'Hello, my name is Electronic Programme Guide, you can call me EPG for short'. I am Guy Montag in some twisted Digital S&M reboot of Ray Bradbury's Apoca-Literature dystopian reality; Fahrenheit 451. I am totally 100% Montag, I am a Transmission Controller instead of a Fireman but the effect is the same. For years I was care free, hedonistic - living off a wage that exploits the desire of the masses to tune into our TV neighbours, cousins, lovers. I watched as televisions got longer and thinner and the lines that make up the images increased exponentially. But instead of staring into the flickering flames of all so much burning book paper I am instead staring at the light refracting off of a million sequins as Celebrities coupled with professional dancers; dance dance dance in glorious 3D.
That's right, in an attempt to up the game in this year's ratings dance off, the BBC will be filming the Strictly Come Dancing final in 3D.
'Really?' you say, 'in 3D? Hmmm'
I can tell the idea of Strictly in 3D peaks your interest. Why wouldn't it - A Brucie joke, then the remaining Celebrities that we have been following for weeks perform the Fandango as if they were in your living room. But you are wrong.
3D TV doesn't jump out of the screen. 3D is like looking through the window, spying on your neighbour,and, in our world of social stalking and an unstoppable desire to curtain twitch, this titillates me a little. But nobody cares; 3D TV is not the technological revolution I envisaged. It's like watching a film at the cinema - you may be in a room with hundreds of other people, but it's dark, it's quiet and it is extremely anti-social. Strictly 3D is not going to attract new audiences. Nobody cares.
I care though. I care that nobody cares. 3D is being driven by the film and television industry. Last year, Sky put 3D TVs in pubs to push 3D football. Both Virgin and Sky now provide 3D content, and the BBC - imagining a market - wants to get in there. This is not the first BBC 'experiment' to gauge what we, as an audience, think of 3D. The last attempt was this year's Wimbledon final.
'Really? Wimbledon was in 3D?!' you exclaim!
Yes. I think we all missed it. I only found out about it researching this blog. The BBC down-played 3D Wimbledon due to a lot of complaints about the quality of the transmission.
So. Why is the industry pushing a product that a lot of people can live without? 3D TV is not a logical step. The move from 4x3 to 16x9 was logical; bigger pictures and a more cinematic experience with films. The move to High Definition also carried obvious benefits - more lines = more detail. 3D carries no obvious technological benefits so I am forced to go back to Bradbury. I am still Montag and our television wants our attention, wants us to be sociable - with it. So how does the industry guarantee this? They blinker us, they encourage us to buy expensive TVs that require special glasses which mean you are saddled up to your 3D TV for the duration of the feature presentation.
3D TV marks the death of choice, of casual viewing, of having the TV on in the background. So I am breaking the reigns and galloping off into the wilderness in my new persona as the Electronic Programme Guide. Why did I choose to become the EPG? Because in the Apoca-Media dystopia I imagine myself in, it has become redundant - a relic from a time when we had 400 channel and nothing to watch so we stuck Jeremy Kyle on in the background and cleaned to toilet - and that scares me. In this future; 3D has eliminated the multi-channel environment. Each provider has one or two 3D channels and the consumer is required to make a choice of brand: Do you want BBC 3D or Sky 3D - well Sky 3D has more sport but BBC 3D has all the reality shows.
Television audience participation, helping the audience to become more involved; is the next logical step but 3D is not the path to reach this goal. Do you really want to watch Big Brother or I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Herein 3D? I don't!