Why Are Trekkies Against 3D?

[Gepard]

How interesting. I've never gotten a headache or experienced other problems with 3D movies, but the phenomenon Murch discusses may explain why I can never remember the depth feeling "real" the way a 2D image does. I've only seen Avatar and Tron in 3D, and in both cases I enjoyed the 3D effect when I was watching it, but in neither case can I think back and remember what it actually looked like; it's sort of like the 3D effect didn't "really" happen. If there's a fundamental cognitive disconnect about how we process the image, though, that makes sense.

Cue the usual "we must defend 3D at all times" brigade – which, actually, is pretty much just Dennis – to glibly dismiss the article in 5, 4, 3, 2...

 

[The Wormhole]

Excellent article. Mind you, the problem I have with 3-D is that the glasses hurt my eyes. It doesn't even have anything to do with the movie's picture, as soon as I put the glasses on, regardless of if the movie is on or not, I get my eyes hurt. The strange part is, I have no problems with my eyes or eyesight. I've never had to wear glasses or contacts or anything. But 3-D glasses make my eyes hurt.

So yeah, good riddance to this fad.

 

[The Inquisitor]

Good article but that doesn't explain why millions of people go and pay for something that 'doesn't work' and why the industry is steamrollering ahead with research and development.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm neither for or against 3D TV. As long as its used in a constructive manner and people have the option to go 2D should they so wish. I just think its a little short sighted to say 'yeah its a fad it will go away'. The spectacles may go away for sure but they will not hold up on the technology.

These are the 1st steps towards holographic television (and one would hope some form of holodeck - wishful thinking I know).

Below is just one of many links that explore the beginnings of what I believe will be the future of entertainment.

http://www.squidoo.com/holographictv

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

 

[Bishop76]

Yeah, I would still have a problem - it's just not something that enhances my viewing experience at all. In fact, it takes away from it because rather than immersing myself in story or character, they're shoving their shitty 3D effects in my face. It actually serves more to pull me out of the story than to immerse me in it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

Yeah, I would still have a problem - it's just not something that enhances my viewing experience at all. In fact, it takes away from it because rather than immersing myself in story or character, they're shoving their shitty 3D effects in my face. It actually serves more to pull me out of the story than to immerse me in it.

LOL, now you're just being against it for the sake of being against it.

 

[Xerxes1979]

These are the 1st steps towards holographic television (and one would hope some form of holodeck - wishful thinking I know).

What science would this "true 3D" be based on? How would you intergrate it into a cheap household appliance?

Analogue TV had a good sixty year run. You will be long dead and buried before current entertainment is replaced(if ever).

 

[Alex1939]

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

I kind of agree that sometimes the 3D effect itself can break the "feel" of a movie, for lack of a better term.

 

[JarodRussell]

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

I kind of agree that sometimes the 3D effect itself can break the "feel" of a movie, for lack of a better term.

I still remember when people complained about all that CGI "taking them completely out of the movies" when talking about Episode I - III.

 

[Satyrquaze]

I still remember when people complained about all that CGI "taking them completely out of the movies" when talking about Episode I - III.

"The 'Genesis Effect' computer footage in WoK took me right out of the movie!!!!"

 

[Bishop76]

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

I kind of agree that sometimes the 3D effect itself can break the "feel" of a movie, for lack of a better term.

I still remember when people complained about all that CGI "taking them completely out of the movies" when talking about Episode I - III.

Are you really using the prequels as a positive example of anything? The CGI in them is awful and overindulgent and it makes it feel like such a cartoony world that it was impossible to get into it in the first place to say nothing of the fact that they're cinematic abortions even without considering the soulless CG.

 

[Alex1939]

I kind of agree that sometimes the 3D effect itself can break the "feel" of a movie, for lack of a better term.

I still remember when people complained about all that CGI "taking them completely out of the movies" when talking about Episode I - III.

Are you really using the prequels as a positive example of anything? The CGI in them is awful and overindulgent and it makes it feel like such a cartoony world that it was impossible to get into it in the first place to say nothing of the fact that they're cinematic abortions even without considering the soulless CG.

this.

 

[RoJoHen]

Would anyone have an issue with 3D TV if you A: didn't have to wear the glasses, and B: it didn't cause headaches?

I kind of agree that sometimes the 3D effect itself can break the "feel" of a movie, for lack of a better term.

Even for 3-D as "well done" as Avatar, all it really did was distract me from how mediocre the story was. In that regard, I guess "taking me out of the movie" was a good thing, because the second time I watched it I realized it was incredibly lame.

 

[Starbreaker]

I want my silent pictures back, damnit!

 

[Forbin]

I actually used to work with an old fella who still, in the 1990s, mourned the passing of radio.

 

[Eleanor_zhDarjel]

For me it's just a way to charge even more for the ticket. And I have glases, so watching it is really annoying.

 

[CoveTom]

Just because something is new, doesn't mean that it's better. I am seeing a recurrent them here that those who dislike 3D movies are old codgers who hate it just because it's new and need to get with the times. That's awfully dismissive and simplistic. The majority of people I've seen dislike 3D do so because they don't feel it adds anything to the film and, in fact, often has the effect of taking them out of the story because it seems rather "gimmicky" and "in your face." Agree or disagree, those reasons are more substantive than simply being opposed to something because it's different.

 

[JarodRussell]

I also considered lens flares in Star Trek gimmicky and in your face, and it did take me out of the movie in a way. Did that stop anyone?

When you complain about 3D being only used in a gimmicky way, then it's like saying "oil color is bad because most paintings I've seen are ugly". There's good and bad 3D, just like there's good and bad scripts, good and bad lighting, good and bad use of widescreen, good and bad use of color, etc.... Is color in movies bad because directors like Michael Bay like to use these ugly color filters everywhere?

 

[CoveTom]

^ No, not at all. And there are probably "good" applications of 3D and we'll see more of them as directors become more comfortable with the technology and learn to make it a more organic part of their stories.

That having been said, however, what separates this 3D discussion from your example about lighting or widescreen or color or whatever, is that a significant percentage of viewers seem to feel that they have yet to find any example of 3D enhancing the story in a natural and organic way rather than feeling like a gimmick that distracts from the story. In other words, it has yet to be proven that 3D can be used effectively and not be a distraction or a gimmick, whereas the other things you mentioned have proven their worth.

 

[MANT!]

3d simply gives me a headache, that's why I don't like it..

Gave me a headache in the early 80s (Spacehunter and Jaws 3D)..gives me one now...

 

[JarodRussell]

^ No, not at all. And there are probably "good" applications of 3D and we'll see more of them as directors become more comfortable with the technology and learn to make it a more organic part of their stories.

That having been said, however, what separates this 3D discussion from your example about lighting or widescreen or color or whatever, is that a significant percentage of viewers seem to feel that they have yet to find any example of 3D enhancing the story in a natural and organic way rather than feeling like a gimmick that distracts from the story. In other words, it has yet to be proven that 3D can be used effectively and not be a distraction or a gimmick, whereas the other things you mentioned have proven their worth.

Then just give it time to "prove its worth", I say. Color was a gimmick in TV shows like TOS or movies like Robin Hood back then, too. A time where they hand colored black and white movies in order to cash in on the new trend. It's the same thing with 3D.