The subject of three-dimensional cinema has received considerable attention of late, albeit not from your columnist, who never understood the concept quite frankly. I was under the impression that every movie ever made could be apprehended in three dimensions. Is someone suggesting otherwise? Foreground, background … any of these terms ring a bell?
I put it to you that although movie screens are indeed flat, never in the history of cinema has there been a true 2D movie. What would it even look like? Just splotches of color mashed up against the screen, or what? Please, whether you be expert or speculator, explain to the group by Comment what a 2D movie looks like.
In fact just about every movie ever made is already in 4D, as the passage of time is an integral element of even the most basic plot.
As for the idea that having objects appear to float in the space between the viewer and the screen somehow adds to the movie-going experience, for now you can color me unconvinced. 3D in its current manifestation may have limited application in video games, "enhanced interrogations", or virtual crabbing*, but as far as adding anything of value to traditional cinema: meh.
In any event, from this point forward I refuse to even attempt to enjoy any movie that is projected in anything less than six dimensions. Is that really so much to ask? Come on Hollywood, step it up. How about spending a little less on recycled star-vehicle TV show remakes and smash 'em up sequels and a little more on additional dimensions?
Before I leave you this evening, one request if I may: I would pay good money to experience a nine-dimensional remake of Rocky III. But I don't wanna wear any stupid goggles, and no more wires penetrating my skull, last time I had colossal head pains and I'm still crossing dimensions randomly ("and even my tennis has suffered actually").
*Would 'spelunking' be better here? Vote now on Twimmer!