(train whistling)

Where'd I put it?

Where'd I put it?

(cheers)

(breathes heavily)

Movies are totally wasting P.O.V. cams.

Seeing carnage through a character's eyes

used to mean something.

Three decades ago, Sam Raimi piloted his camera in Evil Dead

like it was strapped to a crazed demon.

The original Terminator showed us a robot's outlook,

complete with a barely digital heads-up display

and a bulky comeback algorithm.

But I mean, come on, a sophisticated futuristic A.I.

with grainy 640 by 40 peepers?

(groans disgustedly)

What did these have in common?

They were awesome!

And it should have just gotten better from there.

Head-mounted video cam imagery

was supposed to bring the action

of a fantastic first-person shooter to real life,

not turn every movie into a vapid first-person shooter.

Case in point, Riddick, the final chapter

of Vin Diesel's space follies trilogy.

The first film, Pitch Black,

was a perfectly fine mid-budget thriller

in which the protagonist's ability to see in the dark

was a vital and hair-raising plot element.

But the new one: a conventional blockbuster

with token first-person shots that scream,

I once played a game like this!

I think I can imagine Vin Diesel's point of view

when he agreed to produce this bombastic blockbuster.

(harp music)

If you really want to commit to P.O.V., Hollywood,

I demand an entire summer blockbuster

that's filmed from a first-person perspective.

Do it!

If you think about it,

it would actually be less expensive to mount,

because all cool heroes turn their back on explosions.

And when the hero's evil half-robot father

cuts off the hero's hand, he could just black out,

and then he has a psychotic break

and he starts hallucinating giant bats

like Hunter S. Thompson.

Who wouldn't go see that?

Let me know when you figure out

how to mount that, Hollywood.

I'll be over here working.

(train whistling)

What's your point of view on P.O.V.?

Let me know in the comments

and subscribe to the Wired channel.