Ransom Riggs
What’s So Great About 3D?
by Ransom Riggs - August 12, 2011 - 10:30 AM

It’s easy to see why 3D is popular from a movie studio perspective: it allows theaters to charge fifteen bucks for a flick that would normally bring in just eight or nine (in LA prices, at least). It’s not as clear why audiences should love it. To me, it seems a novelty that wore off about five minutes after Avatar’s credits rolled — and to your brain, the 3D effect tends to “wear off” after about a half-hour, such that your brain doesn’t “notice” the 3D in the same way — in other words, that wow factor you get upon first donning the glasses dissipates.

But what about traditional metrics of movie enjoyment? Does the 3D effect actually make watching movies more fun? According to a new study, it doesn’t:

3D movies do not allow viewers to experience more intense emotional reactions, are no more immersive, and do not offer any advantage over their 2D counterparts in terms of enhancing the ability to recall a film’s details. Carrier’s study did, however, suggest that watching films in stereoscope increased threefold the risk of eyestrain, headache or trouble with vision.

It seems somehow profound, after all this talk of “audience immersion,” to simply ask whether viewers were more emotionally invested in a 3D story — after all, it’s the story you remember later, not the 3D effects. And the answer seems to be pretty clear: not really.

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (33)

  1. 3D is totally over rated…every movie does not need to be done in 3D. For me it doesn’t add much to the story so why should I pay the extra money for it…Avatar was the exception. I’ve seen a few other movies in 3D and been rather disappointed. Clash of the Titans 3D anyone? I just don’t bother anymore and my wallet thanks me :)

    I applaud Jon Faveau for not making Cowboys and Aliens in 3D: from IMDB.com “Director Jon Favreau was constantly harassed with demands to shoot/convert the film in 3-D, but he held his ground, claiming Westerns should only be shot on film”

    posted by krissie_d on 8-12-2011 at 10:48 am

  2. So many movies are trying to capitalize on the 3D trend, that it’s just become another gimmick. All the action movies that have such a great chance to use 3D to get the audience excited fail to do so. I paid the extra money to see Transformers 3, Sucker Punch, and Captain America in 3D, and Sucker Punch was the only one that made halfway decent use of the ability. I’m not counting 3D out yet, but I’ll just be way more selective as to what I’ll lay down a few extra bucks.

    posted by Matthew on 8-12-2011 at 10:50 am

  3. For me the problem with 3D is that movies are shot with lenses of varying focal length. If the focal length approximates that of the eye then the 3d looks fine. If it’s a longer focal length (a zoom lens) then the 3d looks like you’re looking at an old view master and is just plain weird and unnatural. Add to that, the cinematographer uses depth of field to frame the action and focus on whatever subject is being highlighted. This does not translate well into 3D. As you observe the natural world you can focus on any element at any depth. When the film has any depth of field whatsoever you can’t focus on the out-of-focus element on screen. Long live 2D!

    posted by TimCthefilmguy on 8-12-2011 at 10:53 am

  4. Personally, I can’t watch a 3-D movie for longer than 20 minutes at a time. My eyes have problems with the glasses needed and my vision problems lead to huge migrane headaches. The whole experience is ruined on me.

    posted by Ian from Baltimore on 8-12-2011 at 11:08 am

  5. I just don’t see the value of 3D for the consumer, paying more for the same remake just isn’t worth the money. I saw U2-3D and that was interesting, but that was enough for me to know I wouldn’t bother with it for most movies as the experience just doesn’t enhance anything.

    There are a few movies I would think having the extra effects would be nice, such as a Transformers movie if I was even mildly interested in seeing it (the first one was lame enough thank you). When the next GI Joe finally comes out, I will be willing to see that in 3D.

    I miss the use of the Panavision equipment that made many movies of the late 80s/early 90s (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, City Slickers, etc.); I always thought those had great 3D effect on a 2D print.

    Then again, for me special effects do not make a movie good or bad, it’s the plot and dialogue that matter. This is why I never understood the appeal of Jurassic Park and the many movies after that which overused CGI to cover up a bad movie.

    posted by Wayne Stevens on 8-12-2011 at 11:16 am

  6. I like 3D because it’s a fun retro throwback to the way I imagine monster movies in the ’50s to have been. I grew up in the 80s and the 90s, where there was no 3D ever and I was jealous of people in past generations that got to experience it. Now I can, too!

