Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)
 

Roger Ebert weighs in with his thoughts on Hollywood's "suicidal" rush to 3-D and the alternative process he believes would provide a superior movie theater experience.

Link: Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3D Movies - Newsweek

I agree. I have seen Avatar in 3-d Imax and How to Train your dragon. Kinda cool but if they did away with it tomorrow I would not be upset.

Seeing Avatar in the theatre in 3D was a nice experience, I liked it but there were a few problems.

The 3D glasses just barely fit over my eyeglass frames (medium "aviator" frames identical to air force issue to flight crews). The fit was not smooth, and my current frames are just a tad larger so I'm going to have a real problem next time.

I noticed the projection lighting level was dimmer than 2D in that same theatre, I figured at the time it was because 50% of the normal projection level was reaching each eye.

I'm not super sensitive to lighting condition induced headaches but I could never take my wife or my daughter to a 3D movie...The aftermath would not be a pretty sight.

I ordered the 2 disk set as Amazon was about to release it, got it on the release date. I enjoyed the Blu-Ray version on my BD player and 42" LCD much more than seeing it in 3D in the theatre.

Subtitle to this thread should be "Why we should all love Ebert!"

Normally, I dismiss anything put forth by critics and prefer to make my own judgement. Great to see Ebert get so technical to support his opinion. I have not delved into the technical aspects of 3D but have always known somewhere in my subconscious that I don't like it 99% of the time. I also happen to be one of the lucky people who doesn't get nausea or headaches and the glasses work fine. So I should be OK with it.

I went to see Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater. I thought there were a ton of unnecessary 3D scenes. I was more impressed by the CGI and artistry than the 3D (or the story for that matter)
Seeing it at home on bluray on my Samsung 55" LED TV confirmed everything. Visually in 2D it is incredible. Made me forget the whole 3D experience.

After that I have decided to not see the 3D versions of all the movies coming out and will happily wait for the BR for anything I really want to see.

Hopefully this 3D fad will pass quickly and manufacturers will concentrate on giving us higher frame rates at full HD and larger for money us mortals can afford.

In the mean time, kudos to Ebert and I hope he sways enough of the public to help kill (or significantly diminish) 3D's popularity.

I have a theory: if you like roller coasters, you like 3D TV. If you don't have any desire to ride on the wildest, most gnarly roller coaster you can find, you probably aren't ready to rush out and buy the latest 3D set.

In other words, us old f@rts are content with 2D - and our nice, comfortable sofas. But my sons would love to play Halo on a huge 3D TV - and they'd love to ride on a 50-story puke mobile.

The good news is that 3D TVs just alternate the right an left images. The 3D switching happens in the glasses. So, when you take off the glasses and put the TV in the 2D mode for 2D content, you won't be losing any performance. (3D media might just have half resolution in 2D mode though...)

I don't particularly like roller coasters, but I do like 3D when it's done well. I found the Avatar 3D experience to be very immersive, more so than 2D. I don't really understand the anti-3D stance as when you shoot a 3D film you end up with a 2D film as well, so viewers and movie goers have the choice to watch either depending on their preference. 3D is still very much in it's infancy, the more movies that get made the better the processes and technologies will become and the experience will get better and better.

When color movies came out there were many similar criticisms.

3D cinema seems to problems with a certain percentage of the population. Seemingly there's more to how the brain processes 3D information than just the distance between the lenses and this can cause problems.

As for films, there has to be more than just 3D going on, just having 3D and relying on that is a cop out to the more difficult aspects of making a successful film. It really has to work even if it's in 2D and some may even actually work better in 2D.

As for 3D television, as James Cameron puts it "what's the point?" Budgets and schedules are already strained with 2D HD, although some people have said football (soccer to Americans) looks good in 3D. Sport may be the big selling point, but they've still not got people fully up to speed watching HD, many just watch SD on a HD capable television.

I wish you were right but go to your nearest retailer and watch something, anything in 3D - it looks GREAT - sport, bikini clad women on a beach - it all looked fantastic to me.

The sport particularly was immersive and engaging - people will pay to watch the sport and be hungry for other content.

I noticed something else - the women looked thin.

What if the old addage that the camera adds 10 pounds only applies to 2D images?

Looking great in a shop and sitting watching 3D for long periods of time are two different things. Sport is different to other types of programme output, perhaps closer to games.

I guess some female actors will be glad that they don't need worry about those 10lbs.

