DVDizzy Forum

Goliath wrote:

sotiris2006 wrote:Now that I think of it, porn in 3D could be interesting

Just when I wanted to start a rant against 3D, you give me the one convincing argument to pursuade me!

I never realized so many UD members had dirty thoughts

and just because I like doing this...

3D porno? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............not sure I'd really like the continued sexualizing of the human body, but I might see it.

sotiris2006 wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote:of course when I told my dad about 3D Titanic he said heck yeah....although I don't think he was thinking of the 3d effect of ship thinking if you know what I mean

3D boobs!

Now that I think of it, porn in 3D could be interesting

I remember reading several years ago that the most profitable 3-D film ever made was actually porn. I couldn't resist looking it up . . .

From Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:The Stewardesses is a 1969 Softcore 3-D film directed and written by Allan Silliphant and starring Christina Hart, Monica Gayle, Paula Erickson, and Donna Stanley. Produced on a budget of just over $100,000, the film grossed over $27,000,000 (USD) in 1970 dollars becoming the most profitable 3-D film ever released.

So . . . it made 270 times its budget. What are the figures on Avatar, anyone know?

Avatar has made just over 10 times it's budget, it has a worldwide gross of $2.55 billion and had a budget of $237 million.

I can't say for sure, but I am fairly certain I read awhile back that Jerry Iger was one of the dominant forces behind the 3d movement because it is much harder to pirate 3d movies (something about them turning out very blurry and hazy when filmed with a video camera), and that Disney planned to eventually be at a point where every Disney release was in 3d.

Now that makes sense. Every media company is looking for a way to add value and make pirating more difficult. The trick is, they still have to release it in 2D for the people that don't want to see 3D.

I thought seeing some films in 3D was a cool idea at first, but now that a lot of studios are using it for big-budget films, it just seems like overkill. I do not think a movie has to be in 3D to be good.

I was amazed at Meet the Robinsons 3D and am now having to consciously avoid choosing it for all my movie selections.

"Studio executives in America compared the breakthrough to the development of first "talkies" almost a century ago, and fell over one another in the stampede to produce more such films."

Though I still haven't seen a single film in 3D, I completely disagree with this statement. I mean, really? They're comparing it to the first "talkies?" That's ridiculous. Sound was the natural progression in the development of film (as color was when it first premiered, though it wasn't as big a leap as sound was). I do think that 3D is completely pointless, especially if films were created in 3D after the fact and used just to make more money. I think it's totally killing the way that we're supposed to see the films and makes no sense (especially if the film wasn't intended to bee seen in 3D).

"3D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension and Hollywood's current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal," according to Ebert. "It adds nothing essential to the movie-going experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches."

I definitely agree with Ebert here (from what I've heard about how 3D affects people). If it's that annoying/"dangerous" to some people, then it is completely useless and a waste. I really have a hard time believing that 3D is essential to the experience and is even more ludicrous when the film wasn't originally shot in 3D and is still converted to 3D just to make a quick buck. I really think that Hollywood shot itself in it's foot, because as the article says, less and less people are seeing films in 3D and they're still spending a fortune on converting/shooting films in 3D. It just seems dumb to me. Good article, netty.

I wouldn't compare current 3-D to the birth of the talkies.

It's being used as a gimmick, when stuff comes out of the screen at you, but many science fiction shows and books have had something usually called tri-d that doesn't require glasses. It isn't gimmicky, just a complete work in 3 dimensions like a miniature stage play instead of a flat picture. You can see from different angles including behind the actors, the set is a full scale area, actors are in different depths within the set, and so on.

I am sure that eventually we will have a system like that, and at that point, everything will be filmed that way instead of 2-D. I also assume that the "things coming out of the screen" will be passe, the way hand-tinted B&W photos disappeared once full-color film came along.

I saw a film called Shadow Magic, about the introducing of early motion pictures to China, and people in the movie thought when they saw a silent film (B&W of course) of a train that the train was going to jump out of the screen and kill them! Nowadays, we'd laugh at the notion, and I'd think that the audiences of the future would laugh at our primitive "jump scenes" in 3-D where stuff comes towards the viewer.