I’ve seen about 5 or so movies in 3D at the cinema, and I barely noticed the difference in most of them, other than the blurriness/eye strain and given the option, I’ll always go for 2D.
In fact, my partner got a packet of 10 free movie tickets for her birthday, and even without money as an issue, when we went to see Stranger Tides, we opted for the 2D version.

I predict ‘simulated’ 3D will be the next proper step forward in TV/Monitor technology. This tech would require a camera or retina tracking sensor to be embedded in the TV itself, which adjusts the perscetive of the image to simulate real depth… i.e. if there was a brick wall on the right hand side of the screen, and you moved your head to the left, you’d actually be able to see what’s around the wall. It’s easily conceivable that films might be recorded with say 24 different cameras, and the spaces imbetween those cameras could be averaged/smoothed out with CGI to create a seamless flexible field of view.

Yes this technology would only be noticable when you moved your head about, but in it’s favor it doesn’t require silly glasses, it doesn’t cause headaches, and I think there’d be loads of great applications for horror movies/games if, by searching about a bit you could reveal a killer clown hiding under a table or something. You’d actually have to lower your head to look under the table…. That’d be cool in my book. The TV/monitor might even detect that you’ve looked under the table, and so play a different senario whereby the killer clown doesn’t stab you (in the case of a game) or the hero (in the case of a movie) in the foot.

The posibillities are huge, and the only hardware upgrades it requires is a camera/retina sensor to be embedded in the TV/monitor, and for the media to be generated using multiple cameras. The rest is just creating the right software. Unless of course you want a film to have multiple endings like a roleplay fantasy book, in which case the movie would have to be filmed with loads of extra scenes… so this might apply better in videogames, as CGI content can probably be modified more easily that filmed content. But a movie could perhaps have 2 different endings, depending on whether you side with the hero or the arch villian at the end… by nodding or shaking your head or something.

My dad recently got a tv with 3d support so I got a chance to see how this worked out in the living room. The way I see it, the major problems are:

1. Price. TV is more expensive. 3d Movies are more expensive (Tron Legacy is $28 for 3d, $20 for basic blu ray). Glasses also cost some money.
2. Display brightness. When watching tron legacy during the day, wearing the glasses severly dimmed the picture which was an issue since my dad’s living room has quiet a bit of ambient light from windows. Ended up having to close all the windows.
3. Varying quality. Some movies are shot in the 3d, some have it added in postprocessing which produces an inferior effect. Trying to sell someone on a sub-par experience is unlikely to succeed.
4. Everyone needs glasses. If only half the people watching the movie has glasses, the people without glasses will see a blurred image (not horrifically blurred, but enough to get annoying).

So to sum it up, I don’t think the 3D effect isn’t worth it for movies. It rarely adds to the movie; just mixes stuff up a bit. However, I’m still on the fence about it for videogames. Mortal Kombat in 3D was pretty cool and I really want to see what Dirt 3 looks like before I render a verdict.

I am glad so many other people agree with me. This 3D hype is just dumb. I get HDTV, it makes sense… I would prefer a more unified system of rumble support. Where you can hookup rumble packs to your chairs and they will shake with the movie. That I find interesting, and makes you feel more involved in the movie…
3-D just seems like a gimmic. They add a few effects that make you go “wow, that scene had no point in the movie other than to show off the 3D effects”.

That being said, I am interested to see when the Porn Industry goes 3D :P

I saw Avatar in 3d. It was good enough I forgot I was watching 3d after a little while. My wife swatted at some of the ash from the movie. I’ve also seen other movies in 3d they did after the fact.

When done well, I don’t think it is distracting, but I don’t think it improves anything. When poorly done, it is distracting, and makes the movie more pricey and worse.

yes, it sucks
yes, noone likes it really
and yes: it will catch on for the next 2-3 years.

Of course noone want’s to spend 100€ on glases per person watching, but they will pay without recieving anything worthwile. Why? Because there are movies that use it! You wouldn’t wan’t to miss _the_ big new technology, would you?

Other way round: what big technological change should tv-manufacturers sell to you instead (and because of Kaizen, they have to sell something new)? Bigger screens? Been there! More resolution? Done that!
Nothing makes sense, so you will get something that makes even less sense, but is at least new.

I hate 3D movies. They are usually terrible to watch. I don’t think I would ever go for 3D TVs. Bad for the eyes – especially the eyes, and brains, of children.

People will buy 3d televisions. When they go to purchase a replacement for their current television 3d will be included by default. They won’t really have a choice. Will thy actually use it? That is a different question.

I saw Kung Fu Panda 2 this weekend in 3D with my wife and 5 year old son. $28 bucks for the three of us. Sheesh. I enjoyed the movie, but I noticed the same ‘blurring’ as my cranium strained to keep it all in focus. I can’t help but wonder if it would have been better in 2D.
I liked the movie just fine- I think the story of the first one was better, but the action of the 2nd was tighter. But still worth a watch.

I think all this 3D mumbo-jumbo will be a fad up until you don’t need peripherals (read: glasses) to make it work reliably. I suppose we’ll see.