Are we ready for 3-D viewing from the comfort of our own homes? Ah, that’s the question facing manufacturers, hardcore home entertainment enthusiasts, and everyone with his or her eyes on this year’s CES. Avatar‘s stunning box office success shows audiences are willing to shell out for a 3-D experience, but it’s not at all clear that that enthusiasm for immersive viewing will translate to living rooms.
A few months ago, I got to try Panasonic’s entry into the market, which, like all other current 3-D options, requires special glasses. The glasses are sort of cumbersome, and they work best when you’re centered in front of the screen and staring directly at it. It’s great if you want to devote every fiber of your being to whatever you’re watching, but I very rarely enjoy TV that way. More often, I’m multitasking in front of my home television: e-mailing or Internet surfing or cooking or just futzing around. That’s why I don’t think all TV is suited for 3-D, at least not now. I’d watch sports in 3-D in a heartbeat, and movies (like Avatar), where the 3-D was really relevant, would get my full attention, too — not to mention 3-D gaming. But we’re probably still a way off from 3-D being the standard for TVs.
Are you dying for sofa-ready 3-D, PopWatchers?
Photo Credit: TV: Stone/Getty Images
How is the 3-D aspect of Avatar “relevant”, aside from being the only reason to watch the film? It does nothing to enhance the plot OR the characters.
Because here’s the thing. I totally dig 3D. Because it’s cool. But traditionally 3D presentations are movies like: Jaws 3. Nightmare on Elm Street 6. Pirhana! S*** like that. Cheeseball movies. How does James Cameron have the stones to make just another cheeseball 3D movie and call it the ‘future of the industry’?
So you haven’t seen Avatar then?
Yeah crispy, I get it, you’re the lowest common denominator. Great job.
I saw Avatar and it was dumb as hell. A movie needs characters that you care about for dramatic tension to exist.
Sweetheart, we’re not talking about plot, character development, etc. There are, what, 15 other posts to debate that. But back to the point, the use of 3D in Avatar was exactly the opposite of piranhas flying out of the screen. So no, you didn’t see it. Either that, or you suffer from a debilitating form of Down Syndrome.
We disagree about Avatar and that a.) makes me retarded and b.) reverses the fact that nothing you just said makes any sense.
Great job.
The 3-d worked on essentially two levels in Avatar. the primary one was to provide depth of field , and volume to the landscape, giving everything a 3-d feel without jumping out in your face, a la Piranha. But then there were moments where there *was* stuff jumping out at your face. Problem is, none of that was interesting. In fact it was distracting. I couldn’t help but notice 3-d Computer monitors, and 3-d Finger pointing, and 3-d grenade pins. Boring sh!t imo, and a squandered opportunity at some cool 3d fx.
Hey, you called me “lowest common denominator” first. You started it. ::flicks booger at you and runs off::
I pointed it out but its not like it really has to be said. It is kind of disgustingly obvious.
Anyway, you seem so proud of it crispy.
So we’re not gonna be friends then? Oh well, I’m sure I’ll get over it. Years from now. After a lot of expensive therapy. And SSR inhibitors.
Hey Eyeball – youre a douche, go kill yourself.
Eyeball seems like a very mature individual, and not at all an angry 12-year-old who thinks it’s cool to have negative opinions on the internet.
No thanks.
No thank you. I am not a big fan of 3D and I don’t believe that it is worth it. I saw Avatar both in 3D and normal, and for me, there wasn’t much of an advantage of it being 3D. Sorry, but I am a 3D hater.
As much as I would love to experience Avatar at home (and inevitably: Alice in Wonderland, Toy Story 3, etc etc etc) I just can’t shell out the big bucks for the latest gizmos anymore. I’ve already replaced my VHS collection with DVD, and now it’s on to Blu-Ray. I had the giant box TV, now I have a slimmer flat-screen. There’s even a stack of laserdiscs collecting dust in my garage (I just can’t bring myself to throw away a Criterion Collection copy of Brazil). No more. These days I got more important things to spend my hard-earned money. Like a mortgage. And high-end hookers.
Crispy – your comments are slaying me. Hilarious.
I’m not a huge fan of 3D, but I think video games in 3D would be pretty awesome.
A game environment that was a complete immersion would be fantastic. Am I ready to A) buy the (non-existent, I know)game console and shell out the heaven knows how many dollars for the new spiffy games and B) spend the cash on the tv or whatever I’d need to complete the immersion factor? No. But would I do all of that before buying a tv just to watch 3D movies? Ayup. I love big “event” movies on the big screen. I’m fine with watching them in 3D, polarized or blue/red, and I’m okay with shelling out the bucks to see it in digital too. But I don’t need that much at home. It’s the difference to me between seeing a movie in a theater and watching it at home. Between kids and bills and all that other fun, mundane stuff I save my movie-going dollars for the things where that in-house experience makes it worth while. The chick flicks, procedural dramas and thought heavy movies can wait for DVD. I’ll take my “Avatar” “Christmas Carol” and the like in the theater.
chuck already did that last season
they had a 3d episode nbc even gave away 3d glasses for free. IT was the episode where charlie from lost guest starred
‘Chuck’ used the old ’50s-era anaglyph technology (aka the red-and-blue glasses). The tech that is being bandied about for the home is much more similar to the polarity-based technology currently being used in theaters with ‘Avatar’ and ‘A Christmas Carol.’
Are you ready for Eye Cancer? We bombard ourselves with a constant battery of electronic images 24/7 from our TVs, video games, and computers, and now we want it in 3d as well?
I can barely tolerate the glasses in the theater, there’s no chance I am wearing them in my own home. Maybe Hulu really does want to melt our brains into pudding.
yea i cant see 3d being the norm especially since there are so few things that are in 3d to watch, once we got the tv, we would maybe have a good few days of watching 3d movies, some of which would suck, then wed be waiting for avatar 2 or whatever. maybe a year or two from now if theres is a huge influx of 3d media we can get then it would become the new norm, but i agree with the author, we arent really ready for the complete transition.
3D in one form or another and with the cheesy glasses, has been around since the 50′s. I saw Avatar in 3D and it was very nice, but I think it would have been just fine in 2D. I am also not ready to shell out lots of money to get a 3D TV — I really can’t see the point. Even now, I can’t really tell that much of a difference between regular DVD’s and Blue-Ray (I have both and a big screen HD TV). I can’t begin to imagine what these new TVs will cost, but it will be way too much for me to switch.
I’m not dying for 3D viewing at home, thank you very much.
When they come up with a glasses-free 3-D display technology, I’ll be among the first in line. Until then, no thanks.
NO 3D IS SCARY. IT WAS BIG IN THE 1950S WHY IS IS SO FREAKING “COOL” NOW? I DO NOT GO TO THE MOVIES TO HAVE PEOPLE AND EXPLOSIONS IN MY FACE LITERALLY. I CAME TO BE ENTERTAINED. 3D IS TERRIFYING. EVEN MUPPETS 3D.
I hate 3-D! It makes me nauseous. Saw Avatar in 3-D and will never see another movie in this format. After 30 minutes I had to close my eyes for the rest of the film.
I for one am definitely interested in 3D TV for the home, but won’t seriously consider getting into it for at least 3 or so generations when most of the glitches are worked out.
While I’d kind of like the option of watching something like Avatar in proper 3D at home, I’ve only just bought a Blu-ray player and HD TV after a decade of building up my DVD collection. There’s no way I can realistically see myself affording yet another expensive TV, a new Blu-ray player that can handle 3D, and replacing all the Blu-rays that I’ve started to buy to replace the DVDs that replaced my VHS tapes… The industry is just asking too much of the consumer in these difficult times, and I don’t believe this will catch on. It might be okay as an occasional option, but it should probably remain a novelty theatrical experience. Seriously, think of the amount of TV most of us watch in a week. Can you see yourself being able to watch all of that wearing goofy glasses, directly/rigidly in front of the TV without suffering from exhaustion and headaches? Perhaps this is actually a public service to get us off our couches and doing more exercise or reading books…