Quote:

 

I was surprised to learn over the holiday weekend that my younger cousins (under 10 years of age) overall hated to see movies in 3D, as opposed to 2D. The reason: they don’t like wearing glasses for 2 hours.

There was no bias coming from the parents, and whatever format the kids chose the family saw together.

This was not a surprise when it comes to toddlers, who can’t sit still for any length of time, let alone keep glasses on. But kids being kids, I naturally assumed they would vote for technology and novelty every time, so I was surprised when my generalization was disproved by these exceptions.

Mojochi

Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:52 am

Stereoscopic technology has been around, in one form or another, since the first Daguerreotype photographs, back in the 1830's, & this recent wave of attempts to make it a cultural success isn't going any better than it has with the last attempts.

The fact is, 3D has been pushed since back in the 50's, & it's fair success then tried to resurface during the 80's. When I was a kid they talked about Jaws 3D. Every couple of decades, they get a hard-on for selling it again, & they always sell it as strange, exciting & new. It may be more developed, just like all film technology is, but it's not new, & the craze always dies off, when it's realized that audiences really don't care all that much

I was bored one night, & went to see the new Jackass movie, & had the choice of seeing it in 2D or 3D, & I went with 2D & the teller actually stopped me & said "You realize this isn't the 3D version right?" I said "Yeah" realizing she was only doing her job, & got told to say that by her boss or whatever

But what I really wanted to say was "Why the fuck would I want to see Steve O puke on himself in 3D, dumbass?" When you can do lifelike holography, then I'll be interested in 3D. Until then, it's just ostentatiousness.