3D or 2D

[fommes 153]

Apologies if this topic has been done before; I thought at this time it was a good idea to do a poll like this.

I've booked tickets for the latest Harry Potter film, and I could choose between 2D and 3D. I went with 2D, as I'm rather heavily opposed to 3D. I'm rather glad they're playing this in 2D, too, actually.

My main objection to 3D is that it adds nothing to the cinema experience and only has disadvantages: after five minutes the brain adapts to it, and in your head - cognitively - you experience the film in the same way as in 2D. The so-called immersion in the story purely depends on the quality of the storytelling. Plus, with the few films I've seen in 3D, it actually detracts from the quality of the moviemaking because of the emphasis on the effects; '3D effects' > 'framing the image', so to speak. Also, it's more expensive, and it's rather tough on the eyes.

Anyway - other people are much more eloquent than me on this. I think the following two links are essential reading:

Why 3D Doesn't Work and Never Will

After 3D, Here Is the Future of Film

I'm looking forward to see where this poll is heading.

[Wojo 2,453]

2D.

2D is cheaper to buy tickets for, generally provides a brighter image, doesn't induce motion sickness, and doesn't require me to wear special glasses over my normal glasses.

I'm perfectly fine that 3D exists, and don't have a problem with the people who actually like it. But given the choice, I'd rather see 2D. Were 3D to replace 2D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether.

D'oh.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Never seen a 3D film after seeing Captain EO in 1987 in California.

Maybe I should check the last Potter out in that format. Was it shot in 3D or converted?

[crocodile 8,006]

2D.Cheaper tickets, not so tiring on the eyes (brighter screen). You can actually follow action on screen. And I hate wearing glasses of any kind.

A well made movie gives me all 3D I'll ever need.

Karol

[fommes 153]

I'm perfectly fine that 3D exists, and don't have a problem with the people who actually like it. But given the choice, I'd rather see 2D. Were 2D to replace 3D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether.

Well said, and ditto for me. If they could co-exist, that would be wonderful. But I'd still like to see it disappear again, just to be safe - I don't entirely trust the way the studios are trying to shove it down our throat this time around.

[Bellosh 3,418]

Depends on the picture. Either way I don't care, although some hang on the gimmick too much.

If 3D gets you more into the movie, then more power to you I guess, and I think thats what creatives really want to go with it, to make you have a closer connection with the film. They want it to be an "experience" in theaters.

2D is just fine though.

As for 3D in my home --- Yeah, NO thanks to that, can't fathom wearing glasses on my couch for a movie.

[Ollie 1,059]

2D.

I don't mind watching a short IMAX film in 3D but to sit there for more than 45 minutes is more than I want.

[Faleel 5,346]

Were 2D to replace 3D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether.

Would it not be a good thing to no longer have 3D movies?

[Quintus 5,399]

2D but nothing against 3D. I'll see The Hobbit in both, but the 48fps is the main appeal in that instance.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Never seen a 3D film after seeing Captain EO in 1987 in California.

Maybe I should check the last Potter out in that format. Was it shot in 3D or converted?

Converted. 3D worked well in Transformers 3 and Journey to the Center of the Earth, but both were shot in 3D.

I'll go anywhere with James Cameron in 3D.

Fommes is completely wrong in that it does add to the cinematic experience, with the right film. That is the problem.

Quick cheap conversions are terrible. I can't judge the Death Hallows until I see it but it was given a top notch converion.

Titanic will be back in theatres next year in 3D, not 2D. I want to see it converted.

I've seen dozens upon dozens of 3D films and while often it was gimmicky it was also entertaining.

Eventually 3D will be shot and shown without glasses. That is on the horizon. Once the obstacle of the glasses is removed then all films should be shot in 3D.

I think that Cameron and Jackson have solved the lighting problem by going to the 48 to 60fps. We'll see.

[Wojo 2,453]

If they can get of the glasses, then I'd naturally be more interested in it.

But otherwise, 3D adds the value of being able to literally place actors and objects in the foreground without having to blur the background to simulate depth of field on a 2D backdrop. <Shrug> If that's important to you, great. I don't need objects thrown at me out the fourth wall left and right. I "know" I'm not at Hogwarts watching Harry fight the bad guys, or out in the boat with the bits of piranha-munched swimmers being tossed my way, and simulating that with 3D doesn't really create the illusion that I am.

I don't really need my movies to become amusement park rides. I'd rather contribute the balance to a nice meal afterwards.

