You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 8th, 2010.
James Cameron by worldchaos81, on Flickr
Avatar made a bit of a splash at the box office this year. Well, okay, maybe more of a tsunami with a domestic gross to date of almost $708,000,000 and a foreign gross of $1,839,000,000. Yup, people worldwide have dropped a two and half billion for two and a half hours of escapism. Wow. Nine Oscar nominations should indicate people are coming away with something of value. Personally, I came away with a headache, and I wasn’t the only one.
This will come as no surprise to some, but 3D movies cause unnatural eye motions and can cause blurred vision and motion sickness, even after you leave the theatre. Mark Pesce describes the process very well:
Since the various movie and television display technologies only offer parallax-based depth cues, your brain basically has to ignore several other cues while you’re immersed in the world of Avatar. This is why the 3D of films doesn’t feel quite right. Basically, you’re fighting with your own brain, which is getting a bit confused. It’s got some cues to give it a sense of depth, but it’s missing others. Eventually your brain just starts ignoring the other cues.
That’s the problem. When the movie’s over, and you take your glasses off, your brain is still ignoring all those depth perception cues. It’ll come back to normal, eventually. Some people will snap right back. In others, it might take a few hours. This condition, known as ‘binocular dysphoria’, is the price you pay for cheating your brain into believing the illusion of 3D. Until someone invents some other form of 3D projection (many have tried, no one has really succeeded), binocular dysphoria will be part of the experience. [emphasis mine]
In the meantime, filmmakers are rushing to get more 3D features on screen because where Hollywood smells blood in the water, the sharks congregate. Avatar‘s massive revenues have sent filmmakers scrambling to retool movies for 3D presentation. Here’s a partial list of major motion pictures scheduled to be released in 3D:
How to Train Your Dragon
Alice in Wonderland, which broke opening weekend grosses, earning $210,300,000 in its first three days.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, parts 1 and 2
Clash of the Titans
Spider-Man 4
Madagascar 3
Priest
Toy Story 3
Shrek Forever After
Tron Legacy
Despicable Me
Beauty and the Beast (reissue)
Guardians of Ga’Hoole
Saw VII
Rapunzel
Cars 2
And many, many more.
Paramount is also talking to JJ Abrams about making the next Star Trek in 3D. In a recent interview, he said, “And, if I, in fact, direct the Star Trek sequel, 3-D could be really fun, so I’m open to it. What I’ve seen of Avatar makes me want to do it because it’s so crazy-cool looking.” Now, asking me to boycott a JJ Abrams film because it is in 3D is beyond the pale. But I can still enjoy the film in its standard presentation, choosing to cast my vote for more of that instead of more brain confusion.
In an attempt to claim the moral high ground, some claim that the profound realism of deep focus (3D) confers more honor upon the natural system of sight than flat presentation. Recent advertisements are touting the advent of 3D in the home with new television technology.
So what does all this have to do with real food?
The Hollywood system is a lot like Big Food in extreme close-up. One super-successful product (in this case, Avatar) changes the way companies do business, even if it costs them more at the outset. They are counting on the new tech to pull in enough customers on its own, irrespective of other factors (writing, directing, acting, editing and distribution). Some customers, citing health problems (binocular dysphoria) complain, but for the most part, the new and exciting tech is able to generate enough buzz (Oscar nominations, but mostly money) to drown out other voices, dismissing them as old-fashioned Luddites. Besides, the tech offers great moral promise (closer to reality). And money rules all: What sells (at the box office) is the template for the next generation of product.
And so it is with food technology: One super-successful product (for example, genetically modified corn) changes the way companies do business, even if it costs them more at the outset. They are counting on the new tech to pull in enough customers on its own, irrespective of other factors (increased pesticide/herbicide use, resistant weeds, the patenting of life forms). Some customers, citing health problems (allergies and the documentation of Jeffrey Smith) complain, but for the most part, the new and exciting tech is able to generate enough buzz (yet unrealized promise of fortune) to drown out other voices, dismissing them as old-fashioned Luddites. Besides, the tech offers great moral promise (feeding the world). And money rules all: What sells (at the grocery store) is the template for the next generation of product.
The good news is that we can turn this system on its head and make it work for us, for our health, for our children and for the future. As the movie Food, Inc. says, we all get three votes a day to change the system. What are you voting for?