Yes, but I don't know anyone who has a real physical problem watching color :)

On a different note, anyone compared the percentage of people who can't watch 3D (nausea & headaches) to the percentage of the population that's left-handed? Maybe a coincidence but several of my lefty friends (including my wife) said they can't watch 3D or they'd puke.

On the roller coaster theory, that doesn't work for me as the more G's I pull the happier I am. I'm 41 and do track days on my sport bike and yesterday spent half a day driving my kids around a go cart track. Roller coasters without a loop or roll don't interest me. My wife who gets sick in 3D movies loves flinging her motorcycle around the track and even loves heights (which scare the crap out of me) She lasted 5 minutes in Avatar!

Doesn't work for me. I love roller coasters (retired mechanical engineer -- I think of roller coasters as "participatory dynamics" if that tells you anything ;-). Not much for 3D movies though.

I too went to see Avatar in 3D at the local cinema. I thought it was interesting but dim and desaturated, and it gave me a headache. Got the 2D version from Netflix on Blu-ray just last week. Watched it on my Panny plasma screen. The 2D version is the clear winner -- nice and bright, beautiful color pallet, nice level of saturation. The blu-ray was by far the better experience. My wife fully agrees.

Hmmm. I'll have to rethink my theory.

In any case, age seems to correlate pretty well. Many younger people like 3D. Most older people don't.

What about people who are colourblind? :P

I loved Avatar 3D but hated Alice in Wonderland. Right now 3D is just a big buzz word, a gimmick to get ticket sales and as Roger Ebert puts it, to give people something they can get at home. I reason I think I loved Avatar so much is that it was immersive, not just because it was 3D, but because James Cameron actually took the time and budget to to do it properly. Avatar was still playing in my local cinema after it was released on DVD and Blu-ray! That only tells me one thing, that people would still pay to see it once in 3D when they can watch it as many times as they like in 2D for the same price. I think the biggest problem is that 3D is that it's mostly an afterthought and the motivations are in the wrong place to make a 3D movie. 3D should be transparent and not the reason why you watch a film.

Also, whats wrong with wanting to sell digital projectors? I personally like the idea that cinemas have a reason to buy digital projectors and have stopped arguing about who's going to pay for it. In Australia (and many other countries) we're stuck watching second or third hand film prints, that have already gone thought projectors thousands of times and have deteriorated in quality to some extent. With digital distribution maybe we can see the movie without the quality degradation which on some prints can be awfully distracting.

With all new technology, there are always positives and negatives, but I guess it comes down to 3D is the biggest change cinema has seen in a long time... And some people don't like change.

I'm also one of the people who prefer 2D over 3D. I don't vomit, but having myopia, I have problems focusing even when wearing contact lenses. Also developed some eye fatigue at the end of the screening of AVATAR, so I don't think I can stand watching 3DTV by the hours. During casual TV viewing, there are visual distractions from the set, which may result in more pronounced visual problems, since the eye has to adjust from pseudo 3D with glassed to normal viewing.
It is true that some content can benefit from the 3D effect, but I think in the end it lessens the suspension of disbelief that the cinematic experience is based upon.
Nevertheless 3D sets are very aggressively marketed nowadays and people may decide against their own visual comfort for the shake of fashion complicity.

Though I'm not colorblind, I will admit I want to vomit whenever I see CSI Miami...or is that Caruso's acting? Hard to say! ;)

Sorry...a bit off subject! Carry on!

Since it seems most are going 2D over 3D, I thought I'd jump in because I'm in the 3D camp. I understand there are some people who legitimately can not watch 3D because of motion sickness. There are also many people who can't read in a car without getting sick.

Thankfully I am not in that boat. I really, really enjoy 3D especially when it's done right and it was planned to be released that way not just an afterthought as in Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans.

I had no desire to see Avatar, but after hearing many people talk about it, I decided to go. I watched it in IMAX 3D and found myself fully immersed. I haven't felt that connected to what was happening on screen ever.

I thought it was so cool that I picked up the Blu-Ray because I just had to have my wife see it. I was very disappointed. So much in fact, that I had to turn the movie off half way through. It was nothing like I remembered. I had zero connection with the screen. I just wasn't there.

Hopefully someday I can have that same experience at home, but right now, I just don't have 3k to make it happen.

