Next Bond film in 3D

qbvi

Saw Avatar in 3D - fantastic

Heard next Bond to be in 3D - Whoo hoo:)

Pity about the wait though

The Stinger

No; absolutely not. It makes no sense at all, would add nothing to the experience, and is too prone to be gimmicky.

Saw Avatar in 3D and couldn't be happier - the 3D actually helped to the immersion in the fantastic world of Pandora, and evertything was done in good taste and not trying to be flashy. But judging from the Alice in Wonderland trailer not everyone's as good as Cameron.

I don't think a 3D Bond would be a good idea, truth be told.

Barry Nelson

Not sure 3D adds anything to Bond and I think the 3D could be a distraction, especially if it is not done well.

TonyDP

Ironically, there's an article over at commanderbond.net about this very subject. Turns out The Sun is reporting that Bond 23 will in fact be in 3D.

Given the source, I don't know how much validity there is in this story, but Hollywood was already touting 3D as the next big thing to combat the surge in popularity of home video. With the runaway success of Avatar, you can be sure that studios (notorious copycats that they are) will definitely be taking an even longer, harder look at going 3D for any future releases.

Anyhow, here's the article:

http://commanderbond.net/9191/the-sun-stirs-up-3d-rumours-for-bond-23.html

Moonraker 5

TonyDP wrote:

Given the source, I don't know how much validity there is in this story.

It's about as valid as the quotes from the Page 3 girls on current affairs...

toutbrun

There are TV that have 3D images without glasses. And looking at the way QoS was made - very 2008, very modern - I think it's not a surprise for them to do the movie in 3D. People will talk about it and those who don't want the 3D will have a version 2D.

I don't think it's a problem.

darenhat

One problem with doing a film in 3D is the additional cost, not just for the technical hardware, but the films are usually supplemented with tons of CGI (DAD, anyone?) to keep the bedazzling element going throughout the film. Not to mention the expense of providing all of those silly glasses to the theaters.

Having a 3D Bond film sounds like a bizarre gimmicky approach which seems out of touch for the current Craig-era that is putting more emphasis on story than substance.

Napoleon Plural

Moonraker 5 wrote:

TonyDP wrote:

Given the source, I don't know how much validity there is in this story.

It's about as valid as the quotes from the Page 3 girls on current affairs...

Page 3 girls in 3D... now you're talking... -{

(Of course, for some blokes this might would just be like seeing a real woman naked...)

highhopes

I don't see what 3D would bring to the party. I can see it with a CGI-based movie like Avatar, but a "reality" based film, I don't think so. Besides, the 3D process would tend to drive the movie's plot and action, and I wouldn't want that.

PPK 7.65mm

I agree making Bond 23 a 3D film is pretty silly. Also given that they want to stay closer to reality with current films, it does not seem like a logical choice.

Loeffelholz

As Barry Nelson said in the "Last Film Seen" thread about Avatar, the film medium is evolving as it moves forward; I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, most or all films shown in a projected format will be some variation of 3D. It won't happen for Bond 23, of course, but eventually...? I don't think we can imagine what future generations will experience at the cinema.

chrisno1

Personally I am not a fan of 3D.However I am also still not a fan of mobile phones, although I do have one. Took me a decade to get a CD player and I only got a DVD player in 2002. I don't really do technology (although you can see I have computer).
What I'm trying to say is progress is inevitable. Even the worst of us play catch up eventually.
For me the only problem with 3D is the wearing of the glasses. I already wear glasses; I do use contacts, but only about 20% of the time. 3D is not the most user friendly of mediums... it assumes too much IMO !

The Number

I can only pray that it isn't.

I think 3-D is becoming more of a fad rather than films moving into this direction.

I went and saw Avatar twice. Once in 3-D and once in real-D. I preferred the real-D to the 3-D. 3-D just seems to busy, but that's just my opinion.

JADE66

JAMES BONDDD??? Ugh! Horrible idea. The last thing Bond needs is CGI and gimmicky SFX. Have we learned nothing from DAD? Avatar 3D made me sick to my stomach. It couldn't just be a dull re-tooling of Dances With Wolves. It had to be nauseating as well. I've seen a lot of 3D movies over the years and all of them have replaced plot, character and theme with a gimmick.
Leave Bond in 2D, stop shaking the camera and just give us a good movie without all the gee-whiz hocus pocus crapola.
-{

Gassy Man

Bond in 3D would be great -- saw A Christmas Carol that way and it was enjoyable. The problem with the Bond films for years is that, unlike the 1960s films, they've lacked meaningful innovation, instead following the trends rather than leading them. If they could find a way to incorporate 3D without resorting to CGI or other substitutions for actual film techniques it could give Bond films an edge again.

Harry Palmer

I agree with Jade 66. What Bond needs is good writing not gimmicks.
I choose substance over gadgetry any day.

Loeffelholz

Taking the long view toward the horizon, it's worth remembering that film itself was once considered 'gimmicky' and 'a fad.' Things change...and so will the cinematic experience, over time.

TonyDP

Loeffelholz wrote:

Taking the long view toward the horizon, it's worth remembering that film itself was once considered 'gimmicky' and 'a fad.' Things change...and so will the cinematic experience, over time.

Indeed; in the era of silent films, sound was considered a gimmick. Some decried the advent of color film as a gimmick. When TV started to take off in the 50s widescreen processes like Cinemascope were considered gimmicks.

Cinema has been an ongoing, evolving medium. The real surprise to me is that we've been stuck in the projection era for so long while other forms of entertainment have taken the technological forefront. Whenever ticket sales go down and home video spouts some new martketing angle, Hollywood invariably always tries to find some way to make the moviegoing experience more unique and novel, not to mention finding some way of wringing a few more bucks per ticket.

For better or worse, 3D seems to be the next big thing in Hollywood with more and more high profile productions going in that direction. The final Harry Potter movie will be in 3D for example. Given Avatar's ridiculous box office success you can be sure that more and more prominent films will take a long hard look at the medium And, as I mentioned, everybody who buys a ticket for a 3D showing will have to pony up another couple of bucks for a pair of 3D glasses. That premium isn't lost on Hollywood and is one of the reasons Avatar has raked in so much cash in such a short time.

Interestingly, Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder was filmed in 3D. Hitchcock avoided the gimmicky use of things popping out of the screen every five minutes, instead using the process as just another camera tool like his famous zoom while panning back trick, saving the "pop" for the famous scene of Grace Kelly reaching for the pair of scissors. Beyond that, the 3D was used to improve the image's depth of field so that you got a better delineation between foreground and background.

So, can a Bond movie work in 3D? Of course it can, if the director and cinematographer know how to use the technology to the benefit of the script at hand. It probably won't happen for Bond 23 but if the medium sticks this time, it will happen eventually. If nothing else, it will make the gunbarrell logo that much more interesting. And besides, there will always be some 2D screenings for those people absolutely cannot or will not see a 3D movie.

blame_thatcher

It's not gonna happen, it would send the budget through the roof. Remember that the reason why Avatar looked so good in 3D was that it was mostly CG. The live action photography was nowhere near as effective. Bond is almost entirely live action and would require the reliance on certain camera angles and shot composition to deliver a good 3D experience which would quickly become a huge nuisance to all those trying to tell the story.

Having said that, the gunbarrel and opening title sequence would look great but they'd be the best parts of the movie as far as 3D goes - what about the rest of the film?

TimmyDalton

I saw Avatar and Christmas Carol both in 3D. They were both fun to watch in the 3D. I dont think James Bond would feel the same.

I also saw the last Harry Potter in 3D at an IMAX and only the first few scenes like maybe 15 minutes were in 3D. I see James Bond having a few of the cgi scenes in 3D to call it "3D". And then after it flashes to take the 3D glasses off. I assume thats the only way a James Bond in 3D would look good and still be able to be marketed as.

dr. evan-gelist

i think it wiil be good in 3d with explosions and quote me on this, i bet the film has bond shooting a bullet at the camera.

Mortimer_McGee

God, I really hope not.

I don't mind a 3D film now and then, but this recent trend to have every major film release in 3D is just getting out of hand.

I do agree that 3D is likely going to be the next step in cinema, and is probably here to stay this time, but as of yet it is still just a gimmick that rarely enhances the viewing experience. There are some who know how to effectively make use of it, and more will learn, but its quality so far beyond the basic "oohs" and "aahs" is in question.

"Oohs" and "aahs" definitely do sell tickets, though.

fire and ice

3D was a fad in the 80's and prob be the same now. tho nature of bond movies not sure how it would enhance it. more suited to effects laiden films i think. not a gimmick fan, as long as story and acting and staying true to bond is there, ill be happy.