Were 2D to replace 3D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether.

Would it not be a good thing to no longer have 3D movies?

It's not for me to say what the industry should or should not do. I just know that if they go down the road they're going, I will say goodbye to the industry.

Many people get really aroused at the notion of every movie being presented in 3D, and probably can't wait for the evening news, commercials, and other TV shows to be presented in 3D. Imagine Wheel of Fortune where you can actually see the wheel spinning towards you, or Vanna's hand reach towards you to turn the letters. And these people are at home, wearing their glasses, going FAP FAP FAP.

[Faleel 5,346]

Were 2D to replace 3D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether.

Would it not be a good thing to no longer have 3D movies?

It's not for me to say what the industry should or should not do. I just know that if they go down the road they're going, I will say goodbye to the industry.

Many people get really aroused at the notion of every movie being presented in 3D, and probably can't wait for the evening news, commercials, and other TV shows to be presented in 3D. Imagine Wheel of Fortune where you can actually see the wheel spinning towards you, or Vanna's hand reach towards you to turn the letters. And these people are at home, wearing their glasses, going FAP FAP FAP.

so if they stuck with 2D and replaced 3D with it you would stop going to the movies?

[Wojo 2,453]

See below.

[Faleel 5,346]

so 2D would replace something that is replacing it?

[Wojo 2,453]

I apologize, I misspoke. What I meant was:

"Were 3D to replace 2D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether."

or

"Were 2D to be replaced by 3D entirely, I would stop going to movies, altogether."

or

"If 2D were gone, and I woke up in a world where only 3D movies existed and I could never again travel to a cinema to watch a movie without bloated prices, ridiculous glasses, and simulated stuff jumping out at me, then I would just roll over and dream for yesteryear."

Good catch. English is not my first language, but Idiot is.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

No preference either way! Yay, indifference!

I don't even really notice 3D, so...

[stewdog1 50]

I prefer 2D myself. Many 3D films seem out of focus or to soft for my tastes. Now if it is in IMAX 3D, there is a difference. I saw Thor in IMAX 3D and Green Lantern in Real 3D. Big difference. However, 3D works in a fantasy realm much better than a "real life" realm. For example, in Thor, the scenes off of earth worked well. But the earth bound scenes took me out of the movie for a moment every time.

If I had my druthers, I wish it would just go away. A well made movie will always immerse you into it without the gimmick of 3D.

[indy4 155]

3D doesn't hurt the experience, but it doesn't help it at all. So I vote 2D, because 3D tickets are more expensive.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3D have a darker image, so it can definitely hurt the experience.

[Shane 0]

2D. Apart from the inflated ticket prices that make the box office clerks look like scalpers, I agree with comments about it being hard on the eyes. Mine start watering pretty quickly. Like Wojo, I wear glasses and fitting the 3D glasses over them can be a nuisance, especially when both pairs start sliding down your nose afterwards. Makes me thankful that they weren't around during high school. Four-eyes jokes are ok but six-eyes? I just personally find 3D more gimmicky than anything else.

[Sandor 797]

Yeah, I remember an article I once posted a link of which explained a much more fundamental problem of 3D movies...

[Datameister 2,042]

I'm increasingly feeling like 3D should only be used when literal, honest-to-goodness immersion is the goal - i.e., you're supposed to actually feel like you're right there in the middle of the action. This is generally only the case with theme parks and so forth, and not with normal cinematic experiences. In that sort of context, 3D can help with the goal, but I'm starting to think that it just gets in the way with normal cinema.

Also, after experiencing the new Star Tours, I think think 3D presentations should try to use Dolby 3D and similar techniques instead of the older polarization-based techniques. Looks a lot better.

[crocodile 8,006]

Yeah, I remember an article I once posted a link of which explained a much more fundamental problem of 3D movies...

You mean this one?

Karol

[fommes 153]

You mean the one I already posted in the opening post?

[Quintus 5,399]

Ebert is a legend, but I tend to side with the film makers who have earned my respect through their hard-earned creations; and not with those who merely critique them.

If Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson see something worthwhile in 3D then they get the benefit of the doubt and indeed my attention because they have earned it, tenfold.

Ebert's opinion on such things is but an alternative viewpoint and an absolutely valid one at that, but he hasn't done anything in his career so far to make me value his own personal standpoint and vision over that of some of the greatest, most gifted directors working today.

I'm sure Ebert in all his grizzly wisdom would appreciate that.

