3D vs 2D

[SiHart]

The BBC asks if 3D films have had their day already... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20808920

So what do you think? Do you like 3D or not?

[Dino]

Depends really. The Silent Hill film from last year was perfect for 3D. Visually it got so much right. It was just in the storytelling and plot it fell down.
But it was great to watch with friends!
Maybe that's the BBC's problem, they haven't got any friends to go out to the pictures to see stuff.

[duncan]

We have a 3D tv and a 3D blu-ray player and have bought 4 dvd's in 3D format. I quite like it personally and intend to buy more. I've yet to see any 3D movies at the cinema though.

[Darren]

3D doesn't work for me because I have astigmatism, but I think it is a gimmicky craze which seems to have come out of nowhere. Considering the huge numbers of 3D televisions now available, it unfortunately appears to be here to stay.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I like that it sometimes gives depth to the world you're witnessing in the film. But I do feel it's a gimmick. There are many films I don't really go out of my way to see in 3D. Avatar as the article said was amazing.

And like Darren says, I have a problem with one eye, so I do struggle a bit with 3D. And sometimes to be blunt I'm too tight to spend extra for a dimension I'm not really going to use.

[Anthony Williams]

The sooner 3D goes away, the better. It seems to trigger migraines for me

[Dirk Gently]

Which 3D system is better though? Active or passive?

Articles I've read seem to suggest that active is better but the glasses can be as much as £100+.

I've not tried either so I'm not sure if it's any good. I'd probably get the benefit as I have good eyes.

[Jeff]

The HDTV's started to get cheap and enough people had them so the industry decided to make a new gimmick so all the people with HDTV's would go out and buy new HDTV's with 3D capabilities. If they wanted to I'm sure they could print 3D blu rays and DVDs that work with the same cheap glasses the theaters use, but instead they came up with this active 3D method that requires a brand new tv and an expensive set of glasses for each person.

Personally, I went to see Avatar in 3D and it was okay, but Miranda started getting a massive headache and took the glasses off and watched it blurry (I told her later she could have left the glasses on and closed or covered one eye to see it in normal 2d) and we don't go the the 3D movies any more for that reason.

[Rob McCow]

The Hobbit was good in 3D. Perhaps the higher frame-rate made it easier to watch.

3D is undoubtedly a gimmick, but I've noticed that directors are starting to shoot films with 3D in mind, rather than for simple 2D. So objects will rumble right up close to the screen and there's more shots that rely on depth perspective for impact. In particular, Judge Dredd had some slo-mo sequences that although fairly decent in 2D, were clearly meant to look utterly spectacular in 3D.

I am pretty certain we'll get Lord of The Rings in 3D within the next six years...

[Jeff]

Saw an article on the topic: CES-Nobody Cares about 3D

[Mike Saville]

If the film is made in 3D, and shot to be delivered in 3D by a creative director- I'm specifically thinking Scorsese's Hugo in 2011, then I absolutely approve.

Most films aren't. They're shot in 2D, with one or two camera angles added for gimmicky effect, and post rendered into planar 3D that looks no better than a ViewMaster, and we're charged a premium to see it.

I read up on the film before I go, and unless it suggests otherwise to me, I'll plump for the 2D version wherever possible. My only lapse was for Marvel's Avengers, because I am that child.

Mind you, with cinemas I like a nice comfortable seat. I like my dolby surround sound. I like my THX remastering.... but each and all of these considerations is trumped by one factor and one factor only- the standard of the cheese sauce on the nachos. So I may not be the best barometer.