› ›

Bond - 3D

DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
edited March 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 24,257
No, I don't want it. I'll never want it. No matter how good your 3D is, it's just different and it never comes off that well in 2D either. Besides that, I don't think the 3D experience belongs anywhere else than in a theme park. A good Bond film is a film with a great script, a great score, great acting, great cinematography and so on and so on. I don't, however, need the Avatar sensation for that extra bit of entertainment. But then, that's just me.

How do <i>you</i> feel about this?
«13

Comments

  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    Posts: 443
    Watching 3D movies gives me headaches. I have a headache right now so I'm remembering exactly what it feels like to have to sit through 3D.

    No thanks.
  • BondBond
    Posts: 503
    It's a dumb Hollywood fad. Hopefully EON doesn't buy into it, though they don't seem to mind swiping Bond's balls for a TV commercial so God knows what they'd agree to.
  • BartlebyBartleby
    edited March 2011 Posts: 110
    I think that a Bond movie in 3D would be terrible and I hope that it never comes to pass. It wouldn't add anything. It would be a terrible crutch for action scenes and be a distraction in dramatic scenes.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Don't get me wrong, there is a kind of 3D I don't mind. For example, if George Lucas works some 3D in his Star Wars films, I'm there. Even if I know that it's all about the money again, I swear experiencing all the space battles in 3D will make me feel like a kid again. ;;) However, Bond is of a totally different kind. And I'm very happy with what you've answered so far, guys. :)
  • ChuckChuck
    Posts: 212
    I'd be disappointed if EON went the 3D route for several reasons. First of all being that most of the 3D fare out there is pretty bad, as the main focus is on seeing just how many objects can be thrown at the screen to maximize the 3D effect. The second being that I also get headaches from 3D films.

    If and/or when EON takes Bond in the 3D direction, I won't be financially supporting it with a trip to the theater to see it. When it arrives on Blu-ray, I might give it a view, but you won't find me in the theater for it.
  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    Posts: 443
    I get what you're saying. I can appreciate the 3D in a film like Avatar mostly because it was filmed in 3D and the subject matter fits in well. Still gave me a headache though.
  • RunawayRunaway
    Posts: 24
    The only good thing about a Bond in 3D would be the gunbarrel! Other than that it's a terrible idea but you just know it's being considered for 23 #-O
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    Imagine they make us sit through the gun barrel in 3D en then we can take the glasses off. We can put them back on during the OT and then leave them off for the rest of the film. I could live with that.
  • BartlebyBartleby
    Posts: 110
    @DarthDimi But would that be worth three additional dollars?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,257
    No, of course not. They should give us the glasses for free. Although to be honest, in my local theatre they allowed us to purchase the glasses and we now re-use them constantly. I've used them for Tron and Resildent Evil so far. Since I'm not much of a 3D fan, these are the only 3D films I've seen in about half a year.
  • BartlebyBartleby
    Posts: 110
    My local theatre allows you to keep the glasses, but that doesn't stop them from charging the three dollars the next time you go to see anything in 3D.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    I hold out hope it'll never happen or at least not for the time being. I hope 3D dies soon.

    Another thing I want: Bond films filmed in film not digital!
  • SirCLMDBCRaigSirCLMDBCRaig
    Posts: 205
    I don't necessarily see how 3D is somehow a bad thing or should be gept for theme parks. For the bond series tho? Probably not..3D should be kept for movies that are specifically made to take advantage of it. 3D in general I support tho..its just a different and alternative way to experience a movie and what's wrong with that?
  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    edited March 2011 Posts: 443
    Quoting Samuel001: Bond films filmed in film
    You couldn't have figured out a better way to phrase that? I had to reread it three times!
    #-O
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    @nick_007 I was thinking about it but nothing came to mind except that very confusing way of explaining myself. :-))
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    I will never see 3D as the viable and standard format, until we no longer need glasses (which i hear a TV like is possibly already in the works?).. but even still - your 3D experience is only limited to the screen in front of you - it's not like you can turn your head and see stuff fly past you... not to mention it has an annoying flicker...

    It's a gimmick, and a stupid one - designed to rip people out of an extra $5.. what part of 3D can tell the story better than watching it regular... if anything, 3D helps mask what a bad movie it really is **cough cough Avatar**... Who wants to sit through The King's Speech or The Social Network in 3D?? - it's a format built for really only 1 or 2 genres of film... and therefor i can't see it working across all boards..
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,356
    Damn Avatar. That stupid film ruined everything and maybe, even the whole point of 3D in the first place. Now it's overkill.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2011 Posts: 4,399
    Avatar was probably one of the biggest wastes of time and money I had in a theater... such an average movie, that somehow got Christ-like praise.. i never understood why people thought it was so good? - the only logical conclusion i came to, was that they were blinded by the "pretty 3D" that it made the lack luster story look amazing..... i was one of the many that saw straight through the fancy effects.... the story was mediocre - and for having been hyped for so long, i expected a lot more.. the effects might have been ground breaking, but sorry, the story stunk on ice... I never considered Cameron a great director to begin with - i always felt he was a bit overrated... the man knows his special effects work, and how to properly incorporate it into his movies - but he's fairly basic and plain with actual directing.... he's George Lucas 2.0
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    i dont think that it will look good in 3D.
    3D is for Sci-Fi movies
  • thegiantcookiethegiantcookie
    Posts: 103
    I remember watching an Interview onlline with Sam Mendes in which he repeatedly said he hated 3D. So that gives me the hope it wont be in 3D. I dont want it to be. Its nice, but a huge gimmick. Bond has enough of those already...
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    @haserot I'm one of the people that never saw the film in a cinema so that I'm pleased of. But, yes I agree, many I know of either disliked the film an awful lot or feel asleep whilst watching it!

