But they also mentioned a string of past attempts that never gained traction: Paladin's outstanding Blue Ray review thread - and the arguments over ever-better video media - has me curious if the 3-D medium can ever overcome the need for special glasses in the US? Or is Blue Ray and HD the natural next step after DVD? Sort of related topic (rant)- I bought a new computer 12+ months ago and paid for XP Pro to be installed as an add-on since I didn't need Vista yet. But the computer came with the Vista OS on disc for what I figured was the inevitable need to upgrade for new programs and games. Now Microsoft has already made Vista obsolete and I haven't even installed the fuckin thing yet. I know computer tech is on a much faster track than video tech, but by analogy I have a similar concern if I upgrade to Blue Ray video at some point over the next couple of years and then the standard become 3-D something like 5 years later. I've already been through all this with upgrading my 8-tracks to cassettes to CDs, man.
I wouldn't say it's "conquered the movies" yet. I'm a pretty regular cinema-goer and I've never watched one, most likely because the 3D releases are all kids cartoons and gimmicky showcases.
What Tex said. The major 3D technologies for movies all give me a pounding headache. Until they come up with something that doesn't require special glasses or anything, I'm not interested.
Yeah, I've actually never watched anything in 3-D - didn't know about the headache thing. But the idea of depth perception just struck me as cool in some contexts, particularly action oriented stuff. Before seeing the article I'd assumed 3-D was still limited to stuff like those paper eyeglasses in the 50s, and since it hadn't gone anywhere in a half-century I was surprised that they were still trying and even making some inroads. Guess the Japanese are oddballs for more than just kiddie cartoon porn, subway smushing, and high teen suicide rates.
There is 3D technology that doesn't require special glasses, but it has some limitations. Some of the Hi-Def 3D demos I've seen have been absolutely stunning. Special glasses, however, are probably always going to be required.
I have a feeling that the reason we're seeing a rash of 3-D movies (or movies with 3-D segments) is that if you try to bootleg the flick with a video camera, you wind up with an unwatchable mess. One of the biggest problems I have with 3-D movies is that they generally seem obsessed with sticking things at the audience. I know I'm watching a movie, and I'm not going to be dodging a stick shoved at me by an actor on the screen. Especially not if its something that's happening every 30 seconds. Just shoot the movie like you would a 2-D movie, and I'll enjoy it greatly (seeing something like the asteroid scene in ESB in 3-D would be awesome, provided I didn't have things flying directly at me every thirty seconds for no reason other than to remind me that I'm watching a 3-D movie, because the director is worried I've somehow forgotten this, despite the fact that I'm wearing goofy glasses on my face, which are cutting into my ears).
I think this is one of the reasons that 3D will always be a fad. It really doesn't add as much as producers think unless you throw sticks at the audience. The whole appeal is the novelty, and unless they invent some better way to use it and get rid of the glasses, it's always going to be a novelty. It doesn't suit most movies, maybe space movies, action movies, stuff like that -- but not other types of moves. Nobody will pay extra to see Slumdog Millionaire in 3D, nor Romantic comedies.
