ONTD

4:35 pm - 10/27/2010

Gucci Makes $225 Glasses For Viewing 3-D Movies

We at least have to give Gucci props for doing something original. Introducing what we’re pretty sure is the first ever pair of luxury 3-D glasses. 3-D movies are increasing in popularity and people have speculated that, at some point in the future, all movies will be shown in 3-D. And even though movie theaters give you a free pair when you buy your ticket, maybe owning your own 3-D glasses will become a thing. It’s more green, like taking tote bags when you go grocery shopping.

But, Gucci might be taking this a little too far. It’s one thing to reuse your plastic 3-D glasses from Avatar, but another to spend money–$225 to be exact–on a pair of glasses that no one will see. That’s right. Unless you decide to pull them out for all of your friends to be like, “Hey! Look at my Gucci 3-D glasses,” no one will see them because you can only wear them in a dark movie theater.

Still, Gucci is convinced that they are really onto something. The press release basically promises that Gucci is spearheading a new trend that will “signal a momentous change in the world of vision.”





Still, Gucci is convinced that they are really onto something. The press release basically promises that Gucci is spearheading a new trend that will “signal a momentous change in the world of vision.”

Key Features (taken from press release):

- Fashion forward, pilot-shaped plastic aviator in shiny black featuring an Eighties retro sensibility
- Produced under license by Safilo Group, the unisex 3-D glasses present the iconic Gucci “web” green and red striping detail along the temples and along the center brow bar of the frame.
- Personalized with the Gucci 3D logo printed near the endpiece of each temple and on the right lens.
- Optically correct 6-base curved lenses with circular polarized technology
lenses will contain a high tech multi-layered mirrored coating which allows the wearer to view themselves in a mirror without distortion. The mirrored coating not only provides a premium look as well as offers superior viewing and contrast enhancement, but also allows over 98 percent of visible light through, therefore not affecting viewing in a cinema environment.
- An anti-reflective coating has been applied to the back of the lens for additional overall image quality by reducing scattered light, glare and blue light.
The glasses are intended for movie theater use only and should not be used for any other purpose.

The glasses will be available exclusively in United States Gucci boutiques in December, so don’t forget to stop there on your way to the next 3-D movie. Really curious to see how these do. Would you buy designer 3-D glasses in lieu of free plastic ones?

Since every movie trailer on ONTD is a 3D film nowadays...

Maybe, just maybe, this would be worth it you're filthy rich and you have your own 3D TV, not just going to the movies. Maybe.


Fashionista
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
morrbido 27th-Oct-2010 09:43 pm (UTC)
they ugly
freemywilly 27th-Oct-2010 09:45 pm (UTC)
They really are. They make you look like a fly and take up a good portion of your face.
morrbido 27th-Oct-2010 09:50 pm (UTC)
i hate those aviator type glasses, blah
sporkier 27th-Oct-2010 09:51 pm (UTC)
but they're Gucci
vettus 27th-Oct-2010 11:03 pm (UTC)
ia but i bet they are more comfortable tho.
ex_mulholla119 27th-Oct-2010 09:44 pm (UTC)
wow chicccc
freemywilly 27th-Oct-2010 09:44 pm (UTC)
No fucking thank you.
morrbido 27th-Oct-2010 09:46 pm (UTC)
i have to wear glasses when i drive, so when it's sunny i have to wear sunglasses on top of them, not fun!
lindsey11387 27th-Oct-2010 09:58 pm (UTC)
I wear sunglasses over my normal glasses all the time. My friends think it's stupid but I would rather throw $5 shades over my glasses than waste a ton of money on something I'm going to break in two days. I got prescription Ray Bans a few years back and broke them in less than a week.
_shiiru 27th-Oct-2010 09:48 pm (UTC)
lol this

it's so fucking awkward to have those ugly ass movie theater glasses over my regular ones.
komichi 27th-Oct-2010 09:52 pm (UTC)
this

