Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.
Roger Ebert’s title, not mine. Though I 100% agree.
Comments
Yea, F 3D.
I don’t really need to know all the technical mumbo jumbo to know that 3d doesn’t work because it just sucks and is not an enjoyable visual experience. Case closed.
Hahahahah, fair enough, Kev. I just like reading actual scientific validation for the headaches I get when I watch it.
The only time this 3D thing completely worked for me, ever, was that moment when the spongy fabric tunnel between worlds swooshed itself forwards during “Coraline.” It was simple, deft movement in a single direction that yawned with depth. I loved it. Nothing ever topped that.
Everything else is like staring into a very dimly lit terrarium where all objects are on one of three planes: (1) very close, (2) middle-close, (3) and flattened out background. That’s unless something is pointing at something else or poking itself directly forward. You know when you’re taking a shower in water that’s just a few mere degrees below “hot enough” and it’s kinda excruciating? That’s how the brightness of the projection makes me feel.
Justin said:The only time this 3D thing completely worked for me, ever, was that moment when the spongy fabric tunnel between worlds swooshed itself forwards during “Coraline.” It was simple, deft movement in a single direction that yawned with depth. I loved it. Nothing ever topped that.
I think about that scene a lot and I completely agree. It was just a brief little something, it went from flat to 3d so it gave my eyes some context and time and adjust and it was JUST SO COOL.
I liked that tunnel thing, too.
Mostly I hate 3D because then the people who make movies are all, “Well this shit’s gonna be in 3D so we have to do a bunch of scenes where things FLY AT THE AUDIENCE FOR NO REASON and maybe some scenes with REALLY EXTREME PERSPECTIVE FOR NO REASON” and it’s all just a bunch of shoehorned in nonsense.
3D blows and the IMAX theatre has 500 seats but only 3 small bathrooms. Game over.