I had a bit of debate over movies in 3D this past Monday, specifically about how I just don't care about movies in 3D. Actually no, that's not true, when I hear a movie is filmed in 3D, I actually don't want to see it at all. 3D films; where I have to wear some silly pair of glasses so things can look like they're coming out at me does not interest me at all. I live in a 3D world so the films I watch don't need to be that way, all they need to be are good films; which incidentally they are not. Most of the films that rely on attracting audiences because of some 3D shtick, have crappy acting and stories. I'll even admit to passing judgment on these films without watching them, because I can already tell they're going to be bad films and I want nothing to do with them. I'm not going to see Death Race 2000 part 2, because I can already tell it's not good from the trailer.

Never saw Avatar, I saw that film before, it was called Dances With Wolves and it didn't need 400 million dollars to make people blue, build a giant green screen because nothing was real, and have arrows jumping out of the screen at me. The people whom I was debating with agreed that Avatar had a terrible storyline, which they would know better then me because I don't want to see it. However, they said that James Cameron is a "genius at 3D", and I relied; "that doesn't mean anything to me".

I brought up this point, imagine: The Shawshank Redemption in 3D, Bridge over the River Kwai in 3D, The Godfather Part 2 in 3D, Gone With the Wind in 3D, Casablanca in 3D? Can't do it right? Because those films were great, and didn't need some hack director shtick to trick people into seeing their poorly directed film with bad acting. I also brought up the fact that probably the two finest young directors of our time, Christopher Nolan and Darren Aronofsky, both who have created some surreal and imaginative films, some using a lot of special effects with huge budgets; both refuse to use 3D on the grounds that it's pointless and trite. So I'm sure that loser Tim Burton is working on a 3D film as we speak.

I just wanted to bring that up here. Now discuss.

This is the type of thing I've been waiting to hit the boards for a while but not this one. It looks like a good discussion maker but not for me because I pretty much agree 3d is a craptastic ploy for selling tickets and most 3d movies are equally as craptastic.

I couldn't agree more. Spooky brings up an excellent point: LIFE is in 3D. Why try to simulate what our optic nerves automatically simulate anyway when we watch a standard movie?

Wait, what am I asking: The answer is the same answer to "why have a DVD and blu-ray sold together in the same box" and that answer is "It's a gimmick to sell more product; people will perceive it as being of greater value, when in fact it's just more product than anyone needs." I wouldn't care if it was just a handful of movies, but now it seems everyone's jumping on the bandwagon. Including TV manufacturers -- what if you don't want a 3D TV? Something tells me they'll all wind up designed that way in the near future, so the gimmick will be the only option.

Full disclosure:
I've never seen Avatar and have no desire to see it.
I once watched a movie in "3D" b/c I thought we showed up for the regular one and we didn't want to go back later. It was "Up", which is a really good movie, but the 3D-ness consisted of things looking like cardboard cutouts in front of one another.

Anyway, I'm glad some other people agree with me b/c I was wondering if I was just being old and set in my ways. At the risk of sounding that way anyway: I worry that we're becoming a culture that has to see a sunset in 3D on our IPads or whatever instead of going outside and just seeing the thing.

In my opinion, this whole 3D gimmick is just a rehashed shtick from the 80s because Hollywood couldn't think of anything else. I hate 3D glasses; they hurt my eyes.

I saw Jackass in 3D. It was better in 3D only due to the nature of the show. Someone flying off a ramp does look better in 3D...but I didnt pay to see the movie...lol thanks to my buddy. I noticed that jackass is loved by a specific type of audience that would probably shell out extra cash to see a shitty movie in 3D

overall i agree that 3D movies are unnecessary. They hurt my eyes!!

OK good, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

We actually have a 3D tv at home - it was on sale at the time and not that much more $ than a regular LCD/LED tv. Anywho, yes, most movies in 3D are stupid. However, there are times when the 3D thing works, especially in animated movies. We have the Monsters vs. Aliens DVD in 3D, and it is fantastic! Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your beliefs, LOL) there isn't much 3D content out yet there for televisions, though it's something that's being worked on. I don't think 3D tvs are being forced on us at all, and they'll ever be as popular as the media will have you believe. No, Red, Samsung, Sony and Panasonic will not be forcing people to buy 3D televisions. LOL

Back to movies...I agree that the 3D thing does not work for most movies, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done at all. Every movie put out in 3D is also available in regular screens, so if you don't like 3D you don't have to watch the movie in 3D.

I could see a cartoon or something like Jackass (haven't seen btw) as being fun in 3D, but I question any movie that wants to be considered as a serious dramatic performance if it's being shown in 3D. It's fine for the "oohs" and "aahhs" and giggles, but a doubt a serious film is going to be in 3D.

I saw Avatar in 3D as well as Alice in Wonderland, & while they tickled my fancy at the moment, I wouldn't buy a 3D tv or device that offered it. For me, it's expensive at the theater & the glasses made my brain ache after a while. I agree that it's a Hollywood ploy to make more money & a lot of followers will buy into it. It's just not something I am overly excited about.