This is reminiscent of the mono-stereo-quad audio formats that preceded my time, but no one will buy an audio system or music that is not stereo in some way. 3D is new. Most of the current films overdo the effect to make it obvious, and I think that is a detraction from the movie to the 3D technology. 3D in "Beowulf" was totally overdone. Ebert and many moviemakers may also resist higher frame rates (60-120 fps), but we can see 24 frames/second fluidized with motion interpolation on the latest crop of 240-600 Hz TVs at BestBuy.

That's my usual issue with Cameron's films. Amazing on the big screen (even Titanic) but when you watch on TV it looses it's impact. At that point you have to go on is the story, which is Cameron's weakest skill, it seems. I recently watched Titanic on TV and found my self laughing at the bad script and cheesy acting. Eventually just lost interest and turned it off.

The Terminator films were his best, they hold up on both large and small screen. In many ways "A Night to Remember" is a better telling of the Titanic story.

Speaking of which, I didn't realise until recently that Lighttoller, the 2nd mate on the Titanic, also skippered one of the small boats that went over to Dunkirk.

I'm not sure that I agree. As Ebert pointed out, as far as your mind is concerned, a 2-D movie is already in 3-D. Our minds process the perspective present on the screen into a 3-D image.

This, I think, is where the analogies to the addition of sound, color, and multi-channel audio fail. Our ears could never effectively create sound where there was none. Our eyes could never create color in a monotone image like our brain could interpret depth in a 2-D image. And when it comes to monophonic audio, it is arguable that our mind could never re-create the kind of stereo perception that it could in a 2-D image.

At the end of Ebert's article he reveals the process he fervently believes brings the most improvement to the movie experience: 48fps recording and projection. He describes it as "so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions".

Many of us who make a living with filmed entertainment are between a rock and a hard place. Few people on this board will ever make a Hollywood level feature. So in this discussion, we are all but knowledgeable audience members. So we are looking at the process as viewers. What about viewing it from a producer's standpoint? What about camera that we may be able to afford to rent or buy like the new Panasonic AG-3DA1? What about 3D television? 3D YouTube and Vimeo and whatever else will be the next big thing in exhibition?

Hollywood is gouging for 3D tickets because most people are Lemmings and will do almost anything Hollywood tells them to do. Witness the overall deterioration of quality in storytelling over the past 20 years. Hollywood doesn't, for the most part, make artistic films and quality cinema anymore. They don't make great films anymore because the audience is willing to accept the pablum that they put out as being "good". It's all conditioning.

American audiences have become conditioned to accept bad films as "good". That is probably a one-way door and will not change, at least not in our lifetimes. Damage done. Bigger, brighter, more explosions, more immersive and gimmicky = better. High quality writing, direction and acting = not really important to the majority of the movie-going public. If it was, the top 20 grossing films each year wouldn't be based upon comic books, childrens animation and torture porn, it would be more films that will stand the test of time like the classics still do. How many true classics has Hollywood produced since 1970? A few, but not nearly as many as from 1920-1969.

For the most part, Hollywood makes hyperactive amusement park rides for a willing brain-dead audience who will accept these remakes, re-hashed stupid sitcoms on film and films based upon video games, board games and toys. So for that type of movie "business", 3D is perfect. It is the next big thing. Studios want to jack up ticket prices and hold them there, 3D is the perfect excuse to do so.

But on to us. I am not sure at all if people will be willing to spend the time, money and effort to artistically exploit the 3D medium. If you read the cover story on 3D Production that I wrote for the April NAB issue of HD Video Magazine, I discovered that in order to create effective 3D storytelling, guess what you have to do? Plan, plan and then plan some more. Shoot in the same way that the classic directors did, using tasteful, simple and effective movement and most importantly, you have to know and understand the medium. 3D is VERY different than shooting in 2D. Manipulating the convergence point and the screen depth takes the artistry of a master like Cameron. I have a feeling that when most of us do our first shoot in 3D, then look at the results on a screen, a sickening realization is going to dawn in most of our heads. "Wow, this didn't work. Wow, everyone who has watched this gets a headache or wants to vomit!. Wow, I think I need to go back to film school 101 and take a minor in 3D." The saving grace of 3D is that, by necessity, we will never have to endure a Bourne Identity-like random throwing of a camera around ever again. Because in the 3D world, you can't do that, it just plain doesn't work.

