xhonzi said:

adywan said:

CP3S said:

Still, seems kind of silly to have to wear a pair of stupid glasses just to watch a movie.

I, along with many other people, have to wear glasses to watch a regular movie, so i don't see the problem with the glasses

Hmm... who are these "people" you speak of? ;)

As a non glasses wearing-person, I would have thought that people already wearing one pair of glasses wouldn't mind so much wearing two pair to watch a 3D movie, but these "people" seem to be the most violently opposed...

Whoa! Quote taken out of context. When I said it "seems kind of silly to have to wear a pair of stupid glasses just to watch a movie", I wasn't talking about 3D glasses, I was talking about 3D to 2D glasses. The idea I was trying to convey was that it would be silly to have to wear a pair of 3D to 2D glasses to go and watch a film at the cinema in 2D. Especially when you pay extra to see it in 3D.

I don't care one bit for 3D, I think it is gimmicky. It is honestly the only part I enjoyed of Avatar, so I am not going to say it isn't kind of fun to experience, but even by the end of that unnecessarily long movie the novelty had worn off for me. I wouldn't want to see every movie in 3D. But I think the requirement of 3D glasses to see the film in 3D is more than reasonable and don't understand why so many people complain about it.

And for the record, I am extremely near sighted. Without my contacts, my computer screen is just a blur of color. So I'd be one of those who need glasses just to watch any film... though, I actually don't even own a pair of glasses... Hmmm, has anyone ever thought of inventing 3D contact lenses?