Your opinions on first 3-D movie in color

I’ve been arguing with two friends of mine over the first 3-D movie in color. None of us know, but that doesn’t mean we can’t making guesses about it. We’ve been arguing about if it was most likely a feature film or not, if it was a serial, and what country most likely produced the film. So, I’m gonna post two questions here. This thread is for fun, so go ahead and make some wild guesses.

Question 1: Do you think that the first 3-D movie in color was most likely a feature film, or that it was a short film, or that it was a serial?

Question 2: Do you think that the country that made the first 3-D movie in color was most likely the United States, or that it was Europe, or that it was Asia?

Moved MPSIMS --> Cafe Society.

In Tune with Tomorrow (1939)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_film

What do our opinions matter? This is a question of fact.

:roll: :roll: :roll: This is also the internet in 2013. Sheesh. What ARE you thinking?

One of our Dopers runs a “first in sight and sound” site and has a section for 3d colour movies.

Read it here.

If I’m skimming(uh, I mean reading) it quickly, it was Robinson Kruzo, filmed in 1941, but not released until 1947.

This was earlier

Europe and Asia aren’t countries.

Nobody said that they were.

I imagine there are different answers to this question depending on how one defines ‘movie’.

Full-length or short (asked in the OP)?
‘For public consumption’ or ‘experimental’?
For widespread release, or limited (possibly single) showing?

You have to define “color”. Not Black and White? Technicolor?

“Question 2: Do you think that the country that made the first 3-D movie in color was most likely the United States, or that it was Europe, or that it was Asia?”

bolding mine

To answer your question, a movie (in my opinion) can be of any length. I define a movie as any wide release (because most movies are wide releases). And like most movies (for example, The Jazz Singer), the movie would have to be released in a normal everyday movie theater, thus meaning the movie would be for public consumption.

I would define color as not black and white. It has to be entirely in color as well.

Wikipedia claims that the first color stereoscopic release was “Bwana Devil” in 1952. “House of Wax” shortly followed in 1953. I’d say anything before those were novelties or demos.

So you don’t care if the film can’t show blue?

I assume you aren’t counting films that are all shades of one color, otherwise even anaglyphs would count.

I guess the film has to be able to show blue, in order to perfectly capture nature’s colors.

There are many obscure 3-D films that have been made in the world. If you think about it, almost any film in America gets distributed all over the world. Can’t say the same for films from other countries. So on a global scale, if it’s not released in or at least imported into America, it’s an obscure film. Obscure films don’t matter, so they won’t be taken into account in this discussion. The first 3-D color film publicly shown in the U.S. was the film New Dimensions (Pete Roleum and His Cousins was said to have been in 3-D, but this was never mentioned in news articles of the time), which was exhibited at the New York World’s Fair. But that was a special venue. If you’re looking for the first 3-D color film shown in a movie theater, that would be Bwana Devil.

Additional comments: Since you not just see in 3-D but also hear in 3-D, I figure you might also want to know what the first 3-D film with 3-D sound was. It was House of Wax (and it just so happened to be in color. “WARNERCOLOR”, to be exact).

That’s some very valuable info. Thanks a lot!

I’d like to comment further: Mainstream films are films that are distributed to movie theaters which exhibit wide release films. However, the definition of a mainstream film can vary by country. For example, a mainstream film from China would be an obscure film in India. But from a global perspective, mainstream films could be defined as Hollywood films, because it is these films which make up the majority of the most widely distributed films in the world. This would make Hollywood films the paradigm for mainstream films worldwide.

Here’s a quote I read somewhere that will sum up what I’m saying: “Hollywood farts, whole world takes notice; film-makers elsewhere discover life on Mars, doesn’t even make the back page.”

I disagree that most movies are wide releases. Actually the first film to be released on 1000 screens at the same time was Beverly Hills Cop.

When I was kid, my town, Oklahoma City, didn’t get Star Wars until NOVEMBER. It wasn’t out there in the summer like other places. That’s 1977.

The Jazz Singer would have been out in only a comparative handful of theatres at a time and the prints shipped around the country.

Some movies were shot in "black and white, but then “colorized” by hand painting or tinting the frames.
Having a showing in “a normal everyday theatre” is a better definition.