question of the day: What should we call fake 3D so it’s not confused with the real deal?

3D-esque

2.5D

VMD for "View-Mastered"

We should call it fraud, and charge the movie companies as such.

Sorry for the double post, but VMD may not work if there is a real View Master movie
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/View-Master-The-Movie-13820.html

Faux-D

Frau-D

Greed-D

StealD

What's worse (and 2.5D - ha!) is that these movies make some ppl think ALL 3D is eye-killing, making them less willing to see movies actually filmed in 3D. I know that was certainly the case with me, aside from a few claymation movies that were distinct enough that they worked OK in 2.5D.

Crud-D? ;)

Cut-and-Paste 3D

"Converted 3D" as opposed to "Native 3D", or "3D-ized" to suggest "colorized". "2.5D" would work well too.

PD for Paper Doll cutouts?

2.5D is a video game term, used to describe a few early first person perspective games, such as "Doom" and "Duke Nukem 3D." As a parallel to movies, it doesn't really fit, though. Even those primitive early games offer a much more authentic 3D experience than any movie to date, including the impressive achievements of "Avatar."

With games, a 3D experience is much simpler to achieve, with much less expensive technology. Games let you project your sense of self into the screen, into the fully three dimensional environment of the game world. There is no need to create the illusion that things are poking out of the screen, no need for special glasses. Even with games that are only "2.5D," there are rarely any jarring breaks from the immersive 3D experience. As anyone who has nearly jumped out of their skin while playing "Doom" with the lights off can attest.

Because of this, I'd really prefer to see some other term for fake 3D in the movie industry.

Since fake 3D isn't even as good as 2.5D in video games (what's the difference to true 3D in video games?), maybe something dissier, like 2.00000000001 D would be appropriate?

Even with games that are only "2.5D," there are rarely any jarring breaks from the immersive 3D experience. As anyone who has nearly jumped out of their skin while playing "Doom" with the lights off can attest.

Yeah, I can definitely attest to that. Doom's graphics may not be up to par with modern games but the game play is still as good as it gets.

As for bogus 3D how about 3-D(ollars) more please.

2.5D is a video game term

2.5D is actually commonly used for any effort to fake 3D. Usually it's cleverly done and useful, as in Doom or Zbrush. Clash of the Titans is the first time I've heard of someone faking stereoscopic 3D, and with good reason, since that's a horrifying idea and no good can come of it.

Since fake 3D isn't even as good as 2.5D in video games (what's the difference to true 3D in video games?)

Old school games like Doom were actually 2D, i.e. the game engine only understood things in x and y coordinates, while true 3D games understand things in x, y, and z coordinates. It would be difficult to explain how that actually affects what you see without having the games in front of us to demonstrate, except to say that true 3D looks better.