The best training that you can have right now in anticipation of shooting 3D is to keep on shooting with your Canon 5D MKII in 24fps. You know all of those CMOS rolling shutter artifacts, Jellovision and strobing that you can get on a 5D MKII? How do you get around those artifacts? Yes, that's right, you have to move the 5D MKII cinematically. On a dolly, slider, jib, Steadicam and possibly very conservatively hand-held. But I am amazed at how slowly and deliberately you have to move a 5D MKII to avoid these artifacts. Realistically, you need to mostly move a 5D MKII the same way you move a Panavision Gold. Cinematically. 3D is more of the same, except not only must you move the camera smoothly and deliberately, you must learn how to utilize and manipulate that convergence point and your stereo lens offsets.

So to me, the more relevant concern to most of us is, "will clients pay extra for me to produce content in 3D?". If they won't, this whole discussion is moot point. I will never touch a 3D camera unless I have a client, network or studio who will pay the premium for me to rent the gear, conceptualize the visuals in 3D and to re-learn a large part of my craft. As far as what Hollywood does in regards to visuals, in a way, it is also moot point. Avatar is the largest grossing film in history. How much of that is due to the 3D process in debatable. But In Hollywood, they too are Lemmings so they think 3D = an audience willing to roll over, open their wallets and blindly like anything made in 3D or converted to 3D, whether well done or botched.

It will be interesting to see where this all is by the end of next year.

Dan Brockett

And Hollywood is correct, at least for a little while. They'll rake it in until audiences realize that 3D doesn't add anything of value to the vast majority of films. Then Hollywood will move on to something else.

I saw Avatar in 3D and thought it was great, even with the slight headache, and the lower than optimal screen brightness. Then I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and thought, "maybe the slight headache isn't worth it. And boy I wish the screen were brighter."

I'm done with 3D already I think...

Jon Landau, one of the producers of Avatar, was all over the airwaves during the pre-release publicity push pontificating about how there's nothing more immersive than 3D. In fact, the truth is there's nothing LESS immersive. 3D just keeps pulling you out of the story, either because you're marveling at how "neat" it looks or, more likely, because it's giving you a headache.

Technology's only purpose is to serve the story.

One other consideration is that once I saw Avatar in the theater in 3-D, I had no desire to buy the DVD, which is in 2-D. Possibly it's because I thought the story was weak, but also because it now lacked the 3-D experience.

I totally agree Adam. 3D is like a hot looking girl at the party, telling you to have a good time. She is ostensibly there to tell you to have a good time but meanwhile, you, as a guy, will fixate on the hot looking girl, not having a good time at the party.

3D is a total "effect" and is therefore distracting. I don't see how 3D can be perceived as anything elemental like color and sound, at least not without 20-30 years of audience conditioning. Personally I have no problems concentrating on a two hour feature in B&W and silent, if the film making is exemplary. A great story is a great story whether B&W, color, sound, silent, 3D, 2D. But Avatar is not a great story, it's an adequate re-telling of Pocahantas with some really dazzling technological achievement.

Dan

3D is here to stay.

1) Higher ticket prices.
2) New DVD players to sell.
3) New TVs to sell.
4) 4-6 pairs of 3D glasses per household to sell.
5) "3D" versions of all our old favorite movies.

And of course, better versions of each 3-5 years from now!

2D is dead... It just can't be repackaged and resold any more. 3D is the way of the future, baby.

Those are the reasons the companies want 3D to stay, not the reasons it will. Let's see where audience demand is two years from now. 3D might well be ubiquitous, or it might fail again, as it has each time it's been reintroduced with all the same hype over the last 50 years or so. Time will tell.

It may become "standard", or it may be a "pet rock" - I thought it was interesting on the "4th pixel" thread how someone dug up an ancient (relatively) advertisment for a CRT set with a "4th color" and how it was supposed to make everything different...

In order to work, technology has to be accessible, not just marketed the snot out of. And I have to suspect that ANY tech that supposedly causes adverse physical effects on 15% + - of the population may have a tough row to hoe.

3D has been around before, remember the stereopticons of the early 1900's (IIRC), the "viewmaster" I fondly recall from my youth, 3D posters you'd stare at until they popped (from another era of our lives) etc, etc. The "effect" and novelty may be impressive, sort of fun, and so on, BUT is it REALLY something we "need"? If nothing else, the launching of an expensive and limited new technology into "the new economy" we have doesn't suggest a high chance for market survival, IMO.

