3D: gimmick or not?

AcidHell2 said:
Advancements be definition are not gimmicks.

You can say you hate it, I don't particuly like it in most films, but it can not be described as a gimmick.
Click to expand...

Is 3D cinema not:

an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal
Click to expand...

Seems to me that's exactly what it is.
 
As I said you can apply that definition, but only if you also call every other tv technology a gimmick as well. But you a re unwilling to say the other tv tech is a gimmick, so why change to that meaning of gimmick.
Normal meaning of gimmick is something added to a product as a marketing scheme that has no real benefit.
3d has a clear and definable benefit and as such does not full in to gimmick territory, regardless of personal feelings towards it.
 
I personally don't see the point in it. HDTV is needed because TV's have gotten larger and have higher resolution, 3D I don't really see why its there. I prefer a brighter, more crisp image than a dull 3D one.

When the technology is perfected and we don't need glasses? Maybe.
 
It adds another dimension. Tv/film/games strives to be like real life, 3d is another aspect that helps mimic that and helps immerse you in it.
Not to mention the use in industry.
 
It's a gimmick in as much as it simply makes images pop out at you from the screen. Unlike HD it does not increase the quality of what you are watching (in fact, in most case it decreases the quality of it). Unlike surround sound it does not enhance the experience.

Your logic is faulty. 3D offers nothing extra in the way of viewing a film, it simply makes aspects of it more prominent. Unless 3D starts to offer new and interesting, dare I say NOVEL ways of watching, experiencing or immersing the viewer in the film then it's a gimmick. Only a handful of films have achieved such a thing and even then, compared to their 2D counterparts there is no difference in content or experience.

The true test of 3D will be when filmmakers find a way to make their 3D films differ from their 2D counterparts and apparently the public agree too - there's just not enough of a difference between 2D and 3D. People are realising this and turning away from it.
 
Of course 3d offers something, it's no different to 3d sound. It adds to the realism and when filmed properly in 3d it works well. Although still causes some people problems. You can pt sit there and say it adds nothing.

Some people are turning away from it, no surprise due to cost and headaches and the like. but many people are buying 3d tvs, the ninentendo 3DS and 3D computers.

Peoples dislike off something, or slow uptake does not make something a gimmick. Unless you use a general definition, but people aren't willing to apply that definition to all other aspects of tvs and other technologies.
 
Last edited:
Only last week did HD Freeview officially come to the town where I live.

At the moment 3D is a gimmick. It may catch on and become mainstream, but not for many years yet!

Also I have bad eyesight so unless I have my contact lenses in I must wear my glasses, so until 'proper' 3D comes out (i.e. without the silly glasses) I won't show an interest.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Of course 3d offers something, it's no different to 3d sound. It adds to the realism and when filmed properly in 3d it works well. Although still causes some people problems. You can pt sit there and say it adds nothing.

Some people are turning away from it, no surprise due to cost and headaches and the like. but many people are buying 3d tvs, the ninentendo 3DS and 3D computers.

Peoples dislike off something, or slow uptake does not make something a gimmick. Unless you use a general definition, but people aren't willing to apply that definition to all other aspects of tvs and other technologies.
Click to expand...

You missed my point. There are literally a handful of films which have been filmed in 3D. It adds very little to post-processed films. Read what I said again. In fact, I'll repeat it - only a handful of films have achieved adding a little extra to a film.

Did you even read the link I posted? It's more than just "some" people who are turning away from it.

It's a gimmick and will continue to be a gimmick until it either A) becomes more practical to film in 3D and B) it offers a different viewing experience than 2D does. Right now, not many, if any (yes, even proper 3D films) offer the latter.
 
Last edited:
I'm well aware of the numbers, that doesn't have an influence of it being a gimmick or not.
Or is there yet another definition of gimmick that adds user uptake.

Peoples dislike off something, or slow uptake does not make something a gimmick. Unless you use a general definition, but people aren't willing to apply that definition to all other aspects of tvs and other technologies.
Click to expand...
 
Gimmick... how is 3D an advancement when it relies on degrading the image to create a pseudo 3D effect. Watching movies like Avatar without all the 3D crap is a revelation - you can actually enjoy the backgrounds because they haven't been blurred out to create a false DOF.

Will not buy into it - especially in it's current form of requiring glasses... Sucks to be that 4th or 5th person come around to your place to watch a movie when you run out of 3D glasses...

Currently useless and stupid tech... IMO of course

... oh and I might add... gimmick...
 
Last edited:
The only films I thought it worked for:

Avatar
Toy Story 3
Up
How To Train Your Dragon
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Pt 2
 
It's crap. It's not impressed me yet. If we can do something like holographics, that'll be great, but that's a hell of a long way off.
 
The worst thing is that the resale value of these things is going to be laughable. They'll be retro collectors items like Laser Disk... anyone that has 'invested' in these things is a mug. IMO of course...
 
Gimmick, great for watching an amazing movie done right i.e Avatar and who wants to watch fooball or golf in 3D, can you really see people sitting down to watch Corrie with massive 3D glasses on.

It will never become mainstream and thats why it will die out!
 
I love it watched maybe 5 films at cinema with it lately and will always watch the 3D version, it adds that bit more for me seeing a bit of depth to the film.

I don't think the glasses are massive they are just like wearing sun glasses what's the hassle with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom