Ever get spinned on one of those twirling playground rides and then stumble off? That resembles how I felt when I recently watched a 3-D film. At the Indiana State Musuem, a shark seemingly a foot away on the ten story IMAX screen was visually interesting, but wasn't worth the unnatural sensation. Whenever the camera panned over the dinosaurs or sharks swimming, the 3-D animation abruptly cut off at the edge of the screen. Although I probably wouldn't have enjoyed a normal film about sharks and dinosaurs anyways, my favorite part about going to the Indiana State Museum would probably be the gift shop rather than the 3-D film. I have a sweet tooth for cotton candy and an attraction towards geodes and souvenirs. My lack of good taste in enjoying art is similar to Count Pococurante's in Candide.
"3-D," which could be used as an emoticon depiction of a sideways smile, is a term that confuses me. When I visualize 1-D, I think of a dot. When I viualize 2-D, I recall Super Mario Bros on the Gameboy Advance. When I visualize 3-D, I picture a typical film like Harry Potter. Therefore, I consider "3-D" movies to be just typical movies with more (and in my opinion, unnecessary) depth; I prefer watching regular movies unless the 3-D movie doesn't come with cumersome glasses, offers really special effects (in one showing, I got sprayed with water), or requires 3-D in the plot. Since Toshiba recently released its glassless (is that a word?) 3-D television, I hope that IMAX and other theatres follow suit. I would rather trade my 3-D experience for reclining seats and an intermission.
Yesterday marked an important day in 3-D technology: the release of the Nintendo 3DS. Although the console sounds very interesting, I'm concerned that the sales will turn into a flop, as they did with the PS3, because the high-end features came at an impractical cost-economy. I'm not much of a gamer, but I think that a 3DS is long overdue. When I was eight, I thought there'd be holographic visuals in a decade, but I was woefully disappointed; nevertheless, I'm settling for "3-D." I'd rather not be able to feel Mario landing a wrestling move on top of me.
My gripe with 3D is that it seems like there are fewer choices of movies to see on any given weekend because so many movies take up two screens - the regular version and the 3D version. I'm sort of hoping the 3D trend dies out, because I don't really see what's so great about the experience, and it bugs me that so many films now require two screens, thus reducing the choices for those of us who just want to see a film with a good script and decent acting.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that 3d movies require the glasses. I might go see some of them if I didn't have to wear my regular glasses under the 3d ones. Glassless 3d isn't coming to theaters anytime soon though. It would require theaters to replace their projection systems and build new screens, because the 3d effect relies on a layer between the screen and the viewer.
ReplyDeleteFor some bizarre and impossibly incomprehensible (no, I jest, it's completely comprehensible) reason, 3-D films in general strike me as indubitably tacky. I have a penchant for prettiness in film, I suppose it's not hard to believe, and the manner in which the 3-D effects manage to make everything in an otherwise perfectly good picture almost painfully ugly is astounding in its breadth and capability. The beautiful things in a picture, I would note, rarely have anything to do with the 3-D effect. It's true that the "effect" in traditional film accounts almost entirely for the sensation of viewing a picture in three dimensions; all that the modern "3-D" phenomenon addresses is stereopsis, or the perception of depth from the two different projections of an image on two different retinas (obviously accounting for the unapproachability of a film of this breed sans the silly glasses). It remains imperfect, partially because it was a bad idea to begin with (well, at least it would be a bad idea to replace traditional film techniques with this. I can imagine some films that might benefit from 3-D treatment. Snakehead Terror, anyone?), and partially because it doesn't accommodate (technical term, not as a hostess without the extra guest room). They're working on that, though I don't think the fancy autostereoscopic displays have addressed it.
ReplyDeleteI have never watched a 3-D movie -- I'm too cheap to spend the extra couple bucks for a ticket -- and frankly, I don't particularly want to. I hear that it's overrated. But sales are strong, so I hear.
ReplyDelete