Well, maybe they're not buying them quite yet. Panasonic and Sanyo just unveiled their first 3-D sets this week, and Sony won't be selling its own multi-dimensional screens until this summer. Still, television makers believe that folks like us will be screaming for 3-D sets in the near future. "We want to spend $500 more for our TVs!" we'll allegedly tell them. "And we want to wear funny glasses, too!"

But this is problematic for folks like me who already wear funny glasses. When I go see 3-D movie screenings, I have to slip a pair of plastic, 3-D glasses over my regular specs—a look that would surely make me king of the faraway land of Nerdtopia.

Thank goodness I'm not dating.

But I put up with these 3-D glasses in the theater because, of course, I'd get fired from my awesome movie-reviewing gig if I didn't. And also because the 3-D effects can be kinda cool. But I think 3-D movies are cool precisely because they're like a special treat: You have to go to a theater to see them. They're like Girl Scout cookies: fantastic in small quantities, but you wouldn't want to eat them for dinner for the rest of your life, would you?

OK, so maybe you would. But the point is still valid. Sure, some folks think a film like Avatar is much improved in 3-D. But how much would it add to, say, American Idol or Iron Chef? And frankly, I can think of a few shows—Discovery's Dirty Jobs comes to mind—that I'd pay not to see in 3-D.

And here's another thing: I can't keep track of my remote now, much less a pair of 3-D glasses. I don't know if I want to shell out another $40 for a replacement pair every time I lose mine, or sit on them, or remove them from my dog's mouth.

But maybe I'm just bitter because my television is already obsolete. Plus, I'm old. Maybe I'm looking at this new technology all wrong. What do you think?

It's time to begin Plugged In's official live blog of the Oscars. Our red-carpet invites must have gotten lost in the mail this year, so we'll be watching it on television, just like you are, and writing about whatever seems news- or noteworthy to us. Please feel free to add your comments as we go along, and we'll try to address them on the fly. All times are U.S. Mountain Standard. Refresh your browser window to see our latest comments.

6:19 p.m.

Paul Asay (Plugged In Associate Editor): So I've torn open the bag of Doritos you brought, Steve, cracked my first Mountain Dew and am all ready for the Oscars--and Plugged In's first foray into the world of on-the-fly blogging. And what a night it will be, don't you think?

Steven Isaac (Plugged In Editor): Hmmm. I see here that by averaging the durations of the last 25 Oscar telecasts, subtracting 3 hours and then dividing by 2, we'll be done here in exactly 7.42 hours. Are we going to take nap breaks or just keep chugging soda all night?

Paul: Soda, Steve, soda.

Steven: Fine. But I'm not doing the Dew with you. I'm an old-school, straight-up Coca-Cola man myself.

Paul: OK, since nobody's paying us anything for all these product placements, why don't we get started with the most important question of the night: What'll take home Best Picture?

Steven: Blue is the new gold this year. No question in my mind that it'll be Avatar all the way. The whole point of this year's Oscar changes (10 nominees for Best Picture among them) is to make regular folks start thinking the Oscars are relevant to them again. And a whole lotta regular folks have seen Avatar. And most of them have loved it. Plus, the Academy voters do not want to antagonize the Na'vi. They've seen what happened to those surly earthlings.

Paul: True. Thing is, though, I don't think it's that great of a movie. I mean, wasn't it just sort of Dances With Wolves under a different moon? I'm thinking The Hurt Locker's going to take it. Gritty, taut, compelling ...

Steven: And quite a bit more foul than Avatar, if I remember your review correctly. (Not that that ever stopped Oscar from loving a film before.)

Paul: No it didn't.

Steven: Looks like they're done with their red-carpet dress-examinations and interviews. The theme music's coming up. We're under way, everybody.

6:33 p.m.

Paul: Wow. Those are quite the outfits. Getting off to an interesting start, I'd say, with Neil Patrick Harris.

Steven: And why wouldn't he get things rolling with a dope reference?

Paul: Oh, and they just talked about Woody Harrelson being high. Hmmm.

Steven: Off-color jokes and recognitions for big stars are always the order of the day each year as the Oscars get started. So much so that Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin's gag about a threesome probably went virtually unnoticed in most homes watching right now. But on a positive note, they made fun of the fact that movies are so often made based on video games!

