3D movies have been with us for a while now; from films that have had 3D versions created after the 2D process has been completed, like Clash of the Titans, to specially filmed 3D epics such as Avatar.

TV manufacturers - no doubt keen to keep sales levels up following the switch to digital - are now starting to push 3D as the next big thing, so it's looking like 3D is finally here to stay.

My question is does anyone really want it?

Do you think 3D adds or detracts from films? Is it just a gimmick? Is it something you would want at home?

(I was going to slap a poll on this, but I'm not entirely sure what questions I would ask!).

No interest in 3D at the cinema or at home for films.

I am incredibly interested (after originally dismissing it) in 3D for gaming though. I imagine the sense of depth given in a shooter say, would add a nice new layer to the gameplay.

I think I would like it at home, but not until they've improved the technology. The powered 3D glasses you get with TVs now apparently have a very noticable flicker that quickly gives you a headache. If they sorted all the minor problems out, I would love to watch the odd 3D film at home, but the fact that it would only be "the odd" film probably doesn't come near justifying the price. I think it would be more of a thing that you wished one of your friends had so you could go round and oggle it from time to time without having to make a huge investment.

Seconded about the 3D gaming though, I bet that would be ace.

Yeah, I think it's going to be best to wait for quite a while until they get rid of all the problems. I can remember a time when virtual reality was going to be the next big thing, then everyone realised it sucked and gave you motion sickness.

I've yet to be convinced of the artist value of 3D based on the 3D films i've seen, and i've seen both Avatar and Toy Story 3, both of which are generally regarded as the films that best use the technology. For me, it's not that the 3D is distracting in these films, it's that it is so subtle that I don't notice it being there. This, for me, is the fundamental problem with the technology; it's either used in such a way that you are constantly distracted by things poking out at you (for a great example of this look at the remake of My Bloody Valentine) or it is so 'immersive' that you don't notice it, in which case it might as well be in 2D.

no interest in 3D in the home or the cinema.

This. I tried watching Coraline in 3D once - it just made my eyes hurt as well as messing up the colours and it didn't really add anything to the viewing experience that made up for all of that. Besides, it's annoying trying to wear 3D glasses over the top of regular glasses.

Film and TV makers seem to be winding up to go hammer and tongs to get us to replace the TVs most of us have just bought for the digital switch over with another new technology.

What I'm finding interesting about this though is that it seems to be a film company/electronics manufacturer led phenomenon - it doesn't seem to be something the vast majority of people care about (or for).

No interest in 3Dmovies or TV at home. Do not want 3D in cinema although I will go see certain films in 3D yet only liked it in Avatar. Curious about 3D games, but won't be spending £3000 on the one I'd get if I did get one

It'll be interesting to see where things stand with 3D cinema in about a year's time, since there already seems to be a backlash building against the technology, or at least against the substandard use of the technology. After Alice In Wonderland came out, there were a lot of criticisms aimed at it for the way in which the 3D was grafted on afterwards, forcing people to pay extra for a substandard product. It didn't stop the film from being a juggernaut which has grossed over $1 billion worldwide, but there were a lot of disgruntled people out there. There's also the question of whether or not other factors, namely the combination of source material, director and star, were responsible for its success. but that's neither here nor there.

The release of The Last Airbender has stoked the fires even more this week, with pretty much everyone who has seen the film saying that the 3D is horrible and makes the film unwatchable in places (it's also meant to be godawful, which doesn't help) and word on the street (i.e. the website I write for) is that it's shaping up to be the first huge 3D flop. Hopefully this will dissuade studios from retrofitting 2D films into 3D, since people will be more savvy about whether or not they want to pay for an inferior product. I'd much rather see films being made which are designed to use the technology than a bunch of films that have it grafted on.

I'd never even thought about that before, that's dumb. Big business doesn't care about people with poor eyesight.

3D definitely adds to a film experience if it's done right.... If it's done wrong it can definitely ruin a film.

I think i said on another thread (probably the Avatar one), 3D is fine so long as it's level with the screen backwards.... if it comes too far out of the screen then this reminds you that you're in a room watching a screen & you're brought back into reality. This gimmick effectis ok for the horror genre though.
If the films action is behind the screen, then your brain will accept it, as it's like looking through a window.

As for 3D television, that's happening but i'm not totally convinced that it'll take off.
Firsty because of the promo 3D tv footage i've seen, most of it has been the wrong sort of 3D as stated above... I've seen rotating logos hovering a couple of feet in front of a tv. We dont need that.
Secondly, because the technology will be that of wearing glasses with polerised lenses. Who wands to wear glasses to watch tv?
I've seen 3D TVs though, where you don't need specs. Using a lenticular 3D effect. This is the future as far as i'm concerned.... except it's a future that's a little further away than next year.

It makes my eyes and head hurty.

mono, stereo, dolby, thx, 5.1, dts, 7.1... buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this...

black and white, colour, 16:9, flat screen, plasma, lcd, 3d... buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this, buy this...

it's all bollocks... personally, i'm happy with a good quality, good sized, stereo crt, 4:3.

i'm yet to see a decent flatscreen (at an affordable price) which doesn't suffer from all kinds of really nasty edge enhancement and ghosting problems. and people who have 16:9 tvs and watch 4:3 content so it is stretched to fit or cropped: it's just nasty to look at. if a film needs 7.1 sound to draw you into it, then it's not as good as it thinks it is. 3d is just another gimmick and another addition to this string of seller-led must have features.

Do I want 3-D? Not at all.

Until a huge majority of all films, regardless of genre and budget, are released in 3-D, I will see it as no more than a gimmick.

I can also see it making film makers lazy, using the process to compensate for lack of script, acting, originality etc. I see wave after wave of heartless, flashy action films coming our way. I'm still trying to work out what is so great about Avatar, because frankly it is very poor as a film.

If ayone who argues for 3-D, and wants an even more "immersive" experience at the cinema, I'll be quite happy to sit behind them at the cinema at the next action film they see and punch them in the head ever time someone on screen is struck.

I don't care for 3D films or TV, mostly because the 3D bit is always set-up in a way that takes you out of the story. You see a knife on the table and you just know it's going to come flying at you in a minute.

Interesting article: 3D films fall flat.

We had a little demo of 3D tv with shutter lenses in Dixons/Currys yesterday. It worked much better than in the cinema but the shuttering was visible in my peripheries (not correcting that if it's wrong) in areas that weren't the TV. I reckon it'd annoy me during films but Hayleigh made a good point and said I prbabky wouldn't notice whilst immersed in a game.
Glasses were quite comfy as well

Does anyone know of any website or any other way of finding out if a 3D film really is 3D?

I saw 'Piranah 3D' last week. ...It definitely wasn't shot in 3D. The rubbish effect turned a fairly enjoyable bad film into a terrible film. I've seen more convincing 3D footage with one eye shut.

If you don't already know whether a '3D' film is shot from 2 perspectives or is just a mocked up 3D effect,... how would you find out?

You can usually find out by looking on imdb.

Sony 3D is far superior to Samsung etc, you certainly can't see the shutters flickering as they're glasses work 2.5 x faster I'm not surprised. Wipeout HD in 3D was great fun and looked fantastic. I can't afford £2000 though.

According to wikipedia

Wow. I'd hate to see one that was an after thought.