Several years ago I came very close to buying a flatscreen capable of showing 3D movies. I know some brands used active or passive glasses for viewing.

Now I see very few in stock at stores and only a handful of 3D releases.

Any light in the tunnel ahead for home consumers?

I think it never lived.

Well, Sony, Vizio, LG, Samsung, and Toshiba are all still making them. They're also making 4k 3D sets as well. But I still don't see any momentum in the sales. Which is a shame since they're fun to have - at home. Still won't pay extra to watch it in theaters. And I guess the studios know that because they hike up the price substantially with 3D blu's. Not a great way to support it.

You can get 3D movies on sale if you just wait patiently- I have almost every 3D title out and rarely paid over $20 for any of them. The new Star Wars will be in 3D so hopefully that'll spur more sales of home 3D equipment.

Likewise, but the average home consumer will see the $39.95 initial price and opt for the cheaper blu or DVD.

Good riddance. The 3D movies I saw in theaters gave me a headache. I have no desire for them in the house. We have a friend with only one good eye. What was he supposed to do?

To each their own, but I wouldn't mind seeing this trend disappear, at home or in the theatre.

For me it adds nothing and only subtracts from the bright colours and vibrancy of the 2D picture.

Here's an article from Entertainment Weekly, published earlier this year, regarding the current apathy for 3D.

http://www.ew.com/article/2013/08/09...ies-box-office

I think my home 3D is better than the theaters. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone though, but it's nice to have. HBO even has On Demand 3D so it's obvious not dead.

To succeed, 3D needs to become a standard feature in all equipment like HD/1080p.

As it stands now, you're paying a premium price for TVs and blu-ray players for a feature that the majority of available software doesn't support. Most movies are still in 2D as is all television programming. 3D blu-ray is basically a third home video format since most players and televisions won't support it. It should have been included in the blu-ray spec at launch; now it's just something that salesmen will try to upsell you.

If only things I didn't like were crapped on as much as 3D...

In response to the OP, hopefully. It's a waste of money for something that is a useless fad.

I'm more interested in 3D audio. But that will probably remain an even smaller niche. Most people don't even want 5 speakers, let alone 13.

I'm glad I got my 3D set when I did. It's a blast to own classic 3D like Creature From The Black Lagoon & House of Wax in true 3D.

But I can understand why it didn't really take off. There were only a small handful of new movies shot in real 3D that utilized it fully. The vast, vast, majority of the rest are undwhelming 2D conversions & CGI cartoons. I think these factored in to the public perception that 3D was not really all that great.

Still, I hope it remains a niche since the capability is finally there in the home.

Let me say it again: If only things I didn't like were crapped on as much as 3D!

It was always hoped that 3D would force the upper 30% of the market to needlessly upgrade their shiny, new 1080P flat panels. When that marketing initiative didn't work as planned, the hardware makers moved on to 4K.

I never liked 3D, both in theaters or at home, so i'm happy to see it fade away. Seems like most consumers are on that same boat.

Love my 3D plasma TV!

I buy the imported versions of movies which were made in 3D, but aren't released in 3-D in the United States on Blu ray.

Looking forward to this release :

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/3-d-rarities

Where are all the movie buffs on this site who love the history and evolution of film?

Have that pre-ordered already! How is it that these small companies can put out stuff like that, but DISNEY can't put their big hits out here anymore? The smaller companies overall have handled 3D much better than the big ones too- their 3D titles DON'T come in a separate 2D-only version, so if you buy the title you get it in 3D, and they DON'T price them higher than normal titles either!

I don't get this "3D is dead, now it's all about 4K" stuff either- that's just like saying "Color TV is dead, now it's all about HD"- what about 4K IN 3D?

The industry overall did have much too high expectations for 3D's adoption- the letter I recently sent to Disney pointed out that 3D TVs came out right after many people had just upgraded to new HDTVs and weren't about to buy another one right away. (It was just a happy accident with mine crapping out that I was able to get a 3D set when I did.) It might take years for 3D to really "catch on", but in the meantime it has its fans and studios need to keep putting out material to get others to jump on board. Dolby Atmos will probably have a slow adoption rate as well but in the meantime movies need to be put out with it!

Those who don't like 3D enough to wish it would go away, I'm wondering what movies they saw that made them feel that way? The upcharges at theaters for 3D ARE insanely greedy and stupid, that certainly needs to go away.

CES didn't even feature any new 3DTV's. The big TV companies might still be selling them or including the technology, but they sure aren't marketing them heavily anymore.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/0...rved-displays/

I don't think it's that big of a surprise to see it fade. A combination of poor conversions, increased price both in theaters and at home, and quite frankly a large number of consumers that experience zero benefit if not negative effects when watching 3D movies seemed to ensure it was never going to be standard, especially that last one which 3D fans seem to always ignore. It's not just about seeing something in particular that was bad, but for many the experience isn't enjoyable at all.

That's why I recall commenting on how terrible an idea of Smithee's it was to release movies only in 3D, as if everyone would prefer to see movies that way.

Over at blu-ray.com, folks who like 3-D home releases are angry that Disney certainly think so.

