Bond to 3D

VESPER65

Lucas ahead of the game again. Though, wouldn't it be great to do the same with the Bond films todate. Yet another format for us to add to our collections. But the cinema experience would be potentially amazing. Not sure if the Connery/Lazenby films could be converted, but opportunity with the last few films.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11434545

Hardyboy

The words "Bond" and "3D" pop up in combination all the time, and my response is always the same: what would it add? Don't do it to a future film and, for God's sake, leave the existing films alone!

From Russia with Love

This 3D thing is just a gimmick. Fair enough trying it with new movies but why dick about with old classics like the Bond movies or Star Wars? Take "The Empire Strikes Back" for instance - it's a cinematic masterpiece, why bother trying to improve on what already works so well? (Especially given the hatchet job that was applied to the last DVD release of the original trilogy).

The annoying thing is, things like the slide whistle in TMWTGG - things that would be better off removed - aren't going to be removed.

Thunderpussy

I've yet to see a movie,Improved by 3D.Infact I can hardly notice the effect at all (might just be me) but on seeing the same movie latter in 2D I simply can't remember being blown away by any scenes ( even the naughty ones in Pirana 3D ) I agree untill they can generate a 3d image without having to wear the glasses I can't seeing it being anthing more than a novelty.A nd just to finish on a rant (can you imaging shakey camera work in 3D) )

Ricardo C.

We don't need any Bond, new or old, in 3-D. 8-)

Ricardo C.

From Russia with Love wrote:

This 3D thing is just a gimmick. Fair enough trying it with new movies but why dick about with old classics like the Bond movies or Star Wars?

It's George Lucas so no other explanation is nessecary.

Golrush007

I don't want to see either Bond or Star Wars in 3D. I see 3D purely as a gimmick, and don't think it can add anything to a great film.

I don't always agree with Roger Ebert, but this article effectively sums up my feelings about 3D:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

j.blades

Ricardo C. wrote:

We don't need any Bond, new or old, in 3-D. 8-)

Exactly!

thesecretagent

I've only ever seen 3D in places like Universal Studios. The Terminator ride/experience was great, but it was a tailor made piece to show the 3D experience off with over-the-top effects. I can't see Bond films benifiting at all. In fact, if they filmed in the same manner as QOS chase/fight sequences with 3D effects people may actually die. OK, maybe not but they will at least throw up...

Ricardo C.

thesecretagent wrote:

I've only ever seen 3D in places like Universal Studios. The Terminator ride/experience was great, but it was a tailor made piece to show the 3D experience off with over-the-top effects. I can't see Bond films benifiting at all. In fact, if they filmed in the same manner as QOS chase/fight sequences with 3D effects people may actually die. OK, maybe not but they will at least throw up...

If I saw that crappy dog fight in 3-D I'd probably have seizure.

MANDY1

In my opinion new Bond needs a little facelift, but absolutely NOT in a form of 3D.
And ruining older Bond movies with 3D technology is nearly same as
adding soundtracks on classic silent movies.
High definition screens and blu-rays should be enough.

" There are some things that just aren't done, such as drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's just as bad as watching Bond movies with those damn 3D goggles!" )

LOO7K OUT

I prefer '2D' but don't have a particular problem with 3D as a gimmick or experience. So long as it is and stays an optional alternative.

Duncan

hegottheboot

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
If Lucas wants to ruin Star Wars again let him. Don't dimensionalize and destroy the Bonds!