6:48 p.m.

Paul: Oh, that Christoph Waltz leaves with the first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actor). No surprise there, but I hear he was incredible. You saw the film, Steve?

Steven: Incredible performance in the middle of an incredible film ... in quite a few ways, artistically but also as it comes to some pretty extreme violence, too.

Paul: I was kinda rooting for Christopher Plummer ... overdue from The Sound of Music. But I think Quentin Tarantino should get some sort of an award just for his chin. It's pretty impressive.

6:58 p.m.

Paul: Best Animated Film. Up wins. That makes me happy. I'm feeling so ... up! As if my house was being pulled into the sky by balloons! In a great year for animated films, this was still the best of the bunch. 'Course, Fantastic Mr. Fox was pretty impressive, too.

7:10 p.m.

Steven: We talked a bit earlier about some of the negative content included in this year's Oscar open, and didn't really have any time to talk "shop." So I want to register the fact now that that was one of the lamest opens I've seen in years and years. Martin and Baldwin can be really funny when they want to be and when they have good writers (the subject that's just coming up right now on the screen). But this just didn't cut it.

Paul: But on the up side, these awards are cruising right along. We might be outta here in 15 minutes or so, don't you think? And I think Tina Fey's hair looks nifty.

Steven: The Hurt Locker wins its first of the evening for Original Screenplay.

Paul: Hurt Locker, 1, Avatar, 0.

Steven: And about Tina's hair. It looks very, very much like my wife's hair looked in 2001. So I'm not so sure it's as cutting edge as Tina might think it is.

Paul: I'm just jealous when I see anyone who still has hair.

7:19 p.m.

Paul: The John Hughes salute is pretty nostalgic. I think I saw every single one of his films when I was a kid. That was before I became a Plugged In movie critic and therefore far more discerning, of course.

Steven: The burner from The Breakfast Club was everything I never was in high school. I was shy, nice and cared about everybody. That guy did none of those things ... on the surface. But on the inside he was more like me than I knew back then. Must be a lesson in that somewhere--and I hope its not that I was a closet burner.

7:28 p.m.

Paul: Just noticed the ratings box on the screen. It's TV-14 with a string of letters after it. Kind of interesting that, for an awards show that's technically for the "whole family," the rating is fairly exclusionary. Would they be covering just in case something unforseen happens? Or does it address some of the plunging necklines? Hmmm.

Steven: Or did they know going in that they were going to push a few boundaries?

Steven: Best Animated Short goes to a film that looks like it tweaks commercialism in society. Isn't it about time for an ABC commercial break?

7:39 p.m.

Paul: Love Ben Stiller as one of the Na'vi. Shouldn't he be taller, though?

Steven: This is the funniest thing all night. Clean, clever, self-aware. Can't say as I'm a huge Ben Stiller fan when it comes to his movies, but this is great.

7:52 p.m.

Steven: Geoffrey Fletcher won for Adapted Screenplay for Precious. My immediate response to his halting acceptance speech: You're not drawing a blank, like you think you are. You're the realest guy that's been on stage yet.

7:59 p.m.

Paul: The big categories haven't seen a surprise yet. Mo'Nique has nabbed Best Supporting Actress for her role in Precious. And, I must say, it's richly deserved. She played an absolute monster, but she still managed to give the character just a bit of heartbreaking humanity. It was a brutal role in a worthwhile but brutal film.

8:20 p.m.

Paul: Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are up, talking about how horror "doesn't get the respect it deserves." A good montage, but I got to say, the scariest thing I've seen tonight was George Clooney's glare.

Steven: Why is it that we like to be scared by movies? We can disagree with the usefulness or morality of horror films all we want (and we do!) but it's indisputable that people adore jump scenes and creepy blades for fingers on mad men (from Freddy to Edward Scissorhands). Sin nature? Or just thrill-ride silliness? It's something Christians have been grappling with for as long as movies have been trying to scare us--and long before that.

Paul: Yeah, pretty interesting. It's something we do a fair amount of talking about at Plugged In. Man, after seeing the complete montage, I think I know what that TV-14 rating was for ... nothing like seeing aliens jump out of people's rib cages and centipedes crawling into people's mouths to make an Oscar ceremony complete.