Those who favour the cheap, brainlessly popular argument which says: "of course PJ and Spielberg champion 3D - it's all about $$$!" have absolutely no business claiming themselves to be true fans of their work.

[paleo 63]

I usually don't see a reason to pay more for 3d; particularly if it's been done in post-production.

[Datameister 2,042]

Yeah, I remember an article I once posted a link of which explained a much more fundamental problem of 3D movies...

You mean this one?

Karol

Near the end of that article, the summary is:

So: dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating.

The darkness issue is resolved by using better projection techniques, such as the aforementioned Dolby 3D. The smallness issue is caused by filmmakers shooting 3D films like 2D films, rather than aiming for the sort of orthostereoscopy that should be the goal in immersive experiences. The strobing issue isn't something I've noticed, but perhaps that's where Jackson et al.'s preference for higher framerates could come in handy. The headache issue is really frustrating for me, since I never have any problems with that, but I guess some people's eyes have trouble figuring out how to converge on one object while focusing on another. Lame. And as for alienation...well, in the context of the letter, he's comparing immersion in a 3D experience to immersion in a fascinating story, but they're not mutually exclusive. Appropriate use of 3D doesn't preclude an involving story.

Again, though, I'm feeling more and more like 3D isn't helpful unless genuine, realistic immersion is the goal. And even then, it's usually not handled the way I want it to be.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Can an adult person of above double digit IQ really be totally immersed in film that they think they are living it? I know that's what filmmakers like Cameron, Jackson etc really want, but i can't see how it's possible.

[fommes 153]

Ebert is a legend, but I tend to side with the film makers who have earned my respect through their hard-earned creations; and not with those who merely critique them.

If Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson see something worthwhile in 3D then they get the benefit of the doubt and indeed my attention because they have earned it, tenfold.

Ebert's opinion on such things is but an alternative viewpoint and an absolutely valid one at that, but he hasn't done anything in his career so far to make me value his own personal standpoint and vision over that of some of the greatest, most gifted directors working today.

I'm sure Ebert in all his grizzly wisdom would appreciate that.

Those who favour the cheap, brainlessly popular argument which says: "of course PJ and Spielberg champion 3D - it's all about $$$!" have absolutely no business claiming themselves to be true fans of their work.

Quint, have you even read it? It's hardly Ebert offering an opinion. In fact, it's a letter from a film maker who has earned some respect, one might say.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

When it has dimension like on a great Blu-ray, I think 2-D pulls off 3-D better than 3-D.

[Datameister 2,042]

Can an adult person of above double digit IQ really be totally immersed in film that they think they are living it? I know that's what filmmakers like Cameron, Jackson etc really want, but i can't see how it's possible.

It's never 100%, but when all the elements of the environment (not just the image on the screen) are working together to take you to another world, it can be pretty compelling, even though there's a part of you that will always know it's not for real, of course. That's what theme parks attempt to do, or what they should attempt to do. But in some grubby movie theater in a strip mall, no, you're never going to have a genuinely immersive experience, although there's always the possibility of the film itself being so well made that you forget about the real world for a while.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

When it has dimension like on a great Blu-ray, I think 2-D pulls off 3-D better than 3-D.

Yes. Just watch The Dark Knight in Blu.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I've seen several dozen old and new films in 3D. It really has worked for Pixar. Avatar, Transformers 3, Journey, and My Bloody Valentine 3D all excelled in the format. All you breeders would love all the boobs in My Bloody Valentine, there are some serious cleavage shots in the film, some that hang in your face. The ultimate tease.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

3D porn will make trillions.

[Quintus 5,399]

Ebert is a legend, but I tend to side with the film makers who have earned my respect through their hard-earned creations; and not with those who merely critique them.

If Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson see something worthwhile in 3D then they get the benefit of the doubt and indeed my attention because they have earned it, tenfold.

Ebert's opinion on such things is but an alternative viewpoint and an absolutely valid one at that, but he hasn't done anything in his career so far to make me value his own personal standpoint and vision over that of some of the greatest, most gifted directors working today.

I'm sure Ebert in all his grizzly wisdom would appreciate that.

Those who favour the cheap, brainlessly popular argument which says: "of course PJ and Spielberg champion 3D - it's all about $$$!" have absolutely no business claiming themselves to be true fans of their work.

Quint, have you even read it? It's hardly Ebert offering an opinion. In fact, it's a letter from a film maker who has earned some respect, one might say.

Yeah I read it. It is an opinion piece backed by Ebert.

