10 Reasons Why People Won't Watch 3D TV

tvpredictions.com ^ | July 6, 2011 | Phillip Swann

[WayneS]

Then again, I also look at today’s computer graphic special effects in movies, and think they look so fake as to be unreal...

I agree with you.

[Mr. Jazzy]

Reason 12: There is no cowbell. If 3D TV had cowbell, it would rock.



I'm just sayin' . . .

[jacquej]

I wonder how many people in the USA have a “lazy eye”, and therefore have little or no depth perception?

I do, efforts to correct it failed, and even though you can’t tell by looking at me, I essentially only use my good eye. 3D wouldn’t do much for me.

[Mears]

I use “mute” for every single ad,for all car chases,and often for the Red Sox games when Jerry and Don start getting on my nerves.

[WayneS]

Good one!

[VanDeKoik]

It really is nothing special.

The screen is simply not big enough where the 3D actually is enjoyable.

Maybe for the occasional nature/space documentary or kids show.

[Moonman62]

Then again, I also look at today’s computer graphic special effects in movies, and think they look so fake as to be unreal. I’m probably in a minority on that, but the computer graphics special effects just don’t impress me.

I'm with you there. Even the big budget stuff looks fake. The other thing I don't like is they are making movies very dark to hide the artificiality of the effects.

[pabianice]

11. If you have astigmatism, you can focus only one eye at a time watching 3D TV. Migraine, anyone?

12. If you have floaters, all you can see are the floaters. AIEEE!

[Jonty30]

If it’s real 3-D, it’ll poke your eyes out, so glasses aren’t necessary.

[antiRepublicrat]

Most prescription drugs.

[WayneS]

Yes, but they're 3-D floaters!

[whd23]

In case you're serious:

CueCat

[Notary Sojac]

you almost forget what's happening on the field or in a movie. If you're a Chicago Cubs fan, that could be a plus

Damn, that hurt, Dave.

[discostu]

#6 should really be reasons 1-4. The glasses are what continue to kill the 3D fad in the theaters, and kill it even harder in the home. I won’t watch 3D with glasses, period, not in the theaters, not at home, not ever. It was OK when the fad hit when I was a kid but it’s no longer acceptable, the glasses are just too annoying, heavy, dumb, expensive, difficult to “layer” with normal corrective lenses.

[ryan71]

The more 3D movies I watch, and they're common now, the less effect the seem to be to me.

I don't know if my eyes, my mind or both are being trained over time to not be fooled by it or not.

The last movie I saw, Cars II, just seemed garbled. No, my eyes are otherwise, great.

[antiRepublicrat]

Because when you’re watching an Obama press conference in 3D you instinctively cringe when he turns his head as the big ear appears to be flying out to hit you.

[kaylar]

My local theater is an “8 plex” (octoplex?) and they’ve recently started giving the patron a choice on 3 D : For movies that are in 3 D, you can either buy a ticket for the 3 D showing OR the 2 D showing-your choice. We have been shunning the 3 D option and going with the regular version as too many 3 D films have NOT been improved by the 3 D-in fact, many seemed too darkly lit(hard to see what’s going on onscreen) , the 3 D seems to be used as a substitute for a plot, character development, or anything else you’d like in a film, and most of the time , it’s not real 3 D any way, just computer simulation of 3 D inserted post filming, and that looks even worse than true 3 D which we don’t like in the first place! We bought a 48” flat panel HDTV 1080p in 2009-no way in h—l are we going to replace it with a 3 D tv, and I wonder how many people who *like* 3 D will feel compelled to replace their flat panels, in this economy. No Mr. TV Manufacturer, we *won’t* pretend it’s 2005, just because you want us to!

[Mr. Quarterpanel]

3DTV is the Betamax of the 21st century.

[JoeGar]

11. 3D means nothing to those of us with eyesight in one eye only.

[Ditto]

The Glasses Are Too Expensive For a Family Some TV makers bundled one free pair of 3D glasses with each 3D TV purchase. But what about a family of four? Or, a family of six? Or, a family of eight. Large families do exist, you know. (Just watch any Discovery channel documentary if you don't believe me.) With the glasses costing up to $150 a pop, how can even a mid-sized family afford one for everyone?

My wife recently went out and bought a LG HDTV with 3-D and it came with 4 pairs of glasses and also said that the cheep throw-away glasses they give you at the movie theaters will work as well.

As to the other comments in the article, I tend to agree. It's a nice 3-D effect, but it's not all that exciting to me.