3-D or not 3-D? Who knows?

I'm wrecked, so what better time than to voice some opinion or other. It always sounds a lot more insane that way, which is just so much more fun!

Anyway....

I have a new found enemy; 3-D.
Shock and/or horror!

It's great in theory; you take a film and make it so visually dynamic that the audience can't take their eyes off the screen, therefore lining your pockets with money when the hypntoised compatriots come again and again.
That's all well and good.

But what happens when the DVD comes out?

The thing about 3-D is that yes, it's an experience; but it's also like a bar of chocolate. You taste it, and it's the best thing ever. But then you see it everywhere, taunting you, calling to you like a fog horn, and you give in to temptation, but it never seems to meet your expectations, and you can get a headache afterwords.

Okay, maybe that's not an appropriate analogy, because, honestly, who doesn't love chocolate? I suppose I'm thinking in economic terms, and the Law of diminishing marginal utility, where as a consumer consumes an extra unit of a good, eventually a stage will be reached where utility or benifit will begin to decline......


Wow, I actually was paying attention.

anyway, when you watch a DVD, and the film was released in 3-D, you can actually see where they tried to insert it post op, and to be honest, it's totally distracting.
And isn't the point of film to distract you with the story and envelop you into the world, not distract you with flim-flams, doo-dads and zip-zorps!

Who knows.

what I do know is that James Cameron is an egomaniacal idiot, and I have a pair of size six stilletto waiting in my wardrobe that wants to give him a piece of their mind.


That is all.