The world of red and blue is making a comeback. At least that’s what some think, and no, I’m not talking about politics. Yes that’s right, 3D is about to re-warp our televisions, movie theatres and computers.
James Cameron, film director said, “Soon audiences will associate 3D with the highest level of visual content in the market and seek out that premium experience.” My question to Mr. Cameron: What happens when you substitute writing or story lines for visual content? 3D is slowly taking over the media of America one television set and movie theatre at a time. When looking to last Sunday’s Super Bowl and this Monday’s episode of Chuck, it appears 3D has already entered mainstream television. The Super Bowl contained a 3D preview of the film, Monsters vs. Aliens, and a commercial for Sobe beverages. I’ll be honest with you, I did not view this segment of the Bowl with the 3D glasses. So, it was very awkward watching a triple blue and red lined visual. Which brings me to why I think 3D television might be a little too ahead of its time. People without the glasses are given a blurry version of their favorite television show. This isn’t a huge problem for movie theatres because the glasses are given and required, but for those in their own home, it becomes a problem.
As someone who wears glasses, I’d rather wear contacts, and I hope in no near future do we have 3D contacts.
The complaint I have is that people don’t enjoy wearing glasses and people who have never worn them dislike them even more. If television were to continue on this 3D journey they would most certainly lose part of their audience. 3D television becomes a hassle for the everyday viewer in retrieving the 3D glasses and wearing them during the show. There also is that other element of color which turns the show into a blue and red mess.
The solution is to lose the red and blue and make the glasses transparent so the audience can view the show the way the creator wanted it to be viewed.
Already, with the show “Chuck”, audiences have seen 3D in action and the show’s ratings actually did bump up. However, that might have been more so because of the relentless promos and ads for the show than the 3D element.
Even though the ratings did get better, many people have been disappointed in the quality of the video itself. So, it is possible that if another show were to premiere with 3D elements, it could fall even flatter due to word of mouth.
Now, when it comes to the movie theatres, there are plans to release many new movies in 2009 from studios such as Disney, Dreamworks, New Line and Twentieth Century Fox. It seems more and more studios are looking to the power of 3D to boost their revenues and open to a larger market. I am, for the most part, fine with 3D films even though I think it’s a tad tacky and a market that usually produces films starring fish or used for amusement park rides.
My main issue with 3D films of the future include the digitalized versions of classics. Exhibit A: “Star Wars.” George Lucas’ own classic science fiction adventure is making its jump to the3D world with help from Lucas himself. Now, as a member of the universe of nerd, I know the dents Lucas has put in his own franchise. I believe that recreating the films in 3D is just the baseball bat to the windshield of the franchise.
It’s bad enough that he digitally inserted Hayden Christensen into one of the final scenes of his franchise and feels the need to remove actors voices because they were cast differently in his prequels. Now, sure, “Star Wars” is a sci-fi adventure and fits with the element of 3D film, but where is the line drawn? Will we one day be seeing Humphrey Bogart’s face smack dab in front of our noses as he says goodbye to Ilsa in “Casablanca” or Jack Nicholson in “Cuckoo’s Nest” sitting amongst audience members and asylum patients? What I say to that is, I’m sorry Hollywood, but I like my movies with only two dimensions.
No comments:
Post a Comment