    The second is due out December 2014 and the third and final one December 2015. Yay!... X(
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    oh boy, better get my tickets now, before some suicidal fanboys get their hands on it.......

    i only saw it, because i thought it looked interesting, plus i wanted to see what all the hype was about - so i went with a bunch of classmates and one of our college instructors... afterward, we all met back out in the lobby - our instructor asked each one of us what we thought.. every one of my classmates gushed about it, saying how great it was... when it came my turn, i just said "meh - it was okay, nothing special."... i was looked at like my head just exploded and demon skulls came flying out... even my instructor asked me "why do you think that???".. i said exactly what i said here, - it really had no story, everything was set up to benefit the special effects, and that annoyed the hell out of me.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited March 2011 Posts: 13,356
    It's a story about a bunch of tree-hoggers. That's it. Indeed all the praise was due to the 3D and special effects. I knew the story wasn't all that and told people to go in there not expecting a lot but they still came out disappointed in the story. I can't understand how some people let hype - of anything - get to them.

    As far as Bond in 3D goes the film that would suit it best as discussed before is Moonraker.
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    No I am not impressed with 3d. I've seen several 3d movies and only two were worth the extra money- those being Avatar and the recently released Nic Cage horror/action film, Drive Angry. Both movies fully exploited the 3d experience.

    On the other hand, Dawn Treader, Tron and Green Hornet were all a waste of 3d and a waste of the extra cash.

    Bond doesn't need to go this route, unless Eon is willing to be real smart with the format. But Bond is not Avatar or Drive Angry, so why bother.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    You know, the Bond movies have more important things to worry about than trying to turn this into a 3D extravaganza and even if they did go the 3D route, chances are, they'd add the 3D tech in post as opposed to filming the film in 3D.

    The Bond films simply don't need 3D, it adds nothing to what the movies are trying to do. The main priority for the Bond films at least for now is to tell a cracking story.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I have yet to see a 3D movie that "adds" to the film itself. To me, it is as much of a gimmick as it was in the 1950s and the early 1980s. (They don't stick things in your face like they used to, but it still isn't much more.) Truth be told, 3D takes away, if anything. It distracts the viewer from the story and characters, and puts their attention on things flying at you and whatnot. Avatar is a perfect example. The movie's idea was nothing new at all. Not one character was unique either; they were all either cliched (the entire military and Giovanni Ribisi) or painfully dour and lifeless (Sam Worthington). But it was the visual effects that got praised; the movie even promoted itself saying something like "you'll never watch movies the same way again". Yes, Avatar looked great, but that is about all it had going for it. The 3D visual effects made audiences forget about the fact that the plot and characters were weak, and they therefore walked out of the theatre claiming the movie to be great!

    But I was not fooled, James Cameron. Shame on you.

    Tron: Legacy follows the same form as Avatar, but Tron's terrible script brings the film down even further.

    Avatar is not a BAD film, but I do think it is infinitely overrated and did not even deserve to be thought about for Best Picture at the 2010 Oscars.

    So James Bond in 3D, huh? To me, the addition of 3D seems like a filmmaker's way out of creating meaningful characters that will metaphorically be "3D" to the audience member. But some need to know that just because an image can "pop out" at you, that doesn't automatically equate to a viewer becoming more "connected" with a character. It is the classic style over substance problem. James Bond has suffered through this; Die Another Day being a good example. Filmmakers were so keen on giving the audience as many flashing lights and colors as they could possibly handle, they forgot about something that is far more important: characters and interactions. The statement "What would James Bond be without action?" is only partially correct. I'd say most of the best moments in Bond have not been action scenes.

    So, bottom line: if Bond would go into 3D, they would follow the same path as many other films have: style would dominate substance. And the result would be a formulaic, boring, been-there-done-that affair.

    Simply put: don't ever make Bond in 3D.
  • DoubleOPosDadDoubleOPosDad
    Posts: 1
    NO NO NO NO NO!
  • BartlebyBartleby
    Posts: 110
    Quoting DoubleOPosDad: NO NO NO NO NO!
    I read this post in this voice.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Agree wholeheartedly with everything thats been said here. Its fun for 5 minutes when youre at Universal Studios but its only ever there to gloss over a lack of story or acting which has been left to suffer because the filmakers are more obssessed with the effects and 3D than they are with such mundanities as plot and character.

    Avatar the textbook example. For all the years it was being laboured over all we heard from the (overrated) Cameron was how they were doing this with computers and that with CGI and the other with 3D. And what did we end up with? Something that should have been edited down to 10 minutes and used with a motion simulator ride at Universal Studios. Utter garbage.

    Mind you, if youre reading Babs, using 3D is just about the only way you'll be able to give a P&W script a bit of depth so keep it in mind when they unveil their latest scribblings.
  • saunderssaunders Living in a world of avarice and deceit
    Posts: 987
    Quoting TheWizardOfIce: Mind you, if youre reading Babs, using 3D is just about the only way you'll be
    able to give a P&W script a bit of depth

    :-))

    I don't want to see Bond become 3D, partly because the concept still seems like just a gimmick to draw people into cinemas rather than for the sake of improving the films content, and secondly I don't want to have to buy the non 3D version DVD and every time I watch it always feel like I'm missing out on the genuine experience.
Sign In or Register to comment.