Just to be clear: I'm not arguing the toss of 3D at all. It might die tomorrow and I wouldn't give a flying fuck. I'm in fact saying that I am just a supporter of new things, new ways of making movies, new ways to immerse the viewer, new technology - when it has the seal of approval of the film makers who I pretty much worship. That's my prerogative. If it doesn't work out then just put it down as experience, it's no biggie. For some reason such a stance irks the traditionalists... I wonder why...

The truth is, when you brush away all the bullshit and bandwagon hatred for new cinematic technology, the only thing which something like 3D lacks is validation.

If Stanley Kubrick had lived long enough to make AI and make it in 3D, all the cynics and haters would gladly stfu whining and eagerly fall in line like giddy little sheep - oh so willing to worship the master's astutely genius 'reinvention' of cinema. Of course they would have done just that, because someone like Kubrick has that kind of influence over saps.

Spielberg and Cameron, for all their successes, don't have the clout of someone like Kubrick.

That's all it is. That's all it really boils down to: validation.

3D will soon be gone (at least in its current form) and nobody will even notice. But what about the next innovation in cinematic gimmickry? Will there be a director on the scene who brings an intellectual seal of approval that time around? Makes it 'cool' to like and approve of the latest fad?

I'm not here to convince you that 3D (or whatever) is good, lord no. I'm here to tell you I think you're all full of shit.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

If people like Spielberg and Scorsese are dabbling with the technology, I'll dabble with them. Everything I've seen in 3D so far, however, has failed to impress.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Cameron's success financially is something Kubrick never had and that give Cameron more cloat. I don't even think Kubrick ever had a single film acheive blockbuster status gross wise.

[Quintus 5,399]

Probably true, but you know what the 'art house intellectuals' make of lowly financial successes, darling.

It's not even worth sneering down one's nose at.

[fommes 153]

That's such an outdated dichotomy, isn't it, that people who oppose 3D are traditionalists/art house intellectuals while others are open to new and popular ways of making movies, etc. Whereas in fact, I'm not seeing anyone here who isn't open to anything new - why wouldn't we be. The day and age of critics opposing the sound film is long gone. I would be much more thrilled by other forms of cinematic innovation, like the one explained on that second link I posted. I'm opposed to 3D precisely because it stands in the way of innovation.

What I'm also saying is 3D just does not work, and that's an opinion backed by a scientific fact, if Murch is correct.

What's more, I think the "3D immersion" that has gone around since Avatar is largely a myth: the cognitive immersion depends on the story and the willingness of the viewer to let him/her be dragged into it. It's still the same ever 'semblance of reality' cinematic code logic. Avatar would have been as successful in 2D as it was in 3D (give or take the few that just went because of the hype); people would have been immersed in and gone crazy from the fantasy world just as much in 2D.

Quint, you say a few interesting things about validation, but I think it's backwards: that's perhaps exactly the problem, namely the entirely artificial validation of 3D as the so-called new step in cinematic technology (its hype as the next big thing after the sound film so to speak). The 'auteur' validation doesn't really matter anymore - which is a pity. Avatar could have been the crappiest film ever made (and perhaps it's not far off on a certain cinematic level you'd expect, but that's not the point), it would still have made the same money. I don't think the whole Kubrick-Cameron thing has anything to do with it concerning critical validation. Certainly not around here.

By the way, personally I wasn't going into this 3D thing with a predetermined opinion, at all. But we are past the benefit-of-the-doubt stage. I think it's a great pity that because of the studios' forced hype (and you only have to look at the number of 3D films have been artificially converted to know it's been forced down our throats), 3D has lost its specificity a bit: as Datameister said, it's great in certain environments and for certain stories. That's what 3D should have been, a technological aid to certain films that benefit from it (like some decide to shoot in 2:35 and others in 1:85 for instance, or some shoot films in black-and-white, etc.). I loved it in Coraline for instance, where I had the feeling they involve 3D creatively in the story; they didn't add it because you'd accept the film as reality. I hated it in Avatar, because it doesn't add anything, and it's there for the wrong reasons (the so-called heightened immersion).

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I'm calling BS on your post frommes, total BS. Your so called facts are just opinions. As much as I lover Roger Ebert, he's wrong. Maybe you're a one eyed individual, or your eye sight is very poor, but I've thoroughly enjoyed many 3D films, those from the 50's to today and they've all worked for me. The fact that you liked it in Coraline pretty much destroys your credibility completely. Great you're the new Morlock.

