By Gary Dickson
Several weeks ago my wife, daughter and I went to the theater to see “Thor.” Because it was in 3-D we had to pay extra for tickets and wear 3-D glasses throughout the movie. Truthfully, I thought the fact that it was in 3-D was a major distraction. There were no amazing effects that I noticed and even with the glasses on the picture seemed fuzzy. The movie was great, but it would have been an even better experience in 2-D.
Fast forward a couple of weeks and we were at the theater to see another movie. We thought it was going to be in 3-D, so we were all relieved when we discovered that it wasn”t being shown in 3-D locally. But, another movie was and we overheard a discussion, not actually an argument, between a man and woman who were behind us in the ticket line. They were planning to see the 3-D movie. The conversation went like this. Upon learning that the movie was in 3-D, the woman said to the man, “You didn”t tell me this movie is in 3-D.” The man said, “I guess I forgot.” The woman said, “I don”t want to wear those stupid glasses. They give me a headache.” The man replied, “We”ll have to wear them in order to watch the movie.” That was all I heard before walking into the theater.
Apparently my family and the couple in the ticket line are not the only people who are less than enamored with 3-D movies. While the movie industry has been saturating the theaters with 3-D movies lately, many movie fans are hoping that it will not last. Lots of moviegoers are optimistic that complaints from ticket buyers, which include the extra ticket cost, poor viewing experience, eye strain, dizziness and headaches, will cause an industry change even though top corporate leaders from film studios and television manufacturers are betting the farm that 3-D is the wave of the future.
Last year marked the debut of 3-D televisions. In the entire North American market only 1.6 million were sold. All television innovations, such as color, high definition and flat screens have taken time to spread throughout the public. Those people who have recently purchased a television with the old technology are not likely to rush right out and plunk down more money to buy another TV with the new technology. But, even with that knowledge, manufacturers were extremely disappointed by the low sales number.
If I were in the movie or television business I would be considering the fact that those other major changes were vast improvements over what had previously existed. Just as many moviegoers are not enthralled by 3-D movies, I don”t believe the general public is wildly excited about 3-D television. Really, who wants to pay more for a TV set and have to wear 3-D glasses to watch it, especially when 3-D viewers have a 25 percent chance of getting a headache, eye strain or nausea, according to an Associated Press report.
In the recent past only one movie in 3-D has really caused people to rave about the 3-D effects. That was “Avatar.” Unfortunately, the majority of the 3-D movies made don”t have the budget to do what James Cameron did with “Avatar,” thus the 3-D effects generally lack pizzazz. So, the ticket buyers just pay more for substandard 3-D and stand the chance of getting sick.
I read that scientists are working on a 3-D system that will eliminate the need for glasses and most of the queasiness, but it will be a few years before it is completed and on the market. I don”t like to tell people how to run their business, but perhaps the movie and television industries should back off the 3-D for now and wait until it works well enough to not upset so many customers.
Gary Dickson is the publisher of the Record-Bee. Call him at 263-5636, ext. 24. E-mail him at gdickson@record-bee.com.
