questionsdo you still go to 3d movies?


Not since Avatar caused motion sickness that lasted for 3 days. Ugh.


We prefer to see them in 2D. Not to save money, although that is a factor. But because we feel we get more out of the story without the distractions of 3D. We saw the Avengers last week in 3D as part of the marathon, we are going tomorrow afternoon to see it in 2D. It will be interesting t compare, although it will be very different seeing it in the middle of the afternoon rather than midnight-3am after 12 hours of other films.


See this

Generally, no (last movie I saw in 3D was Transformers 3), though I'm kidding about it giving me a headache.


Not since God created 3D TVs.

When you have a 55" movie theater in your living room, there is no need to spend close to $100. for a family of four.


I try not to but the most desirable showtimes are always in 3D. I always make up for it by keeping my glasses (Hey I paid for them!) Hopefully one day I will have a TV compatible with them.

@computiac: What movie theater do you go to? I always go to Cinemark and it costs about $15 for a Friday/ Saturday night adult 3D movie ticket. It's much cheaper during the week or before 6:00. Some movie theaters just 15 minutes away cost about double that. I just don't understand how it's the cheapest theater and yet has the nicest seats and theaters. Perhaps it's a corporation that is a little less greedy than all the rest.


Husband and I both prefer 2D.


Well, the last movie I've seen in 3D was the Avengers.. we were 30 minutes early and had to sit in the front row because it was already packed... it wasn't a great experience since it felt like I was looking through goggles (I had wayfarer glasses on and the 3D glasses were smaller than it).. and my eyes and neck was sore all throughout the movie.

I'm honestly not into the 3D TV thing though.. I felt that it's bad for my eyes. I'll just wait for something cool like holographic televisions in the far future. I'd only watch things in 3D that are worth watching at the movies plus matinee pricing.


Nope. I've seen two films (Toy Story 3 and TRON: Legacy) in 3-D. The extra dimension did nothing for Toy Story and made TRON look dark and murky.

I like films with good stories, likeable characters and intelligent plots. In nearly all of the films it is used, 3-D is a cheap and worthless gimmick to sell more tickets at a higher price. Not worth it.

In those extremely rare times when 3-D is used as part of the story telling palette then I'll consider it.


It depends largely on the reviews for the 3D versions, for me, whether I want to pay that extra amount. Same thing for IMAX. There were a few I paid for just because it seemed like it SHOULD be the best version, where I ended up having my glasses off most of the movie because it was only 20 minutes of 3D footage, which I felt was a total ripoff and regretted.

I did pay for 3D IMAX for the Avengers, as we'd heard it was well worth it. It seemed alright, but because we ended up with an outside aisle seat, I had to keep my head at a perfect angle for the 3D to not get all screwy with my vision. Which is our fault for not showing up earlier, but still something I will consider in the future.


I try to avoid it, it's still a cheap gimmick in my opinion and just gives them a reason to raise the ticket price -- 2-D or 3-D, both have been affected since Avatar.

The only movie so far that I have enjoyed in 3-D was Avatar: the Last Air Bender... as for the movie itself, as someone who watched the animated series it was horrible, but the 3-D effects were a nice touch though they could have made more use of it.


I avoid 3-D movies. I don't like the way it looks in live-action movies. For kids animated movies though it can be pretty cool. But rarely go because it's just too expensive.


I love 3D. I prefer if it's filmed in 3D, but I still enjoy it. My theater is only $3 more for 3D, so I usually do it.
I know Avengers was post 3D, but it still pops.

We flip movies from 2D to 3D on my friends T.V. all the time and enjoy. We watched both Ironman movies this past Sat. converted and they looked good. 1 was DVD and 2 was Blu ray, but they both had a fair amount of 3D working for them.


I prefer to see 2D movies because I don't have 3D vision in general (no vision in right eye, so no depth perception). If the movie uses red/blue 3D glasses I can't even try to watch as I'll get a migraine.

However, if my kids and/or boyfriend want to see a movie in 3D that uses the grey glasses, I'm fine with that.

