Crucifax Autumn
1/29/2010, 07:55 PM
http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/01/29/caligula-directors-3-d-porn-movie-and-other-bad-ideas/
Apparently mainstream filmmakers aren’t the only ones to have noticed Avatar’s record-smashing box office success. The Hollywood Reporter has up news that Italian erotic filmmaker Tinto Brass — of Caligula infamy — is planning what he calls the first-ever 3-D porn movie. (He also says it will also be the first 3-D movie ever produced in Italy, a distinction, I’m sure, the Italians will appreciate.) While I can’t fault him for jumping into the fray with 3-D glasses at the go, I have to wonder, is this really the best use of the technology? And isn’t it possible that some movies are better, um, enjoyed in two, old-fashioned dimensions? I’ve been intrigued watching Avatar’s aftermath, especially as the box office math sinks in and it’s become apparent how much those hefty upcharges for 3-D theater tickets have added to its astonishing total. While studios are on the hunt for new and retrofitted 3-D projects that can capture some Avatar-sized love, I’m already anticipating the groundbreaking technology being put to lackluster use. And how long will people be willing to pay extra for that? Just because you can put something in 3-D, does that mean you should?
What kinds of movies shouldn’t ever be done in 3-D? I vote for Italian “erotica”. What do you think?
You could put an eye out with that thing! :D
Apparently mainstream filmmakers aren’t the only ones to have noticed Avatar’s record-smashing box office success. The Hollywood Reporter has up news that Italian erotic filmmaker Tinto Brass — of Caligula infamy — is planning what he calls the first-ever 3-D porn movie. (He also says it will also be the first 3-D movie ever produced in Italy, a distinction, I’m sure, the Italians will appreciate.) While I can’t fault him for jumping into the fray with 3-D glasses at the go, I have to wonder, is this really the best use of the technology? And isn’t it possible that some movies are better, um, enjoyed in two, old-fashioned dimensions? I’ve been intrigued watching Avatar’s aftermath, especially as the box office math sinks in and it’s become apparent how much those hefty upcharges for 3-D theater tickets have added to its astonishing total. While studios are on the hunt for new and retrofitted 3-D projects that can capture some Avatar-sized love, I’m already anticipating the groundbreaking technology being put to lackluster use. And how long will people be willing to pay extra for that? Just because you can put something in 3-D, does that mean you should?
What kinds of movies shouldn’t ever be done in 3-D? I vote for Italian “erotica”. What do you think?
You could put an eye out with that thing! :D