Steven: And now they're on to the next thing: an award for sound effects. There's something that makes a huge difference in horror movies. Because if you've ever watched a scary movie with the sound off, you know that it's usually more funny than scary. We all really respond to sound.

8:27 p.m.

Paul: Another award for The Hurt Locker. Wow. I think that makes it Hurt Locker 3, Avatar 1. Steve, are you still sure Avatar's going to win Best Picture?

Steven: Well, sure, why shouldn't I be? Didn't the Na'vi get to vote for their own film? And an alien vote counts twice. They're just letting all the little guys win a few before gobbling up the big one.

8:35 p.m.

Paul: Jeto wonders whether we think the Paranormal Activity spoof clip was funny. It was! But not as funny as Ben Stiller's Na'vi impersonation.

Steven: Cinematography award goes to Avatar. So, Paul, that's one more for the blue team.

8:39 p.m.

Paul: James Taylor's playing for the annual "In Memoriam" segment. This is one of my favorite parts of the ceremony, as morbid as that probably sounds. Natasha Richardson, Karl Malden ... I feel the sudden need to get a tissue.

Steven: Um, I didn't know "In My Life" was supposed to be a sad, funeral-type song. My wife and I had this sung at our wedding!

8:50 p.m.

Steven: My daughter's in ballet. She'd love the dance montage if I dared let her watch a TV-14 evening of Hollywood hype! (She's 9.) Maybe it'll be on YouTube tomorrow.

Paul: Tomorrow? It's probably posted right now!

Steven: This is much better than the Vegas-style stuff at the beginning of the show. Nicely choreographed. Very expressive in a cool, old-school way.

Paul: I never knew you were such a dance nerd, Steve.

Steven: A dancing daughter has a way of changing a man.

8:55 p.m.

Paul: Avatar's pulled even with The Hurt Locker with its win in Best Visual Effects. Maybe you were right after all, Steve.

Steven: A half-billion-dollar production budget should buy you at least a Best Visual Effects award.

9:04 p.m.

Paul: Well, it looks like lots of you are pretty pleased with Up's win for Best Original Score. I completely agree. I just hear the first notes of that song and I just start thinking of Paradise Falls, talking dogs and balloons. And I can't help but smile.

Steven: The Cove has won Best Documentary Feature.

Paul: What a coincidence! Steve and I are wearing Snuggies here at Plugged In headquarters, too!

9:12 p.m.

Paul: You know, I don't think I've heard an acceptance speech yet that made me roll my eyes. Is this unusual, or am I just getting more tolerant in my old age?

Steven: The night is young yet--at least by Oscar standards.

Sure,

But it was still enough to push the Martin Scorsese thriller to the top of the movie heap again, besting newcomers Cop Out ($18.6 million) and The Crazies ($16.5 million).

All three films are rated R, and all seem largely geared toward moviegoing men. Cop Out whittles that demographic into a narrower swathe—old-as-dirt moviegoing men like me who can still hum the theme music from Beverly Hills Cop if asked. (Axel F, anyone?)

If that's the case, they missed the mark—at least with me. The Kevin Smith-helmed Cop Out is an extended homage to the buddy-cop movies of the 1980s, only with fewer mullets and more swearing. It's a strange thing to pay homage to, frankly. I grew up in the 1980s, and I never felt any particular nostalgia for the genre. And even if I did, I'd want a better homage than this.

Major film studios apparently assume that children hibernate this time of year: Why else would they release movies—albeit three very different movies— that essentially target the same demographic? If families were prone to brave the cold, harsh winter and go see something, you'd think studios would make more money if they gave them something to see. Don't you think?

I like the Olympics. I like almost everything about them. I like the snowboard cross. I like bobsledding. I like it when figure skaters hit the perfect quad and when short-track speed skaters careen into walls. I even like the biathalon, for goodness' sake. Every night for the last week, my family has postponed its normal evening habits (you know, baking cookies and singing 'round the piano) so we can all spend hours watching Apolo Ohno and Torah Bright and features about polar bears and Bob Costas' purple ties.

But if I had to make a couple of suggestions to NBC, it'd consist of this:

Let's see more curling, less invasive camerawork.

