jump to navigation

If only I worked for Fox News (and was assigned a 3D story) January 27, 2009

Posted by John Taylor in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

Jon Stewart has often mockingly celebrated the Fox News invention of making outrageous, charged statements in the form of leading questions. I don’t have to look back any further than President Obama’s inauguration, with Chris Wallace one hour later still asking “Is Obama even president?

 

In Fox News style, here are a few questions I’d ask the powers behind the push to bring “active” stereoscopic 3D to TV and movies:

  1. Apparently, during this year’s “Not Exactly Patriots vs. Giants” Super Bowl, we will be treated to a Sobe beverage commercial in 3D. It seems the awkwardly-shy-about-putting-its-logo-on-anything and painfully-self-conscious-about-not-overshadowing-its-customers Intel decided this is the right moment in history to print up 125 million paper stereoscopic 3D glasses (That is not at all wasteful. Suck on THAT Mother Earth!) with an Intel logo right between the eyes. And give them away free so we can watch a beverage commercial in 3D? Oh, and an episode of “Chuck” in 3D too? My Fox news question: Were Intel marketers inspired by the movie “Idiocracy” in convincing themselves that America wants to sit around looking at one another at Super Bowl parties with an Intel logo blazed between our eyes, watching ads?
  2. DreamWorks, you are going to considerable expense to make your future animated projects stereoscopic 3D. You in fact said this is why you selected Intel as your processor supplier (After all, Intel is famous infamous for its 3D and graphics capabilities). But with theater adoption of digital 3D not only off the pace but likely to even decelerate in 2009 due to economic considerations, is this the 80/20 rule in reverse? According to the Dallas Morning News: “Only about 1,300 of North America’s 40,000 or so movie screens support digital 3-D. (IMAX adds 250, which combined is still less than 1/20th). Overseas, where films now generate up to 70 percent of their theatrical revenue, only a few hundred theaters can support the technology.” So Fox News asks: We love your movies, DreamWorks, but do you think it is a good idea to exert 80% extra effort and expense even though much less than 20% of your audience can even experience it?
  3. I’ll just jump to the Fox News question here. Do any of us really want to have to look like these guys to watch something in 3D?

I rest my case for a passive (no 3D glasses) 3D viewing experience.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Patrick Moorhead - February 2, 2009

Interesting analysis.

A few folks had some interesting things to say about the 3D commercials and Bruce Springsteen’s slide: http://bit.ly/eCZI

People semed to correlate Bruce’s “wardrobe failure” to 3D “action.”

2. jtrex - February 2, 2009

Well, I have heard from some that 3D was every bit as prevalent at the Adult Film Industry Expo as it was at CES 2009 taking place in Las Vegas at the same time. Perhaps it is telling that the buzz on Monday after the Super Bowl is NOT about Intel glasses or 3D DreamWorks commericals, but instead people taking sides on whether or not that crotch-in-camera slide by the boss would have been better in 3D.

3. me - February 4, 2009

There’s a 3D website that uses those glasses too – kissmein3d.com.

4. Everything I should have posted in March… « JTRex - March 30, 2009

[…] finally, an updates on my Monsters vs. Aliens 3D post. The film came out to solid box office last weekend, but decidedly mixed reviews. Roger Ebert’s […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: