QOTW: How do you prefer to watch movies: 2D or 3D?

[Spreadie]

2D

3D is a lot of hype for very little substance.

[Output]

2D every time, 3D has been a failed gimmick that has been attempted multiple times thus far.

[Saracen]

As others have said, 2D for headache reasons that being, 3D gives me one or makes the one I already have much worse. In 2D, I get to see the movie. In 3D, I get to see the start, then either end up in bed nursing a migraine-grade head, or face down in the thunderbowl relieving myself of my dinner in a fashion I prefer to avoid. And anyone close risks a 3D experience they'd rather avoid, too.

[Elspuddy]

2d because of my lazy eye and at home because of my anxiety attacks

[Percy1983]

4DX -> 3D -> 2D

Love the 4DX cinema experience as its something you can't really get at home. I like other have mentioned have a UHD passive 3D TV its I would say is the best option for 3D bluray and simply looks amazing.

I do have glasses where both eyes are the same so people can watch in 2D while I watch 3D.

[undergroove]

Unless the film was specifically shot in 3D, then it's 2D every time... can't be done with any of that conversion nonsense.

Case in point is Blade Runner 2049. Post-conversion job, and Roger Deakins' (the cinematographer) preferred version is the standard projection 2D version, over the 3D and even the IMAX.

[Spud1]

I've seen some amazing footage in 3D - mostly wildlife documentary's and bright colourful shows..but i've now given up on the format all together. My new TV doesn't have 3D and I don't miss it, and I don't bother with the 3D showings at the Cinema anymore unless its pretty much forced on me (as it seems to be with most IMAX releases these days, if you want to see it in IMAX).

Main thing I don't really like is how much it darkens the picture, particularly with Passive 3D, due to the polarisation. Active 3D is generally better but more headache inducing for my partner, so we've never really bothered. At the moment much happier watching things in 2D in glorious 4K HDR on my OLED. Beats 3D any day

[ilh]

2D where possible. All I see with 3D films is layers of 2D with no real depth, like they do on a stage in a low budget theatre play. Then they just add the usual gimmicks of falling leaves or a butterfly flying around leaving me feeling big wow that's worth adding 50% to the ticket price.

[pastymuncher]

3D for me as long as the film has been shot properly in 3D. I don't get any headaches and the 3D effect adds to the immersion in the film. The downside for me is that the active 3D glasses that came with out Samsung tv lets in way too much light from the sides so it can be distracting. One day I will fork out for some wrap around glasses on Amazon.

[Moogly]

3D for fantasy, sci-fi and superhero movies.
2D for everything else.

[LUKAYA]

for me it depends on the film if its done well and i think the film would benefit from the 3d then that would be my choice

[SkywalkerLuke]

3D for me if it is an option. Shame it's so expensive though..

[vicar]

2d for moi

[AGTDenton]

2D. Any type of glasses & goggles have always been uncomfortable for me. If they find a way to do 3D without glasses or VR without goggles then I will be far more interested.

A second issue I have with 3D is that it means the 2D versions have inferior CGI, it's like going back to the 90s; blocky, incorrect angles and looks pasted on Wordart.

[Presto86]

never seen a 3D film.

[Strawb77]

don`t have time to watch movies- too busy gaming.