While I think NBC's done a pretty good job covering the Olympics, the producers do have a habit of pushing their cameramen in places that, frankly, make me feel kinda voyeuristic. Hey, I love the performances. I like interviews. But when it comes to what are typically private moments, can't we give these athletes a little space?

Wednesday night's coverage offered up two pretty good examples.

One involved American Shaun White, aka "The Flying Tomato," aka the gold-medal winner in the men's halfpipe competition. Before his final run, the cameraman caught him talking with his coach, and the coach let loose with a couple of strong, not-appropriate-for-prime-time words. Announcers immediately apologized for the language, and it's unlikely any fines will be levied. Still, you'd think the folks at NBC would've suspected that, when they eavesdrop on coach-to-athlete banter, they might catch wind of the occasional curse and would've taken a preventative step or two: a seven-second delay, perhaps (I know, we like to watch our sports live, but NBC tape-delays almost everything anyway), or better yet, move back the microphones. 'Cause frankly, what White and his coaches talk about doesn't add much to the Olympic experience for me.

The camera didn't catch Lindsey Vonn, American gold-medal winner in the women's downhill, cursing when she embraced her husband after her winning run. But viewers were subjected to the longest, most tearful hug in history. Some folks thought it sweetly emotional. I thought it was invasive. I mean, it was neat to see how tearfully happy Vonn was after the race, and how excited she was to share the moment with her hubby ... but a little of this goes a long way. The camera eyed Vonn and her husband embrace for what seemed to be 10 minutes. Both of them, very aware the camera was keying on them, spoke in shallow, made-for-television platitudes ... after the first hug and rush of emotion, the scene felt (to me) uncomfortable and awkward. I could almost feel them psychically pushing the cameraman away, hoping against hope he'd focus on someone else for just a bit.

Of course, the cameraman didn't. Tears make for good TV, you know.

I know, I know ... it's the age in which we live. Half the competitors we see will probably get their own reality shows before the year's out, where they'll invite us all into their homes, their bathrooms and maybe even their laundry baskets. So perhaps I should just acknowledge that all this is where we are. We don't hold our sports stars or celebrities at a comfortable remove anymore. We're reluctant to give anyone a little space.

Still, for me, a little space would make the Olympics even more enjoyable. Would it be for you? And, while you're here, tell me what else you like, or dislike, about the games.

Or did you celebrate Valentine's Day like much of America apparently did, and buy your sweetie … some movie tickets?

A trio of new films dominated the box office this weekend, bumping poor ol' Avatar to fourth place. Appropriately enough, the star-studded film Valentine's Dayruled the romantic roost, pocketing $52.4 million, according to Box Office Mojo—enough to buy about 1.2 million hefty boxes of chocolates from Godiva Chocolatier, in case you're curious. Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief came in second with $31.2 million, nudging out The Wolfman's $30.6 million.

Adam Holz, who reviewed Valentine's Day for Plugged In, wasn't too impressed with the flick, calling it a feel-good movie that obscured some pretty serious moral problems. Other reviewers were equally unimpressed. But that didn't stop a tide of folks from flooding the theaters to see the thing. The film did so well, in fact, that its makers are probably wondering right now whether there might be a market for a celebrity-laden film called St. Patrick's Day.

But while romance might've conquered the weekend, all three newcomers had pretty good takes. Which makes me wonder … did you plunk down your cash to go to Valentine's Day? Did you see something else? Or did you just stay home, like I did, and watch the Olympics?

As some of you may have heard, Focus on the Family (Plugged In's parent organization) will be airing a commercial during the Big Game this weekend. The ad—featuring former Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and his mom—has become a pretty big deal around here—so much so that execs have taken to wearing shoulder pads and doing chest bumps in the hall. Morning devotionals are sounding more and more like play calls ("Isaiah 26:12 … hike!"). And I'm expecting Dippin' Dots vendors to show up sometime today.

But if the Super Bowl ad has triggered a certain eccentricity on the Focus campus, it's made some folks positively apoplectic outside it.

I've not seen the ad. My boss has not seen the ad. My boss's boss has not seen the ad. Very few of us inside the building have seen it, much less outside our pleasant, cubicle-lined confines. Nevertheless, several groups have asked CBS to yank the thing.

"By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," read, in part, a letter to the network signed by a number of women's groups.