We all know that it can be done on the cheap or done at great expense. You didn't see the immersion in Avatar, I'm sorry you didn't see it but it was there. I saw it. 3D might be ready to fade, but as I said get past the glasses problem which is around the corner, and it's here to stay. It's past the gimmicky stage, though sometimes that is completely fun.

Bring on ESPN3D.

[Datameister 2,042]

By my selfish standards, the 3D in Avatar was (like the majority of 3D) unacceptably poor. 3D filmmakers are afraid to allow the backgrounds to recede far enough, because people with more closely-spaced eyes (e.g., children) may not be able to fuse the two images. Basically, for an object to look like it's infinitely far away (as do clouds, distant mountains, starfields, etc.), the two images on the screen have to be separated by the distance between the viewer's eyes. No more, no less. Average interocular distance is supposed to be about 65 mm, but some people have significantly closer eyes, so they basically play it safe by assuming a much smaller interocular distance. It's 3D for the lowest common denominator, which is totally understandable, because at least it allows everyone to be able to fuse the images properly. But from my selfish standpoint, it's still really frustrating to be seeing distant backgrounds that look like they're right behind the screen.

In the theater where I saw it, Avatar also suffered from the specific 3D projection technique used, which appeared to be polarization-based. Those techniques are certainly light years ahead of the terrible red/cyan anaglyph approach, but as I've said, I now know that I prefer Dolby 3D (waveform multiplex imaging). The polarization-based techniques can still cause ghosting, brightness discrepancies, and so forth, but I'm not seeing any of that with Dolby 3D. You just get a clean, bright, clear image.

But again, I'm just feeling like there's not that much point to 3D unless you're either going to go for the gimmicky approach or attempt to genuinely immerse people in an environment that's supposed to feel real, as Star Tours is. For all the talk about immersion, and for all the profound effects it had on people, Avatar was never supposed to achieve the sort of immersion I'm talking about. I don't know if there's ever been a theatrical release of a film that was supposed to do that. Which makes perfect sense, because you have no control over the environment, and because it'd be pretty difficult to create a feature-length film with one single continuous shot, as you'd have to do if you're going for this sort of immersion.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Rope 3D!

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Yeah, I remember an article I once posted a link of which explained a much more fundamental problem of 3D movies...

You mean this one?

Karol

I wondered about this, so I'm glad to see it is a legitimate technical problem and not just me not understanding. However, the change in convergence or whatever is something I try to look for in the 2 or 3 3-D films I've seen, and I never really noticed. In fact, after about 15 minutes, I just begin to forget I am watching 3-D and it makes no difference, so I guess I just don't have that problem at all.

[Datameister 2,042]

In real life, when you look at an object that's close to your face, your eyes converge so that they're both pointing directly at the object. At the same time, muscles within your eyes are adjusting the shape of your lenses so that the nearby object is in focus. As the object gets further and further away, your eyes don't converge as much, becoming very nearly parallel when the distances are large. And at the same time, your lenses change shape to focus on the longer distances. The two systems work together so that you have neither double vision nor blurring.

The point Mr. Murch was trying to make is that with a 3D movie, the brain has to adjust the convergence without adjusting the focus. And apparently, that's difficult for some people to do, especially for the full length of a feature film. Personally, I've been doing Magic Eye stereograms since I was a kid, so I guess I trained my eyes for this sort of thing early on. From my perspective, the legitimate technical problem is with other people's brains, not with the 3D technology.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Ha! Stereograms ftw. I do them all the time. Maybe that's why I don't notice.

[Datameister 2,042]

Yup, fun stuff.

I'm gonna go ride Star Tours again on Friday night. I hope I haven't been remembering the Dolby 3D technology as being better than it actually was...it didn't really strike me how good it was till afterward. I guess it's a lot easier to be distracted by ghosting and whatnot than it is to be distracted by the lack thereof.

[Quintus 5,399]

That's such an outdated dichotomy, isn't it, that people who oppose 3D are traditionalists/art house intellectuals while others are open to new and popular ways of making movies, etc. Whereas in fact, I'm not seeing anyone here who isn't open to anything new - why wouldn't we be. The day and age of critics opposing the sound film is long gone. I would be much more thrilled by other forms of cinematic innovation, like the one explained on that second link I posted. I'm opposed to 3D precisely because it stands in the way of innovation.

What I'm also saying is 3D just does not work, and that's an opinion backed by a scientific fact, if Murch is correct.

