Hacker News Reader

Comment by axod | Hacker News Reader

Surely 3d only makes any sense if you can move around the environment - a holo-deck.

3d movies, where we're all sat down in a fixed chair makes absolutely no sense. It's a gimmick that adds nothing - apart from headaches, crappy dark image and occasional crude "THIS IS 3D" in your face 'effects'. Sitting in a chair looking at a screen we already see 3D. We have all the cues necessary for our brains to reconstruct the scene.

Didn't work in the 50s, didn't work in the 80s, didn't work in 2010s. I guess every generation has some people who think it's a great idea to try it again.

View on HN

Which is more likely, that 3D makes no sense to most people, or that you're one of the few which has problems watching 3D movies? I do know a few friends which thought Avatar 3D was "nothing special", but most of us thought it was great in 3D, easily worth the reduced light.

I agree that a lot of bad 3D movies are put out there now, and I think the current hype will fade. But I have no doubt that the technology has advanced far enough that 3D is here to stay this time.

> didn't work in 2010s

Hah! You wish. For example, Avatar made more than $2,000,000,000. That's $2 billion. And a huge part of the Avatar revenue comes from its 3D sales. Maybe it didn't work for you, but it sure worked for most people who went to see it.

But given a choice, would moviegoers pick the 2D version over the 3D version?

In a universe where Avatar 3D never existed, would the 2D version alone have sold as much? Remember, they would have also been able to deliver the movie earlier (I don't know how much, but making a 3D movie can't be free - at least not yet).

I'm reasonably certain that there are only a very small number of people who saw Avatar for the sole reason of it being 3D (in other words, if the 2D version was the only option, they would have skipped it).

I don't know anybody who went to see Avatar because they thought it would be a good movie. I also don't know anybody who went to see the 2D version, despite it playing at the same time and a few bucks cheaper. Everybody went because they wanted to see what could be done with the cutting edge in CGI technology plus insane amounts of money and to see what this 3D cinema thing was all about. I have as little evidence as you do, but I imagine that skipping the 3D version wouldn't have gotten the film anywhere near as much hype (and thus money).

This is certainly the reason I went to see it. However, not only was I underwhelmed by the regurgitation of the Pocahontas story, I was extremely underwhelmed by the 3D. The only effect that made me think the film was "realistic" was the flies that kept flying around when they were in the forrest.

Avatar did exactly the opposite of what intended to do and that is, it turned me off of 3D movies not on to them. Sure, it made the money it did, but at least for me, it didn't do anything to advance the technology nor promote it.

Yea, that was the exact same effect Avatar had on me. I'm really glad I saw it 3D and now feel no desire to see another movie in 3D for at least a couple years (when hopefully some new neat tech has come along which I'll feel compelled to check out).

That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Go to a real IMAX theater and watch a real IMAX movie. They tend to be science documentaries, like Hubble 3D. Compared to that, Avatar just seemed fuzzy and out of focus to me.

I chose the 2D version. My girlfriend and I will pick the 2D version of any movie over the 3D, and won't go to see movies that are only showing in 3D at all. Even if they were the same price, the illusion does not work well for us and makes the experience less enjoyable.

Colorblind?

A good friend can't enjoy 3D movies because for that reason.

No, not at all.

After having seen Avatar in 3D, I felt no need to see it in 3D again and I totally agree that I'm not going to any more 3D movies until the next significant tech improvement occurs. The same is true for most people I know. However we had to go see Avatar in 3D to come to that conclusion.

I will always try and see the 2D version of any film, but here in the UK at the moment the 2D versions don't show at as many screens or times as the 3D one.

I definitely saw Avatar a second time only because of the 3D. Additionally, last weekend I wanted to see a movie in the theaters and picked Tron: Resurrection or whatever it's called solely because of the 3D.

Avatar was a good enough movie by itself to win awards and make money. It probably got a small kick from being 3D, but I disagree it was a huge part.

FWIW, I saw it in 2D first, loved it, then later saw it in 3D and hated every minute watching it. It was dark and gave me a HUGE headache.

I think you are one of few that would enjoy in it in 2D and not in 3D.

I also think it wasn't a great movie itself. It was a really safe storyline to appeal to a broad audience.

It wasn't the kind of "great movie" that critics and peers will recommend years down the line as essential viewing or thought provoking, but it was the kind of "great movie" that people would recommend to their friends for an entertaining "going to the movies with popcorn and friends" experience. The plot was thin, but the visuals and action were great entertainment, as shown by the revenue.

You don't get hundreds of millions of people interested in anything unless you design it to appeal to a broad audience.

If it was 2D it would have likely sold the same number of tickets, just at a lower per-ticket price. Consider that it's DVD and Blu-Ray sales are commensurate with its box-office gross, with no 3D on offer.

I disagree. If it hadn't been built for 3D with amazing effects it would not have had the hype, people going to watch the movie several times, etc that really pushed it to the next level.

You are underestimating the marketing value of the 3D effects. Of course the DVD sales will be great, because it has been on everyones radar for the last year+. 3D effects were a big part of that.

Agree to disagree. The marketing value of 3D effects? How exactly does one market 3D effects when the only displays that can showcase them are in the movie theatres behind clunky glasses?

People saw AVATAR because hundreds of millions were spent on marketing, it had James Cameron's name attached, and it was well liked by popular critics and audiences. 3D was a footnote compared to that attention.

3D effects do no marketing favors for middling or outright-poor movies. The only thing they consistently do, is increase average ticket prices.

As many people have posted in this thread - they went to see it just to see how the 3D effects look. It is the mystique behind how realistic the effects are that is such a great marketing tool.

A friend sees the movie and says 'you HAVE to see this in 3D' and it becomes less about the plot, and more about the effects driving them to purchase a ticket.

I don't think so -- I saw it only because I was curious how the 3D effects were. I would not have seen it if it were only available in 2D. Same goes for the people I was with and many I've talked to.

You can't show the 3D in marketing, but you can (and they did) highlight the concept of it. It's like all those ads on TV about fancy TV screens with superior image quality -- they obviously don't show you the screen itself.

I saw Avatar in 2D and loved it. Just adding another data point.

I've had this discussion with many people. I enjoyed the movie for it's technical merits, not the plot.

I saw both versions.

I don't get hte "3d headache" - but I definitely enjoyed the 2d version more. THere was more detail to focus on, and in tha tmovie, detail was everything. With the 3d version, I found myself trying to look at things in the foreground/background, and I just couldn't - not becuuse of any defect in my ability to manipulate my eyes, but because (I think...) they actually used differnet depth of field settings when rendering the 2 versions.. there were things in the 3d version you literally COULDNT focus on - they wanted your eyes on the action only. That buged me.

- I remember playing 3d Quake (the original) on my crappy home monitor, with LCD shutter glasses - and it was AWESOME FUN. SCARY.

So I think all the points in the article are valid, 3d is hard, for more reasons than joe average might know, I certainly learned some stuff - but it's definitely a aprt of the future, if only because our current equipment makes it technically easy to play back.

pretty sure there was 1 success in 50s and 80s as well.

it made so much because it used a new technology that people were curious about - and it used it well enough. that's not going to happen again.

I happen to dislike the idea of most films and (horror!) tv and games using 3D, and at the same time I enjoyed 3D Avatar like a child.

About the "small" thing, I sat at the 4th row (?) and the image was fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com