Sports columnist Gregg Doyel, who writes for cbssports.com, took a different tack: "If you're a sports fan, and I am, that's the holiest day of the year. It's not a day to discuss abortion."

The ironies, of course, abound. I mean, we're talking about a sporting event that features advertisements devoted to beer, scantily clad women and folks getting thwacked in the crotch.

"Objectionable, after all, is in the eye of the beholder," wrote James Poniewozik, television columnist for Time magazine. "It seems ridiculous to start saying that espousing religion … is objectionable in an ad environment of alcohol-pushing animals, slapstick violence and Danica Patrick's cleavage."

For a while, news-related searches for Focus' ad dominated Google. And maybe that's not too surprising since our media culture loves a good row. But my guess is that when folks actually see the ad their reaction will be along the lines of, "Wow. And groups were up in arms over this? An ad celebrating families?"

When I was a religion reporter at a Colorado newspaper, I covered Focus on the Family quite a bit. And I learned pretty quickly that some people love the organization and some people—well, don't.

Now, frankly, I can understand why some folks might disagree with elements of what Focus does: We don't shy away from wading through controversial waters when conviction calls and Scripture specifies. That's part of what the leaders here feel called to do. But back in the day, one of my sources told me something that feels pretty appropriate right about now:

"Focus is about as controversial as flossing your teeth."

And really, when it comes right down to it, that's how Focus perceives itself: a dispensary of oral hygiene tools—which might hurt a little at the time, but are designed to help and heal, not harm.

We've read stories on how celebrities influence us. We've read stories on how we're growing more obsessed with how we look. We've even read stories on how celebrities affect that obsession. But I've never read a story quite like this.

There's a woman in China (London's Daily Mail just calls her Xiaoqing) who desperately wants to reunite with her boyfriend. No news there, right? What's she doing ... sending him flowers? Texting him sweet messages?

Of course not. No, Xiaoqing plans to undergo a bevy of plastic surgery procedures so she can look exactly like Jessica Alba.

Seems her boyfriend has a thing for the Fantastic Four starlet, and he loved it when Xiaoqing would make herself look as much like Alba as she could. The boyfriend even bought Xiaoqing a blond wig to wear. But eventually, Xiaoqing decided she'd rather look more like herself, so she dumped the wig. And he dumped her.

Now Xiaoqing wants him back, and she's willing to undergo a slew of cosmetic surgical procedures to make herself into her beau's dream girl. Doctors say it's possible for her to get the look she wants, though not necessarily advisable. All those cosmetic cuts and incisions and stitches? It can be dangerous and it'll be certainly irreversible, they tell her.

No matter, Xiaoqing says.

"I'm not only doing it for my ex-boyfriend but for myself," she tells the Mail. "I am a psychologically weak person. I want to do something to challenge myself and build a strong personality through it."

Is there, perhaps, a tinge of irony here that she's going about this psychological overhaul by becoming someone else? And someone who played The Invisible Woman, at that?

I never thought I'd say this, but thank goodness for

But with that in mind, what movie should we talk about today? Legion earned $18.2 million—enough to push it past the still strong The Book of Eli for second place—but anyone who's seen Legion is likely in counseling (trying to expunge the memory, you know). The Tooth Fairy, the latest kiddie fare from Dwayne Johnson, made a respectable $14.5 million to pull itself to fourth place (Pull? Get it?). But once you get past the film's messages of family, perseverance and good oral hygiene, is there anything left to talk about?

Extraordinary Measures made just $7 million at the gate for a seventh-place finish—not strong enough to give me an excuse to ramble about how I interviewed Brendan Fraser, and how we chatted for 15 minutes, and how you can read the interview at Plugged In in a few days, and how he invited to me to lunch afterward (OK, I made that last part up. See what Legion has done to my brain?)

It'd be great to talk more about To Save A Life, which came in 15th with $1.5 million. But we talked about it quite a bit on Friday, and I'm not sure whether $1.5 million is enough to get really excited over or not. The good news is that the film likely made its money back in one weekend—nothing to sneeze at, for sure. But it's a far cry from the success of Fireproof thus far, and it's probably not enough to make the film industry stand up and take notice. But maybe it'll retain its momentum over the coming weeks: This film deserves to be seen.

So let's just make this Monday a frenetic, film free-for-all. What did you see this weekend? And are you glad you did?