    I also like turning around in my set and looking at how funny everybody looks in a packed theater all wearing shades.

    It is way too expensive for what it is, though.

    posted by Mandy Moon on 8-12-2011 at 11:27 am

  7. I’ve always enjoyed the IMax 3D films, which are made to maximize the experience and there’s really not much if any story.
    Watching a real movie that I want to concentrate on the plot – not so much.

    posted by PartiallyDeflected on 8-12-2011 at 11:42 am

  8. I hate when 2D movies are converted into 3D. I have vision problems and 3D just make them worse thankfully I have only been to 2 3D movies in my life and that is enough for me.

    posted by kari on 8-12-2011 at 12:03 pm

  9. I’ve seen two movies in 3D: Avatar and Tron. I actually thought Tron used the technology in a more unique way, as they kept the “real life” scenes 2D and the “computer world” 3D.

    I also own a 3DS, which I love…but I turn the 3D off for every game but Zelda. It all feels very gimmicky and unnecessary. I love the circle pad and some of the other features, but the 3D should not be the main selling point…it’s hopefully a passing fad.

    posted by Amauriel on 8-12-2011 at 12:10 pm

  10. Ransom, was there criticism when films moved from Black and White to color?

    When I watch a black and white film or TV show I forget it is in black and white in a few minutes. Was color universally loved after “Gone with the Wind”, or were there film purists who hate the color format.

    I know there was controversy when the silent film era ended.

    posted by Witty Nickname on 8-12-2011 at 12:32 pm

  11. I literally cannot ‘see the big deal’ about 3D and I’m dreading the day when every film is made solely in 3D. It’s already becoming difficult to find console/small screen video games that aren’t catering to the 3D fad.

    I have no stereoscopic vision (which cannot be corrected by surgery at this point in time/technology) and the 3D glasses don’t ‘correct’ that particular defect. I can enjoy a 2D movie just fine, but trying to wear the 3D glasses just makes my eyes water and throb within the first few minutes.

    posted by Jane on 8-12-2011 at 1:15 pm

  12. Since I already wear glasses, 3-D glasses are especially annoying. I always opt for the 2-D version of 3-D movies whenever possible and usually skip the movie altogether if it is not. On a related note
    I have noticed that none of the new 3-D movies have been released as 3-D on DVD.

    posted by Darin on 8-12-2011 at 1:18 pm

  13. ever read ‘brave new world’? 3D movies are the same as feelies.

    posted by kat on 8-12-2011 at 1:32 pm

  14. 3D should be approached as another tool in the filmmaker’s toolbox, to be used to enhance the story and visuals as appropriate. Just like not every scene will benefit from a slow-motion shot, not every scene will benefit from 3D.

    Here’s an article from Cracked that discusses it.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_18877_4-reasons-3-d-movies-dont-have-to-suck.html

    Like any film tool, some directors will find ways to use it that we haven’t thought of.

    posted by Geoff R. Casavant on 8-12-2011 at 1:45 pm

  15. I’ll be honest, I have never really seen the big deal over 3D myself. I don’t know if it’s because I wear glasses and it takes away from the effect, but I’ve never really noticed a difference…

    posted by Rocket on 8-12-2011 at 2:13 pm

  16. I lost interest in 3D films in 1989 when I was forced to watch Michael Jackson’s [3D film] at Disney World.

    posted by BWNYC on 8-12-2011 at 2:19 pm

  17. I have the same sort of issue as Jane, my right eye is much more dominant than my left, so anything 3D doesn’t work well for me, as well as giving me headaches.

    posted by Sara P on 8-12-2011 at 3:23 pm

  18. I can’t do 3D films. I’ve got an astigmatism, so anytime I watch those movies I get a horrible migraine. I think filmmakers should stick with 2D unless 3D will actually enhance a good movie.

    posted by Tinkerschnitzel on 8-12-2011 at 3:28 pm

  19. Thanks for the input Tinkerschnitzel! I’ve never seen a 3D as I’m just not that interested. I’ve even driven one town over to see a 2D version of something my town only has in 3D. Knowing that astigmatism (which I have) makes for migraines when viewing 3D, I know not to even try.

    posted by Fran on 8-12-2011 at 4:12 pm

  20. I’ve seen a few 3D movies, but for anything longer than 20 minutes, it gives me a nasty headache. Captain Eo at Disneyland is fine; 3 hours of Avatar sent me away with a migraine.

