Depth-Defying Dorkiness
Posted on | February 3, 2009 at 10:30 pm | 2 Comments
Pet Peeve of the Day: The Third Dimension.
Oh, it can be cool and everything, but will it ever really rise above “gimmick” status? James Cameron says (I think) that all his movies are going to be 3D from now on, which probably explains why it takes him ten years to make one. Yeah, I saw Beowulf in 3D IMAX, and that did draw me into the movie, but I never did see the non-3D version to compare.
Recently, there were a couple of SuperBowl ads in 3D, including a trailer for the upcoming animated movie Monsters Vs Aliens. Even though I knew about the gimmick beforehand, I didn’t go out and seek the 3D glasses. I wasn’t even quite sure how to do that, though I knew that it was a promotion through Sobe Life Water and I guess that glasses were available at store displays. Did you have to make a purchase? From the commercials, the glasses didn’t look like the old standard red/blue glasses, which I have plenty of from old 3D comics. Anyway, when I saw that 3D trailer without glasses, it of course looked fuzzy, like there was an aura around everything. That lessened my enjoyment of it and I was bummed.
I haven’t been watching the TV show Chuck this season, since I was pretty marginal about it the first season. But as part of this same promotion, last night’s episode was in 3D, which you needed the same glasses to view. It wasn’t enough of an enticement to get me to watch the show again, although perhaps I would’ve if I did have the glasses. My friend Pilto does still watch the show, and when he attempted to watch it (DVRed) without the glasses, he was too bothered by the fuzziness and couldn’t do it. Today he was searching out the glasses so he could watch it tonight, and I guess I’ll find out tomorrow if he was successful. He may end up just having to delete the episode unwatched, which says to me that this gimmick failed.
And even when 3D works, is it too distracting? Does it draw too much attention to itself and pull focus (ha ha) away from the story? I don’t believe that any kind of audiovisual enhancement technology where you have to wear something on your head is ever going to catch on in a big mainstream way. It’s just too uncomfortable and dorky. It’s bad enough I sometimes have to wear wireless headphones when watching noisy shows TV in order to not disturb the girlfriend. (Although I must say it does make understanding dialog easier for these aging ears.) Once they get 3D working without glasses, then perhaps it will become the entertainment norm. But since the world is a hologram anyway, will it really matter?
Latre.
Yes, I know I used the word “glasses” approx 200 times in this post. You try finding another word for it. I suppose I could’ve stuck in one or two uses of “spectacles”, but what’s the point?
Songs That Came Up On The iPod While Exercising Since Last Bog Update: None, since I haven’t exercised. No sooner did I get over my cold then my right foot started hurting when I walk. Good thing I’m getting a lot of use out of that new gym membership!
Poignant Search Term Of The Day That Led To This Blog: “how to get rid of crabs for guys”.
Videogame(s) Played Since Last Blog Update: Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia (DS)
Comments
2 Responses to “Depth-Defying Dorkiness”
February 3rd, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
“Poignant”?
February 8th, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
Chuck is already off my DVR schedule. Heroes is next. And from the fuzziness, it looked like generic blue/red shift 3D. They need a version that doesn’t ruin the viewing for non-glasses wearing viewers.