Tomorrow, a couple major electronics companies will begin selling 3-D televisions to consumers. If you read this story, buried in the middle of the piece, you'll find this nugget:"The 3-D effect requires viewers to wear relatively bulky glasses that need to be recharged occasionally. They're not like the cheap throwaways that have been used in theaters since the 1950s. When you're wearing these 3-D TV glasses, room lights and computer screens may look like they're flickering, making it difficult to combine 3-D viewing with other household activities."
Um, really? Does this sound exciting to anyone?
I know "Avatar" made mountains of cash, but does this mean I want to watch Charlie Sheen in 3-D or something? I don't want to watch Charlie Sheen and his crappy TV show in 1-D. Maybe I'm missing the point, but this all seems like a sure-fire failure. Who's going to buy this but the same people who ran out and got LaserDisc machines?
I like to do other things when I watch TV. You will rarely ever find just propped on the couch staring at the television. I'm reading, eating, surfing the Web, contemplating alcohol ... I'm doing something else. I feel like I'm in the majority. I won't be able to do any of these things with bulky glasses.
I'm sorry. I don't understand.
Well, actually, are they going to make porn in 3-D? I feel like that might work ... some of those shops will have to open more rooms in the back.
3 comments:
And if you watch that new Kirstie Alley reality show, do you have to watch it in 4-D? (some of you will get that later on and you'll laaaaaaaugh...)
there's definitely a joke in there somewhere about 3D glasses and Charlize Theron's cinnabon dress.
Or TV so realistic, you could almost smell Quentin Tarentino's BO and beer breath?....
Post a Comment