Because the 3D movies released in the 50s (with a few exceptions) and the 80s were ONLY shown in 3D (though I remember the 80s movies got 2D prints at drive-ins as those couldn't show 3D.) Theaters didn't charge extra for them and there didn't seem to be a lot of people saying they didn't like 3D and wouldn't watch it that way. Most of the 80s 3D movies were so bad that they're pointless to watch if you aren't enjoying the 3D effects, so you might as well just skip those altogether rather than watch them in 2D.

I get that some people simply can't see or appreciate 3D- I have a friend who swears that he has no depth perception, it's even affected his ability to drive. He's gone to 3D movies at the theater though and just enjoyed them for what he could see- he didn't ask that they run them in 2D just because he couldn't see it. Some people can't notice or appreciate multi-channel sound, but they don't ask that theaters run shows in mono (and theaters never charged extra for that either.)

If it's really painful for some people to watch 3D, why would they still want to see a 3D movie without it when there's plenty of other movies that are already shot in 2D? It just seems the same as showing a movie like Jurassic Park, where the sound is a big part of it, with the sound turned down low or completely off for people who don't like loud noises (I projected that during its theatrical run and there were a LOT of complaints about the loud sound in it!) I guess you could take a 2D showing the same way as an open-captioned version of a movie for people who can't hear, but to me that just opens the door to other alterations. Remember the whole "Widescreen Vs Full-screen" debate where people wanted all movies cropped to fit their 4x3 TVs? In the end, they've gone with showing movies only in the correct ratio and people have grown to accept it. It's been YEARS since I've heard any stories of Wal-Mart customers demanding a modified-ratio version of a current movie, whether for 4x3 or 16x9.

I don't know how much it costs to include 3D in a TV, it certainly would be nice if EVERY TV just included it from now on and users had the choice of having it just display 3D material in 2D for whatever reason. Most TVs now come with "smart" features whether people use those or not, and those probably cost a few dollars as well.

I'd still like to see some specific examples of that- have the world's biggest 3D-hater tell me what the last 3D movie they saw was, and tell me was was so awful about it. Then I'll watch it myself keeping those things in mind. The worst 3D movies I've seen just didn't really use it to much advantage, and while they might not have lost much being shown in 2D, being that they WERE produced (either natively or converted) in 3D that is still the way I would want to see them.

BTW I wear regular glasses and have NEVER had a problem wearing 3D glasses over them. It just seems like the whole glasses thing is another "issue" people who don't like 3D bring up. Oh, and I also don't like sports- they bore the hell out of me and I'd be happy if they went away just so I wouldn't have to hear about them anymore. But I realize a lot of people DO like sports, and wouldn't want to see them go away. In the end I just avoid them, and let people enjoy them if they want to.

And you'll notice that ALL of the comments on that article chastised the writer for, once again, crapping on 3D. The writer saying "it's great" that 3D was disappearing has either never seen good 3D or simply is unable to see it for whatever reason. And the comments said that there WERE plenty of 3D-capable TVs on display, they just aren't hyping it like they used to. And as long as it continues to exist but doesn't become "the next big thing" they hoped it would, that's good enough for me.

I have friends who have seen 3D movies in theaters who didn't think much of the experience. I show these same friends the same movies at my house and they rave at how much better the experience is.

That's probably part of the problem, also. Many theaters are doing a crappy job of projecting 3D films. And charging more to give you that crappy experience.

I haven't been to a commercial movie theater in years and years, so I don't know the answer to this question:

The ArcLight cinemas supposedly feature a state of the art movie watching experience, but do the ArcLights show 3D films?

(Looking at the web site, I see they have two Dolby Atmos-equipped theaters, but nowhere can I find any info on 3D films being shown there.)

(I also wear glasses and have no problems wearing the 3D glasses over my regular glasses.)

It's ironic of you to reference the 50's and 80's as examples when during those decades it turned out that 3D was just a fad and ended up going away. Regardless, the market is different and studios wouldn't be stupid enough to cut out a large portion of their audience who isn't interested in 3D and losing out on those ticket sales.

Regarding your request for specific examples, you removed the rest of my post that gave context to that comment. I'm not talking about just bad conversions, i'm saying a very large portion of potential audiences have physical discomfort watching movies in 3D, and even some folks here have mentioned it in this thread as far as eye strain or headaches. None of the examples you provide such as multi-channel audio or fullscreen/widescreen have similar effects that i'm aware of. You seem to see 3D as a progression of technology and a 2D presentation as a negative concession to a small portion of the audience, but like it or not the decline of interest from the market shows it's quite the opposite with many considering 3D as a novelty add on that may or may not enhance their experience, with 2D providing the same level of entertainment. Consumer interest plus business sense is why your idea of 3D only showings was silly.

I don't care if it remains niche and offered as an option for those of you that enjoy it. I'm just happy to see it decline so I don't get bullshit releases where some special features are released only as part of a 3D bundle, like Prometheus or The Wolverine, or having higher device prices trying to push the technology.

Yes, they do. You can look at the future showings of Age of Ultron as an example.