My stepdad doesn't like 3D because he thinks it makes the movie too dark.


I only watch movies in 3D that use it in a cinematic way. This after being disappointed that Pixar only used it as a gimmick in Toy Story 3. That might change for Brave.

The movie Hugo was incredible in 3D. It was cinematic art. If you haven't seen this in 3D, drive 200 miles if you have to and catch it in a theater. I intend to go ahead and buy the 3D Blu-Ray just in case I have a 3D TV sometime in 10 years or so.

When we went to see Pirates: Band of Misfits, I did want to see it in 3D. I just couldn't resist seeing stop-motion in 3D on the big screen. And it wasn't too gimmicky. It made the small clay models feel more like their intended size.

The stupid idea of making a movie 3D after the fact, like Titanic or Beauty and the Beast is just wrong. It's as wrong as when Ted Turner started colorizing old B&W movies. And the point of 3D isn't for things to pop out at you. It's for the feeling of depth. I also own a Nintendo 3DS.


Headaches and nausea for a negligible benefit. I know I'm an old codger about it, but 3D should not involve eyestrain or undesirable side effects, nor should it involve glasses, because wearing two pairs of glasses (3D and prescription) to watch a movie is just insane. It's also another way to gouge customers.


I'm done with 3D. I went to the Avengers last night and was really annoyed that the theater only had it in 3D. The whole movie was like one big blur.


Avatar's 3D was done well. We've seen maybe 4 or 5 movies in 3D since Avatar and have been disappointed in each. We'd rather save the money and not be annoyed by what are mostly lame, cheesy effects added only for the gimmick and the cash.

Plus, when possible, we prefer the drive-in and that's 2D only, thank the gods.


@computiac: Word! For the price of 2 tickets you can get a 3D blu-ray (that can be played in 2D mode too), a DVD, and a digital copy that are yours to keep! We'll often sell the DVD disc to a friend for a few dollars. I haven't seen a movie in the theater for a long time. Sticky floors, loud kids, uncomfy chairs, expensive thanks!

I think I'll stick to my 55" 3D TV with 7.1 surround sound system and overstuffed couch with built-in recliners. When a new movie comes out that we want to see, we'll usually get the 3D blu-ray if it's available. Not really more expensive than the 2D version.


@chronosquall14: Not everyone gets eyestrain. And if you watch movies in RealD 3D, you can get clip-on lenses for your glasses:


2D is just fine for me. And don't like the added cost of 3D


@omnichad: That's a neat product; I'll have to check it out.

My problem with 3D is the same problem with a lot of products for other folks; I simply don't enjoy it much. I like that there is an option to see it for people who get a lot out of it. I just don't. And believe me, it's disappointing. It's like being the second Homer to show up to a No Homers Club.


Not if I can help it. The last one I went to was Hugo and while there were a couple of scenes that were cool in 3D, for the most part I thought it was solely to take more money from me.


@bsmith1: Exactly right !

I have a 55" 3D TV with 7.1 surround sound also.

LG 55LW6500, Pioneer VSX 1021, 7.1 A/V receiver, Martin Logan MLT-1,5.1 speakers, with Pioneer BS-21 rears.

If I go higher than -35db it is extremely too loud !


We saw The Avengers (without the kids) in 3D last weekend only because it was the only showing available. This weekend (with the kids) we're going to watch it in 2D because it's just not worth it. I've seen several movies in 3D and the only movie that was actually visually better in 3D was Avatar. Thank Jeebus for directors like Christopher Nolan who depend on the story and visuals, minus the 3D, to sell their film.


I typically hate 3D and think it's a huge scam, but I do end up seeing re-releases in 3D, like the recent Lion King and Titanic.


@thetexastwister: THIS. Twenty minutes into 3D TRON and I realized that the movie looked better WITHOUT the glasses.

Granted I really enjoyed Avatar in 3D on the other hand. I just think it's more of a niche right now... But I am excited to see how movies will look when studios begin to upgrade to the better equipment required for the 3D similar to Cameron's Avatar (NOT talking converted but as filmed)