You might have heard that Comcast is going to launch its own 24-hour 3D channel, called Xfinity 3D, on February 20. This doesn’t really impact my life at all, being that a) I don’t have Comcast, and b) I hate 3D. Yes, I confess: I avoid 3D pretty much at all costs. It makes me kinda queasy, the glasses are a pain, and — I don’t know — I just think it’s unnecessary. (My one exception was seeing Captain EO in Disneyland in the early ’90s.)
However, this news got me thinking: If I were the kind of person who loved 3D, which shows would I still not want to watch in this format if offered? Here are some I came up with.
- The Biggest Loser. Imagine a last-chance workout up close, complete with profuse sweating and projectile vomiting! Or the weigh-ins!
- Mad Men. All that smoke billowing around my head would feel like a New York City bar before the smoking ban.
- Hoarders. This is a pretty obvious one, but in case you’ve never seen the show, you can read a bit more to find out why 3D would probably make viewers want to turn away.
- Grey’s Anatomy. Especially in the trauma unit, and/or when Callie’s jumping on someone’s chest to pop their bones back together.
- Damages. This is pretty much because Patty Hewes freaks me out to no end, and seeing her face up close would terrify me.
- The Wire. Also possibly self-explanatory; in addition to all the violence, I would constantly be turning around thinking Omar‘s sneaking up on me.
- Top Chef. I get hungry enough watching that show; I don’t want all that temptation even closer to my face!
Which shows would you avoid if presented in 3D?
Photo Credit: FX
Some posts that may be related to this:
A lot of reality shows could probably be put on this list, but I would have to go with Jersey Shore … because the cast makes me want to take a shower when they’re just in 2D.
*POST AUTHOR*
Haha! I totally agree!
Count yourself lucky I have to deal with them in 4D every summer when they invade the area.
Did you know they brought Captain EO back?
*POST AUTHOR*
Yeah, I actually just found that out!
Can just vote for “all shows” since I don’t care for 3D? It’s never really added anything to my viewing experience and a few minutes into a 3D film I usually forget it’s in 3D anyway. The only thing 3D has ever added to my movie-going experience is a few extra dollars to the ticket price!
No shows. Never.
When I was in Vegas waiting for my friends to show up, I did the CBS consumer research thing to watch a sample show and answer questions. It was a 3D episode of CSI. It was annoying.
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, but that was the only recent 3D experience.
I enjoy 3D movies, but I can’t watch anything in 3D on TV because of the stupid “active shutter” glasses, which are unlike the ones in theaters (“passive”). If the batteries aren’t at a full charge, they begin to lose sync with the TV and just cause all kinds of crazy nausea and dizziness. Hopefully the new 3D TVs with the shutter part built in to the TV so you can have the passive glasses will work better. Not everything, even movies, needs to be in 3D. I can’t imagine sitting through Glenn Beck in 3D! It’s bad enough in 2D. Talk about a horror show!
*POST AUTHOR*
Wow, I’ve never even heard of the active shutter ones (shows how much i know). That sounds like it would give me a huge headache.
Yeah, the 3D TV glasses are battery powered and each lens alternately goes dark but it’s really too fast for the eye to see. The brain is able to register it though so when you see the double image on the TV screen, with the glasses each eye only sees one image at a time and that creates the 3D effect. But the minute the batteries lose some of their charge, they’re not in sync with the TV anymore and that’s where all the problems begin. New 3D TVs will have the active part built into the set and the glasses will be like the ones you get at the movies. It’s cool when it works, but not everything needs 3D and the rush to convert everything (poorly) to the format will kill it before it really gets started.
I never understood why the TV can’t use the same gflasses as you get at a movie theater. $150 for glasses is nuts!
Anyways, most shows don’t need to be in 3D, there is no point to it unless it’s an action or adventure type of show.
So maybe a better list would be “10 Shows You’d Like to See in 3D”?
Oreo, I think it has to do with the polarization used in theaters. I don’t know for sure, but I would assume if 3D TVs could use the same method then it would’ve been incorporated into existing 3D TVs. While I don’t care for 3D the movies I’ve seen in the theater look great and there’s no headache from it.
I still don’t think it’s worthwhile and I might consider it far in the future when glasses aren’t needed and the price is the same as current 2D TVs. In fact I’m still using an old-style rear projection Mitsubishi because I think high def TVs are still overpriced. I’ll probably give it another 5 years and then if a 70+ inch TV has come down to a reasonable price I might take the plunge, but for now I’m just not impressed with HDTV enough to spend the cash. It looks great, but aside from using it as a computer monitor I don’t see it really enhancing my viewing of the likes of CSI, Community, Fringe, et cetera when my 50″ TV is still going great.