So you have a few (one?) great movies that use 3D to fullest effect, and a bunch of "me toos" rushing to join the club in hopes of cashing in. How does this a market make? I don't see EVERY film benefitting from 3D in the same way sound and color transcended most every possible genre - sure it's a "cute" add-on (Bob's Big Break as a "freebie" with Monsters v. Aliens for instance), but frankly the issues discussed kill the experience for me - 3D doesn't "add" anything to the story, and detracts from the image quality IMO.

Exactly how many "chick flicks" would gain from being 3D? How many dramas? Romantic comedies? Etc. Now what about sitcoms and reality TV shows? The "Law & Order" franchise? American Idol? Remember for a minute that the now ever present "reality show" exists PRIMARILY because it's cheap to produce! You think they are "going 3D" and raising their production costs?

Think about it for a minute and ask why you'd blow top $$$ on a "3D" TV set and additional tech toys to make it work for a small fraction of your content viewing . Sure, if you're the uber-geek, and have a great job in the tech arena (ha ha ha), and your new company just went public gaining 500% on the first day of IPO (oh remember the days), so you're trying to keep up with the Joneses who just bought a bigger house (flash forward to the "Homeless Joneses")... I'm not "seeing" it.

Just my 100 cents, adjusted for inflation...

One of the problems with current 3D productions is that they tend to look like something seen in a Viewmaster, which isn't the same as we see the real world. Perhaps it's the same as when stereo first came out, when they had to have EXtreme sterEO imaging and the 3D guys will have to calm down a bit.

3D is fine, and I believe it is the ultimate future of television and movies. Not immediately, but in the foreseeable future. I don't believe 3D will be fully accepted until we're able to see 3D programming without glasses. When that happens, look out!
If you were at this year's NAB convention, you would have seen an amazing amount of 3D products on display. It's hard not to think of this technology as the wave of the future.

First came the talkies, then color, then amazing special effects, then CG effects, now polarized 3D films. It's a natural progression of technology. I watch 3D movies and I have no problem with them, and I hated the red-green glasses from the past. We see in 3D, why can't we watch our films the same way? And I'm sorry, a 2D film and a 3D film are not the same. Content will always be king, but there's no reason good content can't be in 3D.

We welcomed the advent of HD video, and watch how it is replacing film as a capture medium. I welcome 3D like I did HD. As a professional in the video production field, I prefer to learn as much as I can about 3D. Those in our field who choose to ignore this emerging technology do so at their own peril, I believe. With all due respect to Mr. Ebert, I prefer to be ready for 3D production.

3D isn't an either/or proposition for consumers. I expect that people will continue to watch most everything in 2D, but will switch to 3D for special events like the Super Bowl or "popcorn movie night". And, of course, 3rd person shooter games. I'll be really surprised if people start watching Eyewitness News in 3D anytime soon.

For the viewer it's no big deal. A 3D TV doesn't suffer any limitations when in 2D mode. Aside from a relatively small price bump up front, there's no downside.

I'm a bit more concerned on the production side though. I might shoot a 2D film today with shallow DOF (e.g. "House, The Movie!"), but if I'm making a 3D version, I might instead choose a deeper focus. Shallow DOF and 3D don't mix all that well.

And then there's the frame rate. 24fps isn't quite fast enough for a smooth 3D experience. So, while my 2D film is definitely 24fps, and normal scenes have a 1/48 shutter, I might shoot a 3D film at 48fps and 1/96.

So, now my 3D film looks great, but my 2D version looks like "video" due to the fast frame rate and deep focus.

Maybe we need to shoot with three cameras: two for 3D and a third at 24fps, 1/48 shutter, and shallower DOF so I can deliver a high quality 3D AND 2D experience.

But for people watching sports and games in 3D, there is no real concern. We will still watch most content in 2D. 3D will be for special events and experiences only.

I don't think a shallow DOF isn't really a part of the "film look"as such, 16mm and 8mm definitely look like film as do 35mm films using deep focus. You can have it on a video production and it still looks like video. Perhaps it's more characteristic of a certain type of film production that people aspire to.

A larger DOF seems to be a characteristic that is important on 3D movies and the 2/3" SI 2K has found a niche shooting them. One DP is looking forward to the 2/3" Scarlet for the same reason.

Meh. So was betamax. So was quadraphonic sound.

