I've seen several "3D" presentations both in theater and in a home setting. I have yet to see anything that makes me think it is anything beyond a useless gimmick meant to separate fools and their money.

Jungle Book was shot in real 3D- and apparently we'll have to import that one again on disc. Conversions CAN look good, there's been several where I've sworn they were shot in real 3D (like Piranha) but it does seem rather lazy to do that. The upcharges have just got to go though. In the 50s they didn't charge extra for 3D because they were just happy you were going to the theater at all!

If I remember correctly something I read a few years ago, the problem that some people have with 3D is not a issue with the eyes. It's neurological issue.

And yet you paid for the theater and at home, so what does that make you?

Post-converted 3D may have been a piece of shit at the beginning with Clash of the Titans, but the technology has been perfected.

Do some movies have terrible 3D and great 3D? Of course! Its no different with the quality of visual effects in movies. Some are good, some suck. 3D is a tool not a gimmick when used correctly. Life of Pi, Hugo, Gravity, Guardians of the Galaxy , Ant-Man, and Ghostbusters are just a few examples of studios and directors who really knocked it out of the park.

Your opinion is worthless if you just enjoy shitting on 3D yet don't actually go watch them in a optimal presentation theater.

Nice try. Where in my post did I say I threw my money away on the useless gimmick?
We get it. You have a hardon for 3d. Most likely because you need to justify the extra expense for the hardware and the software on what is essentially a fad gimmick. It's ok.

Clearly my sciatica has something to do with it.

No need to be uncool. That you bought 3D tickets and own a 3D setup is a natural assumption from a quick read of your post.

And 3D is no more a gimmick than HD or color are gimmicks. All are just enhancements to video entertainment. We each decide what each possible upgrade is worth to us. No reason to belittle people that appreciate different things than you.

Simply responded in kind to the trollish post of a user that thinks it is his personal responsibility to reply to every single post I make on certain topics. His time would be better spend learning how to use the search function or Google.
I do not agree that me saying that I have seen 3d films leads someone to the natural assumption that I have bought a home 3d setup. Surely I could see a 3d film without buying a 3d setup, right?

As to it being a gimmick, it most definitely is. When it becomes as widespread as HD, or color in film is, then we can talk about it being more than a gimmick. In fact, at what point do HD and color stop being "enhancements" and start being the norm? Arent the vast majority of releases now in HD and/or color? It is definitely a vastly higher number than the releases in 3d, thats for sure.

Jesus...

Mad Max: Fury Road. Post-converted. Amazing in 3D.

I still enjoy watching films in 3D. My problem, especially when viewing at home, is not seeing any pop-out effects. I don't need things to pop out to enjoy the 3D experience, but I'll see people post about seeing things popping out of their TV by several feet. I don't get that same experience. In fact, it's rare that I can perceive something coming out of my screen. It's typically just depth.

You probably need to adjust your TV's 3D settings. Have a 72" Sony and do it for almost every 3D movie I watch. No particular setting seems to be the best for all 3D movies.

But maybe it's just me.

This was probably the last good 3D movie I saw.

Neither my wife nor I have ever been interested in seeing a movie in 3D. Life in 3D is good enough, movies in 2D have always been good enough for us. Anything more would be unnecessary and a distraction.

Took a rare trip to the theater this weekend because my dad wanted to see Star Trek Beyond- we saw that in Barco Escape which only a few theater in the country are equipped for, it's sort of a poor man's Cinerama with an extra screen on either side, but only used during certain shots in the movie. For some reason they couldn't show that and 3D at the same time, so I stuck it out even though the lack of depth was a let-down.

This was a recently-built theater that had advertised it had more 3D-equipped screens than any others in the area when it opened, but it looked like NONE of the movies they were showing, even ones like Ben-Hur that just opened this week, were being shown in 3D. I've heard 2D showings usually sell more tickets, but that's likely because of the upcharge most of the time. Sad that the greedy studios would allow them to drop 3D showings altogether rather than drop their stupid upcharges. I'll never go to see a 3D movie in 2D though, none of the other theaters in the area are showing Star Trek in 3D now and if they hadn't played it in Barco Escape I would have simply refused to go at all. (And having seen Barco Escape, I'm sure it looked better in 3D than that. I'll get the Blu-Ray when it comes out.)

OMG, how did you survive without 3D. You are SO STRONG. SO. STRONG.

I've been a 3D fan since the 80s. I always wished there'd be more movies made with it, and now that there are it's annoying that theaters don't run every showing of them in 3D, and there's people out there who actually prefer that! There's plenty of 2D movies out there for people who don't want to see 3D.

I haven't seen a movie without surround sound since 1989 either. (Meaning movies actually produced and mixed that way, if it's originally recorded in mono then that's how I want to hear it.)

Well, that's pretty fucking ridiculous.