Wednesday, May 26, 2010

I Don't Want My 3DTV



Is Three Dee the future of Television? Canadian 3D evangelist James Stewart thinks so. From Mediacaster Magazine:

"3D's time has come. You see it in the blockbuster global box office success of Avatar and the 3D commercial success by major brands such as Sprint, Mazda and Vodafone. The advertising community is now ready and eager to capitalize on 3D's immersive effect," said Stewart. "But, across the creative community, we still have a lot to learn as we all tool up for 3D production."

(3D evangelist - WTF?)

Gak...I hope not. 3D feels like yet another technological advancement like flat screen and 1080p and 120hz and HD with the logic behind the sales job being: 'If it looks sharper, slicker, brighter, faster, 3D-er...it will *be* better.' But a nice looking image and good sound only can compliment what's on the television. Good stories and compelling creative content is what makes TV better.

Not only that, 3-D TV feels way more gimmicky then all the other recent technological advancement.

Roger Ebert wrote a great piece a few weeks ago about why he hates 3-D...read it HERE. And even though Mr. Ebert was talking mostly about films in movie theatres, a lot of the negatives he lists can be applied to the recent 3-D TV craze.

From Newsweek:

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

Hear hear.

I tested out a 3-D television recently and found it an absolute pain. Special glasses hooked up to a special box with a cable that let you move around maybe 3 feet. Having to sit in a specific position and watch from a certain angle to achieve 'optimum' results!. And the worse thing was an inability to 'interact' with the television and the environment, as it were - as in not really able to look around and converse with co-watchers...or easily get up and go to the door or the phone or the fridge...or be able to surf on my laptop and tweet snark with pals while watching the Lost series finale. No, I was expected to sit down and put on those glasses and not move from my chair until the 3-D portion of the screening was over.

Not to mention I hate putting more glasses over my regular glasses.

I still want my MTV (back when it actually had music videos and was...you know, good) but I don't want my 3DTV.

Although...

6 comments:

Your Girl Jimmy said...

Boobs is not enough of a reason to want to actually own and operate a 3D tv. This can't honestly be a thing can it? I find the whole fad just irreverent.

Good Dog said...

...But, across the creative community, we still have a lot to learn as we all tool up for 3D production."

Which is that only tools are up for 3D.

I can;t say that back when I was watching The West Wing or The Wire of BSG I was thinking, boy, if only this was in 3D it would be even better.

If that dreadful pile of shriveled camels' knackers called Avatar is anything to go by, good storytelling is going to have a giant shit taken on it as programme makers think that by simply pushing some shiny-shiny in our faces we're all going to whoop and clap and gurgle like a baby.

I think there's more money to be made north of the 49th by selling tee-shirts that say, 'Please don't think all Canadians are just insufferable cocks like James Cameron' to folk going abroad on their holidays.

DMc said...

I will say, though, that I think boobs were the killer app for selling "girls" - an otherwise unstable & finicky technology.

wcdixon said...

Who can argue with "boobs"...honestly!

deborah Nathan said...

Boys, really. Spartacus, Blood and Sand, 3D - I think that covers all the bases.

About 3D, been there, done that - Vincent Price, House of Wax.

scoops_lili said...

Dude, all elements of storytelling are "tools." For a guy who worked on shows like: 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?', 'Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal', 'The Outer Limits', 'Earth Final Conflict' I would have thought you'd get it. 3D is another element of storytelling-- one that would lend itself really well to the types of shows you've been involved in. Not all scripts deserve 3D. Certainly summer blockbusters in 3D are revitalizing the industry. You should stop sounding like the guy in the 1930s who thought the use of colour was a travesty... But then again you are the guy who admits he’s: "a little independent always aspiring to be the summer blockbuster... and ending up somewhere in the middle." Embrace 3D... maybe then you'll get yourself out of your chronically Canuck middle ground.