3D is only the way of the future if customers buy it. I didn't buy betamax and I'm not planning to buy 3D. I think 3D is the way of the future all right -- betamax's future, not mine.

Even though I am very cynical about the reasons that 3D technology is being pushed so hard by the studios and manufacturers, I think Glen has a valid point.

There will be money to be made in 3D. Just as some of the early HD pioneers made boatloads of money pushing HD content ten years ago, there will be some money to be made with 3D (at a normal producer level, not a James Cameron level). It smart to at least be knowledgeable about 3D and to know how to shoot with it, even if you have no plans to buy 3D gear. If you have a client who wants 3D, if you can't do it, they will hire someone who can.

Dan

I think one hurdle is just the sheer financial burden of upgrading to 3D capable equipment in the home. A few years back, we bought a widescreen plasma for what seemed an enormous amount of money in comparison to CRT sets. Just the bracket to put it on the wall cost more than most tube televisions of the time.

Now, we're supposed to shell out thousands more to replace it, because I might want to watch the odd thing in 3D? And have to wear glasses and risk a headache to do it? Not a chance.

Technology being what it is, I think some sort of immersive viewing experience is inevitable, but I think 3D's timing is bad. So many people just finished upgrading to HD, for heaven's sake.

Oh fun... you're actually assuming you'll have an alternative. If all the TVs come out are 3D... what are you going to buy?
Since the industry is all on board, and no competing against each other, all they have to do is take away 2Dtvs and poof... Bruce is buying a 3DTV. Like Jon said, you may watch 2DTV... but you will own a 3DTV eventually.

And the same goes for film. If Avatar 2 comes out, and only plays in 3D... whatchagonna do? Pay your $15 like everyone else and stand in line. Well, maybe you won't, while the other 1,000,000,000 of us do.

Like I said... 3D is the way of the future baby. Why not jump on board and make some money instead of being a hater?

(disclaimer: I don't really care much about whether I watch a film in 2D or 3D. 3D is fun, but sure doesn't make a bad movie better. 3DTV however is AWESOME. I saw it about 6 years ago at NAB, and man... sports in 3D? HELLA COOL. Even newscasts looked great in 3D. Not enough to make me drop $5000 on a 3D setup until I have no choice... but still cool).

That's an interesting point Dylan, about manufacturers removing other options to force adoption of a new tech. Not sure if I would agree it's so black and white, but you could make the argument that that's exactly what happened with CRT sets.

Were they removed from production to force adoption of flatscreen televisions, or were they removed because no one wanted them?

Anyway, I'm convinced that this iteration of 3D won't fly, except for special viewing events, because it's just not convenient or comfortable enough. I can't see the average family buying 4 sets of glasses and putting them all on when the kids want to watch cartoons. Especially if two members of the family get headaches everytime. Or do you need 6 pairs in case your buddies come over?

3D can cause discomfort even when well done. Right now, I think we're on the cusp of an explosion of BADLY done 3D material. What is the consumer going to make of that?

I'm not against 3D at all. I think it's coming, but I don't think it will be widely adopted with the present tech.

One problem with CRT is the size (in depth) of the larger screen sizes, which would be off putting to many consumers. Although, if you're shooting on location LCD monitors are a pain, in that you have to be nearly square on to actually see what's going on. A quick glance from across the set at a LCD can give you a scare.

They've been saying this since 1953. No real evidence that this time is any different.

Everything old is new again. Hollywood pulled out 3D as the magic solution to television more than fifty years ago -- directors then used the same tired old cliche shots that Cameron resorted to in Avatar. The spear waving about in the audience -- c'mon. It was tired in B'wana White Devil in the fifties, it isn't any better today.

Walk around for a few hours with one eye covered -- you are seeing the world in 2D. Remarkably, it is still pretty darn engaging ... the reality of '3D' is it is only meaningful for stuff within arms reach -- and even then, it isn't like it ruins your life if you only see well out of one eye. So Hollywood has to invent ways to make the effect 'look good' -- John Candy's 3D House of Wax pretty much said it all.

3D, flying cars, supersonic flight .... ain't gonna happen, and won't seem like much if it does. Avatar was a mildly more exciting piece of crap in 3D; watch it in 2D and the one dimensional story, cliched characters and infantile philosophy makes for a forgettable movie; throw in 3D so you can see the same thing with flying projectiles in a murky colour-limited pallette.

YMMV.

Cheers,
GB