![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.bandsiusetalike.com\/biul\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/3d_1.jpg\")
<\/a>My personal pair, since 1991’s Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare<\/em>. (As much as would fit on my scanner.)<\/p><\/div>\n 3-D comics were unreadable without these glasses. I still have two issues:\u00a0Gumby 3-D\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Transformers in 3-D\u00a0<\/em>#3, both from Blackthorne Publishing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I know, big shock that I own this, right?<\/p><\/div>\n Because of the weird glasses required, 20th century “3-D” had its own strange atmosphere. Granted, it is sort of creepy to see an entire audience clad in identical eyewear.<\/p>\n Of course, nowadays it’s considered creepy to see this many white people in one place.<\/p><\/div>\n The original 3-D glasses are referenced in both\u00a0Gremlins\u00a0<\/em>(1984) and\u00a0Back To The Future\u00a0<\/em>(1985). In the former, they’re worn very briefly by child star Corey Feldman, indoors. In the latter, they’re worn by Biff Tannen’s henchman, nicknamed, appropriately enough, “3-D”. He’s played by Casey\u00a0Siemaszko, whom many will remember as the lead in 1987’s underrated\u00a0Three O’Clock High.\u00a0<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Biff Tannen’s gang, left to right: Match (Billy Zane), Biff (Thomas F. Wilson), Skinhead (J.J. Cohen), and 3-D (Siemaszko).<\/p><\/div>\n Siemaszko is still a hard-working actor today, so I feel less inclined to worry about the negative effects of wearing 3-D glasses under sunlight. There’s no mention of anything on his IMDb page. But\u00a0damn,\u00a0<\/em>every time I watch\u00a0BTTF<\/em>, my eyeballs ache when “3-D” walks in.<\/p>\n Because like him, I ignored the occasionally-printed warnings about wearing 3-D glasses under sunlight, and it\u00a0cost me pretty dearly.<\/em><\/p>\n Over my drawing table is a\u00a0color wheel.\u00a0<\/strong>I’ve tried to keep one around since college, when I nearly flunked Color Theory without one. See, the thing is, I’m not colorblind, but I do not see colors correctly.<\/p>\n I can’t clearly distinguish magenta from red, or blue-green from green.\u00a0<\/strong>It’s typically\u00a0not a problem, but sometimes it makes me look like a complete fool. I can’t tell on first glance if someone has blue or green eyes, unless they’re\u00a0pale\u00a0<\/em>blue or\u00a0hazel<\/em>. This is no big deal; girls don’t care if you can’t remember which eye color they have, right?<\/p>\n This is a result of wearing 3-D glasses outside. If I close one eye, I see a red tint; the other eye, blue. This is not a joke. Oh no.<\/p>\n I spend long periods of time gazing into either a white sheet of paper less than a foot beneath a 40-watt bulb, or the screen of a laptop. The key is not\u00a0constantly\u00a0<\/em>straining your eyes. I go into tight focus only when necessary; otherwise my eyes “go slack”, using a moderate\u00a0or low focus level on my entire field of vision. I wore thick spectacles in grade school (corrected to avoid a “barreled” image), and developed no depth perception whatsoever. I see everything either entirely in focus, or at a lower resolution. I can only successfully catch thrown objects if I’m wearing contact lenses, which\u00a0have to correct my astigmatism.<\/p>\n I have no earthly idea if any of this is normal or not.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Eyeglasses used to indicate intelligence, because the only way to become intelligent was to\u00a0read lots of books.\u00a0<\/em>This resulted in strained eyes, thanks to the poorer lighting options of the last century. I don’t like wearing glasses because I’m vain, and the prescription I require makes my eyes appear exponentially smaller. Despite this, if I’m not planning to appear in public, I’m usually wearing my glasses. Like Harvey Pekar, I’m almost never depicted with them on.<\/p>\n The first wave of 3-D movies had a flaw that most have forgotten: they\u00a0looked affected, and imperfect. I can only imagine the complaints of headaches and such. The 3-D that we currently enjoy is beyond my understanding, and doesn’t leave after-effects. Old 3-D comics often fell prey to mothers, who’d dispose of them while cleaning, and later claim they weren’t printed properly and would’ve hurt your eyes. As comic books go, they were not user-friendly.<\/p>\n “Quick, shift the art department into reprint-and-uglify mode!”<\/p><\/div>\n If you look closely at the 3-D glasses that open this article, you’ll see instructions that tell you when in the movie to put them on. That’s right- they billed\u00a0Freddy’s Dead<\/em> as a 3-D movie, when only a few minutes at the climax used the process. Not well, as I recall, which is probably why they didn’t\u00a0hang the whole movie on it. In the times before Internet, you could get away with this kind of flim-flam.<\/p>\n So what if it sucked*- “Music Composed by Brian May<\/strong>“!<\/p><\/div>\n *It didn’t.<\/p>\n The Elm Street series actually embraced the technology much later than its counterparts;\u00a0Friday the 13th, Jaws,\u00a0<\/em>and\u00a0Amityville Horror\u00a0<\/em>all made it\u00a0serendipitous with their 3rd installments. (Decades later, Transformers<\/em> would follow suit, with improved 3-D glasses and digital process.) The third Elm Street is my particular favorite, even though it’s in plain old 2-D.<\/p>\n In the 2015 of the\u00a0Back To The Future<\/em> series, 3-D film technology had advanced to the “no glasses required” stage. This isn’t\u00a0entirely\u00a0 <\/em>accurate… but it’s not inaccurate\u00a0<\/em>either.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/a><\/a><\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/a>