What about the movies?

If you are a regular reader on this blog, you are probably alone. Also, you might have read my post on how 2010 is going to be the year of 3-D. We've seen Avatar take in record sales at the box office, and we've seen Sony and Toshiba planning 3D TVs for this year. We've seen TSN and other networks planning to offer 3-D TV channels, and we've even seen Alienware offering a 3-D monitor for their desktop systems.

And if you need more confirmation that 3-D is here to stay, Acer is currently producing 3-D projectors. That's right, for $700, you can get access to a 720p, 120Hz HD 3-D projector. However, there's one point that I need clarification on. What are you going to watch?

True, Avatar is probably going to hit DVD in two or three months, but after the first initial Avatar and 3-D craze, I haven't seen anybody working too hard on media for these 3-D viewers, at least those using the active-shutter deal.

Because that's the whole deal, isn't it? You need to have 3-D movies, 3-D games, or 3-D TV shows in order to watch them. Just like you need an HD camera to film in HD, you can't just expect to pop in your favorite DVD and expect it to be in 3-D. Right now, the library of 3-D movies is sparse, to put it lightly.

It could be that Acer, Toshiba and Sony are jumping the gun a little bit here. What happens if it happens to be harder to do 3-D than we thought it was? What happens if there happen to be a lot of traditionalists in the movie business? It could be that in 10 years, these questions might be silly. But as of yet, I have yet to see one active-shutter 3D movie outside an IMAX theatre.

------------------------------------------------

Twitter

Now in Theatres: 2010 in 3-D

According to IMDb, everybody and their dog has seen Avatar. Now, there are many theories as to why this is, such as the fantastic storyline, the CGI, and the success of James Cameron (who is gonna make a sequel to Avatar, produced by James Cameron, based on the book by James Cameron, directed by James Cameron, and starring James Cameron as James Cameron).

Now, while these are all legitimate reasons, and the film wouldn't be nearly as successful without any of these factors, they are definitely not the top of the list. No, the offering of Avatar in 3-D was the gimmick that sold the show.

And not just because of the more expensive tickets for 3-D, either. Let me take you back to 1970. Well, maybe 2003.

I was a lot younger then, and when the third Spy Kids film came out, I went to see it opening day. I mean, come on, a Spy Kids movie ABOUT VIDEO GAMES AND IN 3-D (!!!1!!one1!). I never really remembered much of the movie, but I chanced upon it while flipping the channels one night and decided to watch. The movie itself wasn't good and wasn't completely terrible, but it seemed really gimmicky. It seemed that every other second, there was a spring-loaded fist, a coin, or another video game item coming too close to the camera for comfort.

Now, Avatar completes what other filmmakers have been trying to do with 3-D, and does away with the gimmicks. Avatar finally made 3-D movies an art form, rather than an unnecessary gimmick as bad as sticking Mickey Mouse ears on everything at Disneyland.

In conclusion, I believe that Avatar will finally prove the viability of 3-D movies, and even though they won't take over from regular old movies (some people will become sick from it, and I honestly feel uncomfortable wearing two pairs of glasses at once), they'll definitely be an option for more and more movies. Also, Spy Kids sucked. Hard.

P.S. As a follow-up on my Google Supranet post on Saturday, the FCC is proposing higher broadband speeds.

--------------------------------------------------

Twitter