    The other issue is that my wife has limited vision in one eye, so the 3D has no effect on her. That leaves me to go see the movie alone, or take my lovely & talented bride with me to see the 2D version. I’ll stick with the latter.

    posted by Tom on 8-12-2011 at 4:35 pm

  21. I hate 3D. I’ve seen movies in them, and I don’t get anything extra out of it.

    Case in point: I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D, and was actually distracted by the 3D. Once I got the DVD and watched it on my regular TV, it was a much better movie for me.

    posted by AmyD on 8-12-2011 at 4:46 pm

  22. Muppets in 3D at MGM Studios a while back was awesome! nothing else though

    posted by JC on 8-12-2011 at 7:04 pm

  23. I’m not a fan either – primarily because of the extra cost. If 3D was awesome, it might be justified, but it’s just not that impressive to me.

    posted by Lynley on 8-12-2011 at 7:26 pm

  24. Sure, it doesn’t improve the plot. For that matter, a color movie isn’t any more emotionally involving than a black and white one. But why wouldn’t you prefer it? Mark my words: the day will come when everything new is 3D, even if there’s no reason for it to be.
    And to be honest, I have experienced both. I saw Tron first in 2D in the theater and while I enjoyed it, it was FAR better in 3D when I saw it again. It really does make a difference, for the right kind of movie.

    posted by Sarah on 8-12-2011 at 8:06 pm

  25. 3D is a ripoff. Most of the stuff that’s 3D these days is post-production added and 3D on most of this stuff looks terrible. The main reason there’s so much of this 3D stuff is purely so studios and theaters can charge a premium for the ticket price. It’s the only reason.

    posted by Joseph Singer on 8-12-2011 at 9:53 pm

  26. Like Jane I do not have any depth of field in my normal vision. Watching a 3D movie does have some effect, but for the most part it’s akin to having cardboard cutouts of objects placed at different distances from you. You can tell that one is closer than the other, but it just one flat plane closer than another flat plan. After a while headaches begin.

    posted by Prism on 8-12-2011 at 10:46 pm

  27. Where in la can you see a movie for 9 dollars? I live in orange county, an hour south of la and movies here are $12.

    posted by Ian h on 8-13-2011 at 5:03 am

  28. First of all, Wayne Stevens, Jurassic Park is awesome. If you don’t understand that, you need awesome lessons.

    Secondly, I loathe 3D. I hate how everything that isn’t front and center is completely out of focus. I also hate how the colors are completely washed out since you watch through those stupid glasses. I love bright, vibrant colors in movies like Up and Avatar. Watching them with what amounts to sunglasses on detracts from the movie.

    posted by Chris on 8-13-2011 at 5:08 pm

  29. It’s a dirty little secret, but Hollywood doesn’t care whether the public likes 3D or not, it’s the COOL EFFECTS that matter, not the little niggly things like character, development, or God forbid, plot. As long as 3D blockbusters are not just shoved at us but eaten up in the billions by the young demographics, and as long as film techno-geeks keep braying how “Kewl!” and “Like Real!” the pretty pictures are, then we can forget about ever seeing any other kind of film.
    Okay, rant over.

    posted by Panda Rosa on 8-13-2011 at 9:44 pm

  30. Funny I get migraines and I have astigmatism in both eyes, and have no problems with 3D movies. What annoys me, I already wear glasses so keeping those 3D glasses over the regular ones is a pain. I guess they need to make 3D glasses clip-ons or something considering how many people wear glasses.

    posted by Rhazya on 8-14-2011 at 8:55 am

  31. I think they’re putting everything in 3D because it’s harder to pirate.

    posted by Chloë on 8-15-2011 at 12:58 am

  32. @ Chris–slight difference of opinion?

    @ Panda Rosa–Hollywood keeps doing it and will even give the 3D treatment to Titanic because it is a revenue stream, not because Hollywood cares about making good movies.

    Hollywood has become far more about profits than about art. The prestige of the Oscars or Cannes is the only reason big studios even make “real” movies anymore because they would much rather crank out the next remake/sequel and get a higher return on investment.

    posted by Wayne Stevens on 8-15-2011 at 7:39 am

  33. Call me crazy but I love it!

    posted by Peg on 9-12-2011 at 7:34 am

Comment

commenting policy