I've seen one "3D" movie-Avatar-and it's the last I'll ever see. Glad I saw it in "3D" so I could dismiss the whole thing, and not think "oh, well maybe if I had seen a better one".
-I don't want to wear glasses over my glasses
-I don't like the dark, screwed up color image
-I don't like that for over 6 hours afterwards my vision was WEIRD...like I can't describe it because I've never felt anything like it. I didn't get a headache like a lot of people do, but the act of SEEING felt very, very unpleasant and wrong
-the "3D" detracted from the film. By about 20 minutes in I would have liked to have shut it off.
-It turns out "3D" isn't even actually 3D. It looks less 3D than do normal images in a movie theater or on a TV. It just does a series of a few flat layers. Congratulations, you have a flat layer of things happening in front of another flat layer, with a flat desk on top of that.
In Avatar, I even saw a gun "bent" between two flat layers! The character swung it towards the camera, and half of it went from one layer to a higher layer, so it had a jump/bend in the middle of it.
That's especially funny that IT ISN'T EVEN 3D! I'm starting to hear more people talk about that now, multiple pocasts, Ebert, etc. have talked about how it makes things look LESS 3D, but at the time I saw Avatar I had no idea it would look so cheesy and fake.
Meanwhile it's been 12 years since MV48 could have been rolled out in theaters, which is an ACTUAL improvement in technology. I'd LOVE to see a great action film filmed in this. (Kill Bill and The Matrix Reloaded could have been done in this!) Ironically, this improves resolution and lets action happen faster while still clear, while "3D" you have to slow stuff down
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/more_than_ever_the_future_of_f.html
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html