3-D films what is the big deal?

[Martini Sigil]

Every once in a while you get a movie that is better in 3D.... for instance, the Notebook in 3D was awesome

[Richard Writhen]

I can't see 3D. Vision problems. Except for that one machete in Friday the 13th. Couldn't miss that one, glasses or no glasses.

[Sir Thursday]

I think often 3D films end up doing something similar where the 3D maybe works well for a small number of scenes but is then largely irrelevant for the rest of the film. Star Wars definitely fell into that category, occasionally the 3D added something to some of the scenes of ships flying around or the opening text crawling into the screen but for most of the film it added nothing and was occasionally distracting.

I can only think of a couple of films where I thought the 3D really added a lot to the experience which were Avatar (which could have benefited from being the first 3D film I saw) and Gravity.

After a while I often find it difficult to remember whether I saw a film in 3D or not, which probably says something about how much it contributes to the film.

I agree with the point that 3D tends to only enhance a small number of scenes during a film. When it is at its best it gives you a "WHOA!" factor you just don't get in 2D. A couple of examples that I found particularly good:

- Up: The scene where the house is floating away with its collection of balloons. At one point you see the tiny house next to an enormous cloud. When I saw it in 3D I got this sense of wonder at the difference in scale between the two objects. After thinking about it, the 3D was the reason why - it gave my brain a much better sense of perspective about the cloud that let me realise how big it was.

- Star Trek: Into Darkness: As someone else mentioned, the 3D really enhances the first scene of the film. Kirk is running away from some natives and jumps off a cliff. The camera follows them from above as they do this, and as it goes over the cliff edge I got an unexpected feeling of vertigo as if I too was falling. The additional depth helped me realise how far away the water they were jumping into was, and that was why it felt so realistic.

So there are specific scenes that 3D can make better. But beyond that, I tend to think that films with dramatic landscapes in the background do benefit generally from 3D. It helps you appreciate texture in objects a long way away from the screen in a subtle way that you don't necessarily notice but you do come away thinking looked good. This was part of why Avatar worked so well - it's full of jungle backdrops that really pop out in 3D.

The thing about the above is that it isn't something that necessarily makes you think "Wow, that 3D sure is something!". And generally I think 3D is much better when you don't notice it's there - it means that it's doing its job and immersing you in the experience. Every time a filmmaker thinks it would be cool to have something shoot out of the screen towards the audience in a 3D film I cringe - it's such a gaudy use of the technology and if anything it cheapens the experience since it is never quite right (effects in front of the screen always seem flickery and fake to me). 

As others have mentioned there are a lot of drawbacks to filming in 3D, especially if you end up with the layering effect that Ser Scot mentioned. For that reason, it pays to be selective with which films you see in it. But I do think that in the right hands it can really enhance a film - certainly there are quite a few cinematic moments that I feel better for seeing in 3D.

ST

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

I'm not able to see anything in I'm 3D since I have epilepsy so I can't understand it at all.