my glasses used to be pretty small wire frames so it wasn't so bad but since I switched to plastic it's so bulky and awful
lindsey11387 27th-Oct-2010 09:56 pm (UTC)
This! I thought I was going to throw up during Avatar because I had a terrible headache from the double glasses. Plus, half of the things coming out have nothing interesting in them to even be in 3-D. If I'm going to pay an extra $5 for a ticket there needs to be more than 2 little arrows flying out at me.
idkmybffironman 27th-Oct-2010 09:58 pm (UTC)
I don't find it embarrassing. lol. But I have a lot of vision impaired friends, so we just relax in the dark theater with glasses over our glasses. I thought they wouldn't fit over my glasses, but it was fine. :)
kimberwyn 27th-Oct-2010 10:17 pm (UTC)
It's called contacts.
pinkprincessnat 28th-Oct-2010 06:42 am (UTC)
Yeah that is a pain. I just wear my contacts when I am going to see a 3D movie.
for_serious13 27th-Oct-2010 09:45 pm (UTC)
just saw Jackass in 3D. they glasses really weren't that bad and i kept them so i can use them for the next one i see
sporkier 27th-Oct-2010 09:48 pm (UTC)
But the next time you go, they'll give you more glasses. It's not like the ticket will be any cheaper.
for_serious13 27th-Oct-2010 10:10 pm (UTC)
.....Or I'll just say no thanks, I got my own glasses? The thought of it being cheaper never crossed my mind either
ljubavirakija 27th-Oct-2010 09:45 pm (UTC)
Fuck you James Cameron; and your resurgance of 3D :|
toxiiic 27th-Oct-2010 09:46 pm (UTC)
I AM DONE WITH YOU HIGH FASHION, you can find me at Target
sporkier 27th-Oct-2010 09:47 pm (UTC)
lijluver 27th-Oct-2010 09:48 pm (UTC)
I would actually buy these if I had a 3D TV.

FYI, you dont have to be filthy rich to have one, they're actually not THAT expensive. And, just like all things, they will lose their luster in a couple months and be affordable for us middle class folks :)
jessography 27th-Oct-2010 09:53 pm (UTC)
You don't have to be filthy rich to buy them. I could buy them right now, if I wanted to. But, you need to be rich to actually buy those for what they are.
lijluver 27th-Oct-2010 09:58 pm (UTC)
I actually meant the 3D tvs, not the glasses themselves. The glasses are a little pricey, but when you buy the tv you have to actualy buy the glasses too, which run around 70-90 bucks if Im not mistaken.
komichi 27th-Oct-2010 09:50 pm (UTC)
And even though movie theaters give you a free pair when you buy your ticket,

wtf kind of theater are you guys going to? ours charge a $3-$5 rental fee!
komichi 27th-Oct-2010 09:50 pm (UTC)
ON TOP OF a $12-$15 ticket just because the movie is in 3D.
juuuude 27th-Oct-2010 10:08 pm (UTC)
My cinema does this too. You pay more for a 3D movie than regular 2D and then pay £2.50 for the glasses if you don't already have some with you. Such a waste of money.
_mistaker_ 27th-Oct-2010 09:52 pm (UTC)
Ohhh gurl, Your theater is PLAYING you.
Hard Body
_shiiru 27th-Oct-2010 09:55 pm (UTC)
theater's i've been to don't give it to you ~free~ per se, they include it in the ticket price. and they give you one every time you see a 3-d movie

the only difference is they expect you to give the glasses back at the end of the movie in this box
idkmybffironman 27th-Oct-2010 09:58 pm (UTC)
A RENTAL FEE? WTF?
nb2000 27th-Oct-2010 09:53 pm (UTC)
"3-D movies are increasing in popularity and people have speculated that, at some point in the future, all movies will be shown in 3-D."

Dear god NO. JUST NO.

I saw Toy Story 3 in 2D and had a mutual "3D sucks and is stupid" moment with the guy at the till that was sevring us. EVEN THE CINEMA STAFF THINK 3D IS DUMB! LET. IT. DIE!
sugarcrawler 27th-Oct-2010 09:56 pm (UTC)
i swear that quote better not come true

why do they even bother with 3d , most people dont like it.
sporkgoddess 28th-Oct-2010 12:04 am (UTC)
Ebert does, too. He wrote a great editorial about it.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

I felt vindicated when I read it, haha.
hateistoodark 27th-Oct-2010 09:57 pm (UTC)
lol no
lindsey11387 27th-Oct-2010 10:10 pm (UTC)
Wow Gucci this makes so much sense. How did you know that every time I pay $20 to see a 3-D movie in a dark, crowded theater I am always more concerned about people wearing those generic recycled glasses than I am the movie?

I really hope 3-D goes away soon. I think Deathly Hallows Part 1 not being in 3-D anymore is a sign that things are going back to normal. After seeing Avatar and Alice in Wonderland in 3-D I gave up on it. I wish they would just do certain parts in 3-D. I really liked what they did with previous Harry Potter films. They chose one or two big moments to make 3-D in the IMAX version and told you when to put the glasses on. That was a lot easier on my eyes than Avatar was!
diamondbox 27th-Oct-2010 10:10 pm (UTC)
why doesn't he endorse something cheaper and more useful.



like chapstick?
diamondbox 27th-Oct-2010 10:11 pm (UTC)
OH WAIT.
we're not talking about the rapper.

WHOOPS.
nicatheninja 27th-Oct-2010 10:39 pm (UTC)
i lol'd
nymosy 27th-Oct-2010 10:20 pm (UTC)
indulgence~*~
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Aug 20th 2014, 6:34 pm GMT.