The Daily Procrastinator

Coming soon to your living room?

I remember my first 3-D movie: it was Jaws 3-D, and the memory of that 35 foot long (no shit) great white shark exploding and half of its jaw bone floating right before my eyes is something I still recall fairly vividly today.

Meh. The shark still looks fake

But that’s probably because I was 10 years old at the time. The novelty of wearing those cardboard glasses and seeing the images pop out at me made that abomination of a movie different, but definitely not better. Memories of watching non-3-D movies like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark are just as vivid in my mind.

Flash forward, oh, 20+ years later and the 3-D movie experience hasn’t changed all that much: we’re still expected to wear the glasses (now plastic and at a surcharge) and, perhaps beyond a few scenes, the 3-D experience doesn’t add a heck of a lot to the Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs movie watching experience.

Unless maybe you’re 10.

Which is why all this talk of 3-D television baffles me. Apparently Sony and Panasonic think the next big thing is television sets that will allow us the experience of 3-D right in our living rooms. But who on earth wants that? 3-D movies work (occasionally) for kid movies and as a gimmick for tired sequels (i.e., Jaws 3-D; Friday the 13th, 3-D; Final Destination 3-D), but beyond that, no one except the money-grubbing studios are clamoring for these films to be made.

Let’s look at the reasons this idea is bound for failure:

1) Size of the screen: 3-D movies work because everything is so huge. Yes, televisions are larger today, and getting larger, yet most homes will have a limit to both budget and space available. Small images floating in front of a small screen just won’t make as much of an impression.

2) 3-D is a social experience: When objects jump out at audiences in 3-D movies, the creators want a reaction out of the audience. We attempt to move out of the way when an object is thrown “at us” – and we shriek and laugh along with the rest of the audience after it happens. At home, there’s generally not going to be a large viewing audience, so that interaction is lost.

3) High Definition. HD TV is a phenomenal upgrade from standard definition, the pictures are gorgeous, and it’s practically brand new. When we upgraded to a 1080p TV, my wife and I sat stunned by the picture quality our Blu-Ray movies provided, and commented that they practically looked three dimensional. And this was without a set of those damned glasses! Speaking of which…

4) Those damned glasses. What guy wants to sit down to watch Monday Night Football wearing a pair of ill-fitting glasses? Who will watch CSI: Miami which will have only two truly 3-D moments in the entire show (one being when Caruso’s shades come flying toward you in the first two minutes)? We have 3-D televised events already (Superbowl commercials/half-times; Disney channel movies), and these are met largely with skepticism if not completely disregarded. And, hell, I have a hard enough time finding my remote – how am I going to keep up with a pair of cheap plastic glasses?

I suppose I could be wrong, but 3-D television, in my eyes, has “failed experiment” written all over it. It’s not 10 year olds buying the TVs, and, unless the technology makes giant leaps over the next year or so, 3-D television will be the next “Beta” of the entertainment industry.

Now, all bets are off if the porn industry gets involved…