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: , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

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