Why is it that 3-D, which has been around forever, cannot seem to climb beyond the level of gimmick?
I've lived my whole life with the peculiar notion of 3-D movies, comics, and whatnot. It usually gets ranked with hula hoops and coonskin caps, reduced to a fad.
It's with us again famously in Avatar, a movie I have not seen, nor plan to see. The spectacle of 3-D was not enough to make me reluctantly go to the theater. Other flicks are trying it, and I'd imagine with some success based on the reviews I stumble across.
But 3-D is still the story, the oddity of the experience. It's the glasses I guess. When they can dispense with the glasses and the experience becomes completely user friendly, then maybe it will become as commonplace as surroundsound, just a part of a greater experience and not a spectacle unto itself.
But after yet another brief burst of notoriety, I suspect it will fade away again and go live for a time with Rubik's cubes and hot pants. Maybe it will take tatoos with it.
Until then this remains my favorite 3-D experience. The King deserved 3-D!
Rip Off
Yep, it's the glasses. They suck, work only for some and not for others; and when wearing them the user can look at nothing else. Add to this that the effect, while novel, becomes slightly boring unless the movie or comic creates specific scenes and panels only for this effect, which hinder effective storytelling. They (the cheap cardboard glasses) are also very uncomfortable, and making comfortable ones makes the whole project (a movie, comic, whatever) far too expensive. 3-d only works in the Viewmaster format, which is designed solely for a 3-D experience. (Whew!)
ReplyDeleteMy name is 3D-Gumby, darn it.
ReplyDeleteCheers!
Steven G. Willis
XOWComics.com