a gimmick, it's a gimmick you can only enjoy in the theatre. 3-D TVs aren't widely available, and so you can't enjoy the aspect at home.

Mind you, I've only seen two 3-D movies so far, and haven't really been impressed at all. Avatar was so bland and generic that if it weren't for 3-D to provide impressive visuals there'd be nonthing memorable to it. And I don't really understand why The Green Hornet had to be in 3-D, other than to jack the price up.

 

[Forbin]

Well, for one thing, my wife can't even see 3D because of wildly different prescriptions in each eye, so she couldn't care less. And we don't go to the theater to see movies anyway, preferring to see them in our own living room without cell phones and screaming kids.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I don't think it's specifically Trekkies against 3D. I've seen the same backlash on pretty much every forum I've visited. I think people are getting tired of the oversaturation of low quality movies cashing in on the current 3D trend like it's a selling point in its own right. At best 3D is something that enhances the visuals, but it is not a selling point on its own, and it does not make a shit movie better.
Whether or not 3D ultimately catches on, the fact is that at the moment it's being milked like a cheap fad, and people are sick of it.

Exactly. It's too much of a fad and makes movie tickets more expensive than they are. 3D was very popular in the 90s at some point, and I remember being glad when it went away. I've seen a couple of movies in 3-D this summer and remain wholly unimpressed.

I am disapponted to learn that Foundation's long-awaited movie is expected to be 3D.

 

[Aike]

But is it really a fad this time?

First, most of the popular animated movies from Pixar and Dreamworks are in 3D and they totally dominated the global box office in 2010. And then you have Avatar, which was a huge hit.

I think lots of kids and teens love 3D, and they will demand it for other movies as well.

Second, it´s a selling point for actually going to the movie theatre. You can´t have it at home if you´re not one of the few owners of a 3D TV set.

My guess is that a lot of the online criticism comes from regular moviegoers that don´t want to pay extra. It´s not the teens and kids that post on the web forums.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I agree with most of the comments here. I am pretty much resigned to the fact that the new movie will be in 3D...but i won't be happy about it.

 

[BlobVanDam]

But is it really a fad this time?

First, most of the popular animated movies from Pixar and Dreamworks are in 3D and they totally dominated the global box office in 2010. And then you have Avatar, which a huge hit.

I think lots of kids and teens love 3D, and they will demand it for other movies as well.

Second, it´s a selling point for actually going to the movie theatre. You can´t have it at home if you´re not one of the few owners of a 3D TV set.

My guess is that a lot of the online criticism comes from regular moviegoers that don´t want to pay extra. It´s not the teens and kids that post on the web forums.

I think the technology is finally at a point where it has the potential to stick this time, but unfortunately it is being treated as a fad by the movie industry. There is an abundance of terrible movies, often with "3D" in the title, which literally have no purpose other than to milk the 3D craze. Basically they started wearing it out as a gimmick the second everyone got a raging chubby for Avatar. Seeing a terrible movie in 3D is no more alluring to me than seeing a terrible movie in 2D.

So the problem is that Hollywood is relying too heavily on a cheap gimmick that offers an experience that can't be pirated right now, rather than just focusing on good original movies.

Of course they're not mutually exclusive goals, but there haven't been all too many movies that have succeeded at both.

 

[number6]

I don't see why it's a dealbreaker for some. I would think they're too busy yelling at the new kids to get off their lawn to care about 3D. So many other arguments to be had about lens flares, nacelles, and the location of Delta Vega.. 3D is appropriate for a franchise that pushed the envelope of special effects. Trekkies need to let go of their irrational hatred of any change to the franchise, though I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Bishop76]

I love change. I think more than any franchise out there, Trek needed change. 3D is in no way a substantive change, it's just an obnoxious fad. I think that a lot of teens and younger kids do like 3D. But I also think that once they grow up a bit and their taste in movies matures a bit, they'll realize just how worthless 3D really is. It's like visual effects. When I was younger, if a film had shoddy FX, I'd write it off as a bad movie. Now, I really don't care what the effects look like as long as I'm enjoying the story and the characters or just having fun with the film.

 

[Xerxes1979]

Star Trek is about staff meetings and captial ship combat viewed from hundreds of meters.

Stereo vision is most evident at the very close scale which is why you have gimmicks like hatchets being thrown directly at the audience. You really want more of that in Trek?

3D is just a money making device devised by Holywood because people are stupid enough to pay $20 a ticket for the experience. Secretly they want to fight piracy of major motion pictures by handycams but they will lose that battle as well.

 

[BolianAuthor]

There's a few reasons for me:

- I don't like to have to wear special gear when I go to see a movie.

- I don't want to pay more to see a movie that I can see for less without 3D.

- It's gimmicky.

- It's only good on a large theater screen.

- I don't want to pay more to see a movie that I can see for less without 3D.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Yeah, but they don't charge extra for those other things. Moreover, a visual gimmick doesn't immerse me in a film - great characters and stories do. If a modern movie were in black and white but had an amazing, compelling story, like say... Schindler's List... I don't think the black and white would bother people.

This is so true. You know, I don't care either way for 3D, because it doesn't immerse me more in a story than a 2D flick would.

The best argument is that they don't charge for better visual effects. Why pay so much more for 3D? I don't want to pay for an effect that doesn't do anything for me, doesn't make the film any better, and will most likely give me a headache.

I don't hate it, I'm indifferent to it...and nobody wants to pay for something they don't care about.

 

[Klingon Empire]

One reason could be that 3D just isn't as great as people make it out to be. Plus, I was observing a 3D Tv at Best Buy one time for round about 40 Seconds to a minuet and almost got a headache out of it, if my memory serves me well.