What's more, I think the "3D immersion" that has gone around since Avatar is largely a myth: the cognitive immersion depends on the story and the willingness of the viewer to let him/her be dragged into it. It's still the same ever 'semblance of reality' cinematic code logic. Avatar would have been as successful in 2D as it was in 3D (give or take the few that just went because of the hype); people would have been immersed in and gone crazy from the fantasy world just as much in 2D.

Quint, you say a few interesting things about validation, but I think it's backwards: that's perhaps exactly the problem, namely the entirely artificial validation of 3D as the so-called new step in cinematic technology (its hype as the next big thing after the sound film so to speak). The 'auteur' validation doesn't really matter anymore - which is a pity. Avatar could have been the crappiest film ever made (and perhaps it's not far off on a certain cinematic level you'd expect, but that's not the point), it would still have made the same money. I don't think the whole Kubrick-Cameron thing has anything to do with it concerning critical validation. Certainly not around here.

By the way, personally I wasn't going into this 3D thing with a predetermined opinion, at all. But we are past the benefit-of-the-doubt stage. I think it's a great pity that because of the studios' forced hype (and you only have to look at the number of 3D films have been artificially converted to know it's been forced down our throats), 3D has lost its specificity a bit: as Datameister said, it's great in certain environments and for certain stories. That's what 3D should have been, a technological aid to certain films that benefit from it (like some decide to shoot in 2:35 and others in 1:85 for instance, or some shoot films in black-and-white, etc.). I loved it in Coraline for instance, where I had the feeling they involve 3D creatively in the story; they didn't add it because you'd accept the film as reality. I hated it in Avatar, because it doesn't add anything, and it's there for the wrong reasons (the so-called heightened immersion).

I must be a marvel of modern science because I simply do not suffer from the ocular problems which you, Data and Murch experience (which I do not doubt you all do) when watching 3D.

What is most telling (and irritating) about your arguments though is that the same arrogant theme underlines your views on the 3D debate each and everytime it comes up: an inability and a blatant unwillingness to accept that a lot of people experience ZERO negative feedback when watching 3D. It works for them in the same way in which it obviously works for Spielberg and Cameron.

See, I accept that for some it can be highly problematic and even rather uncomfortable, but you refuse to accept that for some, people like me, it works just fine. Where do you get off lecturing me about how the 'facts' prove 3D doesn't work? Tear your eyeballs out and give them to me and I'm sure I'll agree with you, but until then, give it a rest.

Your perception of 3D is not the only perception of 3D. The sooner you realise that the sooner we can ignore the 3D altogether, if we wish, and get on with talking about the movies themselves.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

3D filmmakers are afraid to allow the backgrounds to recede far enough, because people with more closely-spaced eyes (e.g., children) may not be able to fuse the two images.

Children, and John Malkovich!

[fommes 153]

I must be a marvel of modern science because I simply do not suffer from the ocular problems which you, Data and Murch experience (which I do not doubt you all do) when watching 3D.

What is most telling (and irritating) about your arguments though is that the same arrogant theme underlines your views on the 3D debate each and everytime it comes up: an inability and a blatant unwillingness to accept that a lot of people experience ZERO negative feedback when watching 3D. It works for them in the same way in which it obviously works for Spielberg and Cameron.

See, I accept that for some it can be highly problematic and even rather uncomfortable, but you refuse to accept that for some, people like me, it works just fine. Where do you get off lecturing me about how the 'facts' prove 3D doesn't work? Tear your eyeballs out and give them to me and I'm sure I'll agree with you, but until then, give it a rest.

Your perception of 3D is not the only perception of 3D. The sooner you realise that the sooner we can ignore the 3D, if we wish, and get on with talking about the movies themselves.

Perhaps you need 3D glasses to aid in reading comprehension. My own problem with 3D has very little to do with the technological problem that is inherent in 3D (and which is a fact as far as I can tell, despite your and Joey's apparent denial). In fact, I only mentioned it in one sentence in my whole post, citing that article. I would love to see a discussion about all the other aspects I mentioned, like for instance 3D being in the way of actual innovation, or my argument that cognitive immersion is pretty much the same in 2D as in 3D (in cinema theatres that is, not in other environments like the ones Datameister is giving examples of) - and I'm not the only one who's been saying that in this thread. But if you and Joey want to defend 3D through personal attacks on some obscure JWFan poster, go ahead.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's like surround sound I guess. Great if it's there, especially if it's done really brilliantly.

But surround sound has never made a bad film better. Immersion for me happens when I'm interested in the film story wise, narrative wise, or character wise.