And I knew you'd repsond with this nonsense. He's far more qualified and knowledgable about 3D movie technology than you. He's no luddite, he's a pioneer in surround sound and digital movie editting. He got an Acadamy Award nomination for editing a big budget film on a Mac. To dismiss him like this a crank only proves that you're a mindless fanboy, with no credibilty of your own.
Sure, he's got great credentials, but what hes saying doesn't pass the smell test. First off, ebert is the one who says "this is why 3d will never work". What Murch says (paraphrasing), is "yes, your brain can handle this, which is why 3d works, but it makes your brain work really hard and gives people headaches after 20 minutes." Which is a completely baseless statement. I don't get headaches after 20 minutes, nor did anyone else with me during avatar, shrek, call of duty etc. Those who do appear to be in the minority. I take him seriously as far as his expertise goes, and I trust what he says about editing 3d movies. But he's not a neuroscientist or neurologist. He's telling me I should have a headache, but I don't. The whole "our brains weren't prepared to watch this" simply doesn't make sense at face value for a whole host of reasons, but I've already been over that. Here's what I know: I put on 3D glasses, I see in 3D. I don't care if Jesus himself tells me that it doesn't work, when my eyes tell me it does.
But ultimately it doesn't matter what the experts say, and it certainly doesn't matter what some wannabe expert on the Internet says. What matters in the end is if consumers buy the technology or not. And they're not. And no, it's not because of some mass conspiracy of bloggers and journalists and their irrational hatred of the technology. Never mind that's just in your imagination, consumers just don't care what they have to say. Consumers make up their own minds about whether they think a new technology is worth it, and it often has little to do with the technical merits that most "experts" focus on.
Sure, but this is a nascent, expensive technology. Nobody should be surprised it's not selling in huge amounts yet, I certainly never expected it to. I didn't start this thread for a discussion about sales, but about what people thought of the tech itself.
You asked "where's the disconnect?" You've demonstrated in this thread don't actually want to know the answer to this question. You're just looking for more support that Internet is against you, er..., 3D technology. But if you actually did, you need to figure out what it is about 3D exactly people don't like. Why is what you think so amazing, so worth the price, not being bought by consumers who can easily afford it? Maybe it's just as simple as the need to wear glasses, any glasses. Maybe they while they get a momentary thrill, it's just not enough to make a switch. Heck, it could for any of the reasons Walter Murch or other "experts" have given. It could be something that could be fixed, and prove you right in the end. But you won't seriously consider any of this. You'd rather believe you're the lone person on the Internet standing up and defending the obvious and undeniable merits of 3D technology.
I dunno why I'm even responding to this, but thats a completely ridiculous personal attack. This thread is a few days old. The discussion has evolved far beyond the original post, and Im just partaking in the discussion as it goes. I didn't know I was required to post a report after several days discussing what I've learned. It's clear there's a number of reasons why people haven't made the jump yet or aren't interested. All that rubbish you just spouted is quite the impressive psychoanalysis, but seriously dude, relax. Id like people to share my enthusiasm about something I think is cool, nothing more.
Facebook
Twitter