They don’t make much of a fashion statement, but they’re alsoworn in the dark so it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot.

I gained my first experience with modern 3-D glasses recentlywhen a friend and I went to see “Thor.”

For comic book movie fans, I wholeheartedly recommend the movie.Seeing it in 3-D? Ummm … not so much.

First of all, let me say today’s 3-D technology has advancedleaps and bounds beyond the old days of those flimsy, paper-rimmedcontraptions that featured one red and one bluish plastic filmlens.

In too many cases, if you messed up assembling the frames, youspent the rest of the movie or time reading a magazine using onehand to hold the glasses in front of your eyes. No thanks.

With that in mind, I was a little skeptical about going to see amovie in 3-D. But the 3-D showing was the only one that fit in myschedule that day and it was an opportunity to gauge for myself howmuch the 3-D technology has progressed.

Instead of some cheap, paper-rimmed device, I was given a pairof thick, black plastic-rimmed glasses with lenses that had sort ofa bluish-gray tint to them. These must be included in the extracouple of bucks admission price for the movie.

Once inside the theater, several trailers for upcoming moviesplayed on the big screen and my 3-D glasses remained safely in mylap. Eventually, a fairly fuzzy, double image of Johnny Depp asCapt. Jack Sparrow from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” moviesappeared on screen.

“I guess we can put the glasses on now,” I said.

In all honesty, things did appear in many cases as if they werecoming off the screen. And the depth of field between things orpeople in the foreground was easily distinguishable from those inthe background.

At several points during the movie, however, nothing appeared tobe coming off the screen and everything seemed rather flat.

As for the glasses themselves, well, the word “nerd” came tomind a couple of times. But we’re in the dark, so nobody’s seeingand besides, they’re wearing them, too.

Seriously, one issue I had was the glasses are not wrap-around.I’ve got pretty decent periphery vision, so I was slightlydistracted any time I caught movement on either side of me.

The major issue I had, though, was that after about an hour orso, the tops of my ears were in some pain.

Advancing age has introduced me to reading glasses in the lastfew months and I’m still not totally adjusted to the sensation, butthe 3-D movie glasses experience was far different. The bulky framerests were pushing the tops of my ears outward and the weight wasuncomfortable.

I noticed my friend, who wears eyeglasses regularly, remove his3-D glasses several times because they were bothering him to adegree.

I understand the need for glasses to be as much one size fitsall as possible, but I believe a little more attention to comfortis warranted.

As I’ve discussed my 3-D movie experience with friends sinceseeing “Thor,” the one word that keeps coming to mind – and haseven been spoken a few times – is gimmick. As far as I’m concerned,3-D was a gimmick when it was invented and it remains so today.

Still, that hasn’t stopped television makers from trying tobring the 3-D technology into the family living room at home.

I’ve never viewed a 3-D television image. However, judging fromsome commercials I’ve seen, increasing the field of vision – so onedoesn’t have to sit directly in front of the TV to get the fulleffect – could use some attention.

In my home I’m perfectly happy with my high definitiontelevision. So until the technology advances again, it’ll be HD andno more 3-D for me.

That’s all for now.

Write to Matthew Coleman at P.O. Box 551, Brookhaven MS39602, or send e-mail to mcoleman@dailyleader.com.