Do you like 3D movies?

I’m somewhat conflicted about 3D films. I liked toy story 3D and some others. But I feel that the tickets at 13$ each are a little pricy. The movie has to be very good for it to work in 3D, or even for me to want to see it. The next 3D film I plan on watching is Spider man next summer. The trailer makes it seem like it could be worth seeing in 3D. -

I’m happy that Batman 3 isn’t being done in 3D however. I find that sometimes, 3d hurts my eyes and makes me nauseous.

Good point about Amazing Spider-Man. :smiley: But otherwise, I agree. I don’t like how the glasses significantly darken the screen, and I don’t like paying so much extra if it’s just going to be gimmicky. But a few things look cool with it. I guess I lean toward traditional 2D most of the time.

NO!!! I definitely don’t like most 3D movies. In the few that I have seen like Thor and Pirates of the Carribean all it does is mess up any animation in the movie and it makes the movie confusing if there is anything in the foreground. 3D also screws up the moive if you are watching it in regular form because it makes the characters look unrealistic in my opinion. Really, I don’t need a character jumping out at me to like the movie. If the movies good, it doesn’t need the best special effects out there.

If a movie is a great movie, it doesn’t have to be in 3-D.

I really only like it if the movie was meant to be in 3D. Avatar is a great example. After Avatar it seemed that all movies had to add 3D aspects even if the director did not have 3D in mind at the time of filming. Alice in Wonderland is an existent example of the latter.

No, I do not. I do not like having to wear glasses to see a movie. I refuse to pay that much to see it as well.

If I watch a 3D movie, I end up with a headache and an upset stomach. :shrug: I really try to stay away from them.

Because around here the 3d tix cost only $9, as opposed to $7.50 for 2d, the price is not a problem for me. And I normally wear glasses, so that is not an issue either.

I like 3d. One of the basic joys in human life is the ability to see tridimensionally; and I like the fact that that faculty can now be part of the cinematic experience.


I didn’t like Avatar, just as a movie. I felt like it was pretty much just a demonstration of this new 3-D movie technology and modern computer animation, put together in the form of a cliché Fern Gully sort of story (but on another planet).

In 3-D movies I’ve seen after that, like the last Harry Potter movie and Captain America (I saw Thor in 2-D), I’ve generally pretty much stopped thinking about the 3-D soon after the movie began and just watched it.

I’m not a fan of 3D. It VERY rarely is worth the extra cost and wearing the glasses over my regular glasses isn’t the most comfortable thing. I wouldn’t mind it if it was the occasional movie and it actually added to the story, but this recent trend of adding 3D to everything just for the sake of having 3D is annoying. :rolleyes:

For the most part, 3D doesn’t add anything to the movie and is just a way to get extra $$. I skip it and see the 2D.

I’ve watch a good few movies in 3D, and I won’t lie, the only ones I like are the ones that do very unobtrusive 3D (i.e. they don’t throw things at your face every 5 seconds to rub in the fact that the movie is in 3D).

I like the depth the 3D gives to landscapes (I think of the opening fly-over in the last Harry Potter movie and any landscape shots from Avatar). But I will never pay for a 3D movie myself; the only time I see anything in 3D is when I go to the movies with my family (who are OBSESSED with 3d, haha).

had to watch the last Harry Potter that way, glasses very annoying, seems very retro to go back to the lousy technology of my childhood

I don’t like 3d because of Avatar, actually. See, I’m an as-yet unpublished SF author, and Avatar is hokum. But people went to see it because of its geewhiz special effects. Its box office take was inflated, because of the pricey 3D effect.

There are three things wrong with Avatar (apart from the immorality of its views on race and the military).

First off, why would a planet where the whole biosphere is networked evolve like this one, that’s “red in tooth and claw”? And the Na’vi, similarly, wouldn’t have anything like one of our hunter-gatherer cultures, their civilization began “Post-Scarcity”.

Second off, why do the Na’vi have four limbs, when everything else on their planet has six? There are those ape things with their upper arms fused, but Na’vi wouldn’t have human-looking arms—seals still have lots of traces of their ancestral Carnivora anatomy.

Third off, the Unobtainium thing makes no sense. If it forms naturally, it would almost certainly be easier to synthesize in a lab than to mine on a planet orbiting another star. If the humans in this story are so evil, why do they even give the Na’vi a chance to fight them, when rocks tend to survive fire-bombing? The only reason a modern military fights in person is if it’s trying to minimize civilian casualties. And finally, the mission to get the stuff almost certainly would not pay off (so again, it’d be easier just to synthesize the stuff): since their ship is fueled with antimatter, they could reenact the Moon landings, in a 1:1 scale set, only with the moondust replaced by the finest powdered heroin, for the same price as their gas money.

The fact the ship, in this baloney story, is the only one in all of SF to actually bother with heat radiators, just makes it that much worse.

I don’t like 3D movies. I have a strange fear of 3D movies that makes me jumpy.

No, I don’t like it that much. They did Avatar very well and I heard that How to Train Your Dragon was done well too, but it’s really annoying now

Have you seen the Avatar / Pocohantas comparison? :smiley:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit