›

Barbara Broccoli: "Bond is not ready for 3D."

CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
edited October 2012 in News Posts: 8,231
[url] http://screenrant.com/james-bond-3d-skyfall/ [/url]

Hopefully 3D will be gone by the time Bond is ready.
«1

Comments

  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    Good news. It has no place near Bond. Not now, anyways.

    If Die Another Day were released in 2012, it would probably have been 3D.
  • lewisblakelewisblake
    Posts: 188
    Bond directors should follow Christopher Nolan's line - argue for IMAX or something - just not 3D!
  • FromCanadaWithLoveFromCanadaWithLove Canada
    Posts: 612
    lewisblake wrote:
    Bond directors should follow Christopher Nolan's line - argue for IMAX or something - just not 3D!

    Skyfall is in IMAX...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    FromCanadaWithLove wrote:
    lewisblake wrote:
    Bond directors should follow Christopher Nolan's line - argue for IMAX or something - just not 3D!

    Skyfall is in IMAX...

    Not true IMAX. It wasn't shot with IMAX cameras.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    I want all Bond movies to be transferred into true computer enhanced surround 3D so I can immerse myself in the digital experience, be cause let's face it, The Narrative Is Not Enough.*

    * sarcasm
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    chrisisall wrote:
    I want all Bond movies to be transferred into true computer enhanced surround 3D so I can immerse myself in the digital experience, be cause let's face it, The Narrative Is Not Enough.*

    * sarcasm

    You live to lie another day.

    See what I did there, everyone? W-was it funny? Hello? Hmm.

  • TopGearJB007TopGearJB007
    Posts: 624
    A 3D Die Another Day gunbarrel would be E.P.I.C.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    Creasy47 wrote:

    You live to lie another day.
    CatLaugh.jpg
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited October 2012 Posts: 28,694
    I think the more accurate statement is that 3D isn't ready for Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,830
    3D is a warm & fuzzy way of letting you into a character's situation... we don't need that IMO. Just tell us the damn story.
  • jazzyjules63jazzyjules63
    Posts: 2
    I would beg the producers to NEVER go down the 3D route. 3D is one enormous ripoff devised by Hollywood to get more of our money. And that flows on to the home entertainment market as well. Well done, Barbara.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited October 2012 Posts: 4,399
    3D is the remedy for a lousy story..... throw some '3D' stuff at their faces, and they'll be so wowed that they wont realize the story to film was written on garbage with crap.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    3d and Imax are merely ways of blocking pirate quality. I felt they went the wrong way by making dredd 3d the only way to view the film, I feel it suffered highly at the box office because of it too.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    oo7 wrote:
    ... I feel it suffered highly at the box office because of it too.

    and also because Lionsgate can't market any film that isn't SAW.... god i hate them..

  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    3D is terrible, end of. But I do agree with this.
    TopGearJB007 wrote:
    A 3D Die Another Day gunbarrel would be E.P.I.C.

  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    3D is terrible, end of. But I do agree with this.
    TopGearJB007 wrote:
    A 3D Die Another Day gunbarrel would be E.P.I.C.

    <object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/RbtDPFM5fTI?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/RbtDPFM5fTI?version=3&hl=en_GB"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited October 2012 Posts: 3,497
    NO 3D for Bond please.

    But by the time Bond 25 hits, it'll probably be dead, with the exception of those overrated Hobbit movies and James King Of Teh World.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    3D is one gadget we don't need.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    JamesCraig wrote:
    NO 3D for Bond please.

    But by the time Bond 25 hits, it'll probably be dead, with the exception of those overrated Hobbit movies and James King Of Teh World.

    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    HASEROT wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    NO 3D for Bond please.

    But by the time Bond 25 hits, it'll probably be dead, with the exception of those overrated Hobbit movies and James King Of Teh World.

    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

    It's ridiculous.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    HASEROT wrote:
    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

    Camerons movie was the supreme advertisement for 3D, most other movies were not even filmed with the equipment JC worked but they saw the profitmargins.

    I am looking forward to the Avatar sequels while the story never really was that impressive the visuals were simply stunning. Well worth the price of admission for what I consider a true movie meant for the big screen.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited October 2012 Posts: 4,399
    SaintMark wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

    Camerons movie was the supreme advertisement for 3D, most other movies were not even filmed with the equipment JC worked but they saw the profitmargins.

    I am looking forward to the Avatar sequels while the story never really was that impressive the visuals were simply stunning. Well worth the price of admission for what I consider a true movie meant for the big screen.

    i am old school - and probably learned my lesson the hard way with the Star Wars prequels lol... stunning visuals mean nothing to me, without a story to back it up... while I don't mind Avatar, it's story is adequate - but i could not see, nor fathom the pedestal that the majority of people put it on, nor do i believe it's worthy of being the highest domestic grossing film in history... it's a good popcorn flick, thats about it for me...

    the last great Cameron movie was Terminator 2.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    HASEROT wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

    Camerons movie was the supreme advertisement for 3D, most other movies were not even filmed with the equipment JC worked but they saw the profitmargins.

    I am looking forward to the Avatar sequels while the story never really was that impressive the visuals were simply stunning. Well worth the price of admission for what I consider a true movie meant for the big screen.

    i am old school - and probably learned my lesson the hard way with the Star Wars prequels lol... stunning visuals mean nothing to me, without a story to back it up... while I don't mind Avatar, it's story is adequate - but i could not see, nor fathom the pedestal that the majority of people put it on, nor do i believe it's worthy of being the highest domestic grossing film in history... it's a good popcorn flick, thats about it for me...

    the last great Cameron movie was Terminator 2.

    Good popcornflicks are hard to come by these days, too much darkness and reality is being sold as fun. I found this years The Avengers movie a fun cinematic outing that was well worth the admission fee.

    And as for the pedestal of Avatar it is well deserved due to the advancement of technical skills the movie made possible.
    And it proves the skills of JC who with his last two movies showed that he has more insight in what an audience wants to see than most so-called experts in Hollywood. Hence his two topselling movies.
    And when JC comes with a new movie I have found it is well worth the admission fee in entertainment value.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    SaintMark wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    HASEROT wrote:
    we can all thank James Cameron for opening pandora's box - and starting a trend we didn't need, nor ask for...... maybe he should give up his dumb blue alien sequel and get back to something more serious... like Cat Lasers.

    Camerons movie was the supreme advertisement for 3D, most other movies were not even filmed with the equipment JC worked but they saw the profitmargins.

    I am looking forward to the Avatar sequels while the story never really was that impressive the visuals were simply stunning. Well worth the price of admission for what I consider a true movie meant for the big screen.

    i am old school - and probably learned my lesson the hard way with the Star Wars prequels lol... stunning visuals mean nothing to me, without a story to back it up... while I don't mind Avatar, it's story is adequate - but i could not see, nor fathom the pedestal that the majority of people put it on, nor do i believe it's worthy of being the highest domestic grossing film in history... it's a good popcorn flick, thats about it for me...

    the last great Cameron movie was Terminator 2.

    Good popcornflicks are hard to come by these days, too much darkness and reality is being sold as fun. I found this years The Avengers movie a fun cinematic outing that was well worth the admission fee.

    And as for the pedestal of Avatar it is well deserved due to the advancement of technical skills the movie made possible.
    And it proves the skills of JC who with his last two movies showed that he has more insight in what an audience wants to see than most so-called experts in Hollywood. Hence his two topselling movies.
    And when JC comes with a new movie I have found it is well worth the admission fee in entertainment value.

    i have nothing against popcorn flicks - i love them just as much....

    i know the breakthroughs that Avatar made from a technical standpoint - and i've maintained that Cameron is a man who knows how to handle special effects... but his last two outings (IMO) pale in comparison to earlier works, like Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss, Aliens.. what those films had was the amazing special effects, and groundbreaking technology (for the film) but also rich and deep storylines.... like i said, this is my opinion mind you... i just prefer older Cameron to newer Cameron.

  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    Judy Dench and her trust issues in 3D? God help us.

    I've never seen a 3D film I enjoy. I see it as a sign of a weak movie when they employ 3D unnecessarily. Its like "Let's distract the audience from hammy performances and bad scripts by having a dodgy effect that rarely works". For me, Bond should never embrace 3D at all. It would be a distraction and just would look out of place. It would also set up a lot of dodgy shots. Invest potential 3D money into the movie via scripts etc because that's where a film will be viewed as memorable
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    Judy Dench and her trust issues in 3D? God help us.

    I've never seen a 3D film I enjoy. I see it as a sign of a weak movie when they employ 3D unnecessarily. Its like "Let's distract the audience from hammy performances and bad scripts by having a dodgy effect that rarely works". For me, Bond should never embrace 3D at all. It would be a distraction and just would look out of place. It would also set up a lot of dodgy shots. Invest potential 3D money into the movie via scripts etc because that's where a film will be viewed as memorable

    we already has a film like that - DAD... it just wasn't in 3D... but could you imagine? - getting the full effect of the suck, in your face?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Great news. By the time Bond may think about making the move, we can hope 3D will be long since dead.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited October 2012 Posts: 3,497
    I despise Avatar. Not only because it started the 3D craze, but it has a completely dull story, effects that aren't even that special (LOTR did better and I don't really like those films tbh), dull characters and dull dialogue.

    I'm surprised Clive Owen wasn't in it.
  • alphadecalphadec
    Posts: 3
    Thank you Barbra I'm am dead agains bond ever will be made in 3D.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited October 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I like James Cameron but hated Titanic and I thought Avatar was overrated (the CGI was amazing though). Avatar was a disappointment because I thought it'd be a return to Camerons Terminator/Aliens days, really cool action sci fi. Signourey Weaver was in it! That was a good sign, but no. It was just an average film with some cool special effects and just as much sentimental crap as Titanic.

    Camerons last great film was True Lies. Trouble is now he's really up himself, he has a huge ego.



Sign In or Register to comment.