I used to think the same way. That 3-D movies were just corny and that I’d rather see it without the huge glasses on my face. But after Avatar I feel a change of heart. Yes that movie was unbelievable (must mention) , but it’s also not like what people think.

Its not this cheesy film were objects fly out at you, but instead your watching a movie with a depth perception. You have the visual affect of seeing people in the foreground of the camera shot being closer to you than people in the background.

It’s a subtle affect but cool to watch and If more movies, even serious movies, were to do that I think i could enjoy it as long as they dont get corny with it.

3D movies are fun, but i’m sick of paying extra for movies which are just as enjoyable in good old 2D. I hope 3D dies soon and people can focus on the movie making instead of wasting time on 3D effects

For me, it’ll come down to whether or not the technology can be integrated completely into my television (or a future replacement television) at home without the need for additional headwear. Would I like to sit on my couch and watch Avatar while experiencing the added depth perception mentioned by Kevin above? Absolutely! Would I like to watch television while wearing glasses all night? Definitely not.

Also, I’d like it to be something that can be toggled on/off at the press of a button without changing channels. Perhaps the 3D information for the video can be piped to the home in a way similar to surround sound information for 5.1 or 7.1 audio? It’s there but if the stereo capable television in the kitchen doesn’t use surround sound, no loss. I’d like to see the same thing for 3D video. The information to make shows/movies 3D is there but if the hardware doesn’t make use of it, then no impact to anyone else.

I’m willing to try 3D but I’m not willing to subscribe to cable + HD package + 3D package, etc with all additional surcharges and fees. Put the technologoy out there, let the equipment decode it (or not) and maybe I’ll watch it (or not). Otherwise, if I have to make a significant investment, then my answer is no.

Paul has been quoted for truth. Any innovation will lead to additional surcharges as it has become commonplace for big companies to pile on fees. Obviously the 3D in Avatar is a step towards immersion and less of a gimmick that it has been in the past, and I believe that is something very special. There is going to be a time when it is run of the mill. Humans rarely retard the efforts of science in technology and there is no reason why we shouldn’t be seeing more of this modern 3D. It is just something that we are not used to.

Hollywood is circling the drain. If you look at the recent crop of movies, you can see how they’re afraid to make a risk. Every other movie is either adapted from a book, a TV show, video game, or comic book. Or it’s a remake.

3D is just a gimmick to get people out in to the theaters. Another gimmick was Smell-O-Vision.

I think the studios are afraid audiences would rather watch a movie on their LCD TVs. Truth is, I think theaters are on their way out the door, giving way to multimedia experiences at home or on the Net.

Hollywood sees this coming, so they resort to gimmicks and mindless movies based on source material that has already proven itself.

I hate 3D. Period. Having to pay an extra fee on top of the arm & leg I’ve already forked over? Christ!
To say nothing of all the movies where it doesn’t add a damn thing to the story. That’s what I’m there for: a good story. I don’t need a 7 foot tall blue cat man to look like he’s so close I can smell him to enjoy the story.
And am I the only person who gets a little dizzy and motion sick in a 3D movie? It’s worse than watching Cloverfield.

I was expecting to have to pay up to £13 for Avatar in 3D but i didnt, it was just £6.50 at a local Odeon, which is around normal price for 2D – i would have paid £13

i dont understand the fascination with 3D either – and i dont think Avatar’s story needed it (the story is ideally suited to a 90minute cartoon)

the thing that struck me most when watching it was actually before the movie started – the trailers /ads

they showed a number of 3D trailers for upcoming movies like shrek 4 and ads for cadburys chocolate etc – these used 3D in the only way it can really be used by throwing things out at people or hovering text over the audiences heads

what i mean is that IF 3D takes off in cinemas it will no doubt move to TV (which it is being developed for atm) i think the main benefits will be for gaming and advertistments (the text was really clear and noticable when watching the trailers, and even in the movie itself with the translated Na’vi language at the bottom of the screen)

as i’ve said i dont think avatar necessitated 3D or even benefitted from it. in fact the best part, for me, of avatar was the special effects, i’ve never seen such convincing effects (dark knight is still one of the best, i only noticed one shot in the whole movie which was clearly CG) but avatar was amazing, the only reason you could doubt it was real is that fact that you know it was created, otherwise i thought it was extremely convincing

but i actually found 3D to limit my sense of immersion. It created a sense of depth, yes, but is was a fakedbut it wasnt necessary, and was hard to see things outside of the middle of the images, some things like leaves etc that surrounding the edges of the screen were blurry and there was even motion blur in faster moving scenes which again limited the immersion – so i find the whole 3D is so much more immersive argument is faulted

i enjoyed the movie, because it was an enjoyable movie, cameron knows to craft movies that can appeal to a large number of demographics but i think the main draw for the audience is the 3D it is an experience, and it is not one we will be able to experience at home for another 5 or so years so i think it is important to go see it (hence $800m or more in 13 days)

i think as soon as the glasses arent needed and you can view 3D movies/tv shows/ads/games etc in the cinema/ontv/ on computer without them it will really show how useful it is

the current trend towards 3D is a cash-in, even Avatar, which i felt didnt deserve a $300m+ budget or 3D, it is the same as in the ’50s – it is just a gimmick to make a quick buck, once you’ve seen it you wont go back too often, Cameron knows this and i think wanted to be the first major movie to use 3D

the art form is 2D, 3D didnt feel very different or revolutionary, it was nice but i dont know if i’d like it everywhere, it is suited to the advertisements and trailers, gaming possibly (where depth perception would be cool) and maybe other things like computer displays etc (as used in Avatar by people in 2154)

so i hope it isnt taken on board, but it seems it will be, and if avatar is the best example of its use or the yard stick for 3D in cinema then i think it’ll be a gimmick and a big expensive version of the ’50s movie experience