When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel.

Don't be a rebel. Look where you are being told to look :-)

Several flat layers designed to appear at different distances. Awful.

I saw one of the Resident Evil films in 3D and it was exactly like that. It just looked like everything was a cardboard cutout. I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it was acceptable.

The people with the money saw a report that said 3D films made more money, so they demanded 3D. I'm sure the people actually making the movie thought it was a horrible idea, but F it; it's not their money.

My main problem with 3D is that while it looks sort of 3D, it also looks fake because the focus doesn't adjust as you look around the screen. When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel. It's no wonder 3D causes headaches in some people.

SO MUCH THIS ^^^

This is what bothered me most about Avatar. I have since trained myself to only look where the camera is focused.

My main problem with 3D is that while it looks sort of 3D, it also looks fake because the focus doesn't adjust as you look around the screen. When I want to focus on something in the background it's very disconcerting that the foreground is still in focus. When watching a 2D movie this isn't a problem because your brain knows that it's a flat image and you don't have to adjust focus. In 3D my eyes and my brain rebel. It's no wonder 3D causes headaches in some people.

The headaches are typically because of bad 3D. The Warcraft trailer before Star Wars made my eyes and head explode for example, and I normally do not experience discomfort in 3D.

The issue is with too much depth. You have two images on the screen, so imagine a ball. It will be on the screen in two places, separated a bit. If the ball is on the plane of the screen in the 3D space, then the balls will overlap. If it is off the screen towards you, then they will separate with the left eye ball on the right, and the right eye ball on the left. Thus you have to cross your eyes when you focus on them. This happens normally when you focus on close objects; your eyes cross to converge on them.

Behind the screen is a different story. In reality when you focus on something far away, it is at infinity, so your eyes just look out parallel to each other. But on the screen, objects behind the screen have the left eye on the left and the right eye on the right. Thus, you need to do the opposite of eye crossing. Imagine trying to point your right eye at your right ear, and your left eye at your left ear. Both eyes move outward. This is not something you ever do, and it's uncomfortable.

Your eyes are about 4 inches apart, so if anything has more depth than the two images being 4 inches apart, your eyes have to look out in opposite directions. Too much of this, or depth that is too far will hurt a lot.

This can be managed if you shoot and cut it properly.

I don't even remember what opinions I had before reading this post.

Avatar in 3D is still the only 3D film I wasn't disappointed with.

This is very surprising. Prometheus in 3D was significantly better. Any film that was animated with computers such as a pixar / dreamworks feature is better in 3D.

I think 3D would be even better for straight up dramas with no spectacle. The intimacy of seeing a 3D face that looks so real you can touch is pretty profound when it comes to reading and responding to the emotions of a character.

Remember how creepy Hannibal Lecter was? What if he looked straight at you like he does in silence of the lambs, but also came off the screen invading your personal space even more?

For me, 3D can be just as much a part of film as color if you think about it as just another aspect of your image.

Until 3D movies don't require extra gear (gear which may be scratched by the people who wore it before you did, or which doesn't fit you perfectly, or which shows you blurry edges of the screen around the parts that are actually covered by the lenses, or a half-dozen other potential problems with existing throwaway glasses), 3D movies will NEVER be as immersive as 2D movies that require no extra gear.

Several flat layers designed to appear at different distances. Awful.

I saw one of the Resident Evil films in 3D and it was exactly like that. It just looked like everything was a cardboard cutout. I'm at a loss as to how anyone thought it was acceptable.

I have a beefy iMac. True I could just switch over to bootcamp but some people don't have that.

Not a powerful enough GPU. Look at the minimum specs listed by Oculus. The only mac that can have have anything supported would be a pre trash can mac pro. Even the trash can macs have cards that are for compositing / CAD and not games.