› ›

Bond - 3D

2

Comments

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    The only film I enjoyed in 3D was Resident Evil. Avatar wasn´t worth it. In Tron Legacy it even distracted from enjoying the ambience.
    Well-shot frames stimulate the brain way better than stereo-cameras. Once Hollywood gets the drift that teaching angles and lenses is cheaper than 3D cameras, I´m sure 3D will be neglected ;-) .
  • Mr_SterlingMr_Sterling
    Posts: 99
    no thanks...its an unneccessary hollywood fad
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Quoting boldfinger: Well-shot frames stimulate the brain way better than stereo-cameras. Once Hollywood gets the drift that teaching angles and lenses is cheaper than 3D cameras, I´m sure 3D will be neglected ;) .
    The problem is that more and more systems are currently being developed to bring 3D to the home cinema market. When that happens, we might never get rid of it for all I know. They gave us 3D in the 50s but the wave of poorly executed 3D horror trash was swiftly over. The same thing occurred in the early 80s. Each time 3D went as fast as it came. I therefore assumed that 30 years later, we'd find those trends repeated but I'm not so sure about anymore I'm afraid. 3D's exceptionally popular, Oscar winning and finding its way to our video games and living rooms. I'm slightly worried about these trend I must admit.
  • MrsAuralSectsMrsAuralSects
    Posts: 214
    I don't mind a 3d Bond, there will still be a 2d version. Don't know why others get all up in arms about it.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Quoting MrsAuralSects: I don't mind a 3d Bond, there will still be a 2d version. Don't know why others get all up in arms about it.
    Because you need to adopt a certain style of cinematography to make the 3D work. When the film is later on printed on DVD, the 2D will show traces of the 3D process, which inevitably leads to a less interesting experience. Furthermore, Bond should be about a great plot, great script, great acting, great music and great cinematography. We don't need theme park attractions to raise the quality of a good Bond film. Or at least that's not how it should be. Avatar? Fine. It had little else to offer. But if a Bond film requires 3D, they might just as well consider not making said film. It means the basic elements aren't good enough.
  • AndrewLucasAndrewLucas
    Posts: 54
    The only good thing about 3D is that it seems to be driving cinemas towards digital projection. My local cinema has replaced all their screens with digital and the picture quality is excellent - much more immersive than wearing cheap glasses that kill the brightness.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    @AndrewLucas

    They didn't change their screens with digital, merely the 35mm projector has been replaced with a digital one. ;-) The digital projector itself costs nearly $100,000, so if they'd also change the screens (the latest are at almost $1500 the square meter), I can let you make the math. ;-)
  • AndrewLucasAndrewLucas
    edited March 2011 Posts: 54
    Sorry - I meant that they changed the projection in all "screens", not the screen itself.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Ah ok AndrewLucas. ;-)

    I must say I have never watched a 3D film with the cheap glasses that kill the brightness. The cinemas where I work at use the more expensive glasses where the loss of light is minimal. But they have the tendency to be heavier.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Quoting DaltonCraig007: I must say I have never watched a 3D film with the cheap glasses that kill the brightness. The cinemas where I work at use the more expensive glasses where the loss of light is minimal. But they have the tendency to be heavier.
    It wouldn´t be a problem if the projection would be brighter, but that would probably cost the theater twice as much in electricity, and anyhow none of the adience complains, meaning they can be fed pretty much any crap.
  • Vodka_MartiniVodka_Martini
    edited March 2011 Posts: 27
    I have to agree that 3D Bond is the wrong direction. Yeah 3D is the newest, "coolest" technology but it only suits certain movies. The movie companies haven't seemed to work out yet that not EVERYTHING should be in 3D, only a very select few that warrent it! Bond in 3D is a no go!
  • hart008hart008
    edited March 2011 Posts: 91
    Bond is about class, and luxury i would NOT go 3d on bond itll lose the classy-ness
  • hart008hart008
    edited March 2011 Posts: 91
    PLus Bond is all about real footage not CGi so 3D will suck bad time
  • CoH_GHOST_007CoH_GHOST_007
    Posts: 303
    I think that by making Bond into 3D, it would make it feel too modern and too far-fetched, i think that there's a limit to what they can do with a Bond film, and i think that by putting that into it would just ruin it :$
  • VirageVirage
    Posts: 1,856
    NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! why don't we just put Daniel Craig in a motion capture suite.......
  • CoH_GHOST_007CoH_GHOST_007
    Posts: 303
    "Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in 'Bond 23' 3D" !!! (No, Just No)
    They already wrecked Brosnan's era with CGI, so please don't ruin Craig's era with 3D! :(
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Won't we be seeing Craig in 3D in TinTin soon? ;;)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Won't we be seeing Craig in 3D in TinTin soon? ;;)
    Only in animated form and it won't even be him, it'll just be his voice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Won't we be seeing Craig in 3D in TinTin soon? ;;)
    Only in animated form and it won't even be him, it'll just be his voice.
    Mightn't they preserve his likelihood though?

  • followingthenerdfollowingthenerd
    Posts: 21
    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.
    Was reading down these posts and about to type Moonraker myself. Well dont that man!

    As for Avatar, biggest waste of money EVER!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    As for Avatar, biggest waste of money EVER!
    Yeah. The 3D was the only thing good about it.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I thought Avatar was good for what it was, a spectacle. It was never a masterpiece and the plot was about as cliched as you can get BUT I do have to admit that I was visually very impressed with how it was done. It was colourful, it was vast and it really demonstrated visual imagination. In terms of "creating the whole universe" Avatar was great.

    As for Bond in 3D...no, end of story!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Won't we be seeing Craig in 3D in TinTin soon? ;;)
    Only in animated form and it won't even be him, it'll just be his voice.
    Mightn't they preserve his likelihood though?

    If you mean likeness Demi, Daniel Craig does not look like Red Rackham as far as I can tell. ;-)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189


    This would obviously be the ultimate 3D Bond moment ;)
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    Ah yes, the CGI bullet in DAD... must be the quickest I've ever been tempted to switch off a film (less than 10 seconds of watching a film).
  • LudsLuds MIA
    Posts: 1,986
    Ah yes, the CGI bullet in DAD... must be the quickest I've ever been tempted to switch off a film (less than 10 seconds of watching a film).
    You didn't?

    :O
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2011 Posts: 13,355
    Ah yes, the CGI bullet in DAD... must be the quickest I've ever been tempted to switch off a film (less than 10 seconds of watching a film).
    You didn't?

    :O
    I jumped and spilt my drink on my first watch. I thought WTF was that and had to rewind it to see what it was.

    After that I just had to continue to see how bad it'd get.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2011 Posts: 15,718
    It's a Bond film, @Luds !! I will always enjoy discovering the latest outing, no matter how bad it is. I want to have fun watching the new Bond film for the first time. Complaining comes later. No bother watching the new outing of your favorite movie franchise if you're going to get your arms up the air every 30 seconds.
  • LudsLuds MIA
    edited May 2011 Posts: 1,986
    @DC Yeah I didn't either. I couldn't, I was with the misses and my best buddy. But we both thought it sucked and were ridiculed by the misses for being fans of the series. She assumed all movies were this bad... It took me years to get her to watch more flicks.
  • dundadunda
    edited February 2013 Posts: 116
    anybody heared of this ??
    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/02/17/looks-like-james-bond-is-finally-going-3d-this-year-and-dr-no-imax-re-release-planned/
Sign In or Register to comment.