Hacker News Reader

Comment by GrandMasterBirt | Hacker News Reader

Except there are studies coming out about the harm to developing eyes and such. The point is that we're not meant for 3D. 3D though is a great way theaters try to "add value" to movies forcing us to pay more. Tangled was playing ONLY in 3D in theaters around me xept for like 1 showing. Guess which is the only showing I could take my daughter to. She would throw the glasses off in 15 minutes due to headache an thats the end of the movie for her. Was that worth an extra 10 bucks a ticket?

Like any new tech, makers want to convince us this tech is the way to go. So study more, and give us the old school alternatives.

View on HN

This is a great point. Theaters are pushing 3D because it means more money for them. Apparently Avatar was amazing in 3D, and theaters used that fact to make a lot of money off of underwhelming 3D experiences.

I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm not even sure the 3D effects were a net plus for the experience without considering the side effects. Add a 40% premium on the ticket price, and it was a great deal for the theater and a lousy deal for me.

Until the technology changes fundamentally, I'm starting to think 3D movies are like heroin: we'll see a periodic resurgence and decline as the lessons fade away with one generation and are relearned by the next.

This makes me wonder why someone doesn't put out a set of glasses with just clockwise (or counterclockwise, shouldn't matter) polarized filters in them so that both eyes see the same image and you don't get the headache. While it would suck to pay extra and not get it; it would help those that can't get it anyway.

Would it work to take two pairs home and create a personal set of glasses for people who can't stand the 3d effect?

Where I watched Green Hornet (very funny movie if you don't expect to see a Coen brothers film, I think) the glasses were cheap plastic and you could take them home. I actually have two sets, maybe I'll give it a try :D

Could be but I'm not sure how hard it'd be to remove the existing lens to be able to replace it... might be worth a shot.

I would be more concerned about the long term effects of the social coding portrayed in Tangled (e.g. verbal interactions, body image and gender stereotypes) than theoretical physiological effects.

Please elaborate. I'm not very informed about this kind of issue. Can you suggest any reading I could do?

The seminal feminist work in the US is probably Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.

Telling other people how to parent is the #1 source of neverending flamewars on the internet.

Except there are studies coming out about the harm to developing eyes and such.

I'm sure the same was said about television, or travelling more than 30 miles per hour.

neither tv nor quick travel require eyes to focus on one point and converge on a completely different one.

IOW, 3D movies induce eyesore and headaches, and there are plenty of people who experience that, myself included. could that hurt developing eyesight? no idea, but i can imagine why it could.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com