Barbara Broccoli: 'James Bond not ready for 3D'

Thunderbird 2

Quoted from Digital Spy.

"....Broccoli has hinted that there are currently no plans to shoot or convert future Bond films in 3D, but stated that IMAX screenings work brilliantly with the franchise.

When Screen Rant asked about the possibility of 3D, noting that it has now virtually become an expectation, she replied: "I think probably more in what you want to do.

"I think more in horror and science fiction, stuff like that. I think they're more suited to 3D than these, really. We're in IMAX, which we're very excited about and I think that experience will be great. Not quite ready for 3D yet."

The rest is here...

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a431780/skyfall-producer-barbara-broccoli-james-bond-not-ready-for-3d.html

Personally I agree with her and am pleased on this position. IMAX has a certain wow factor, and is a relaxing experience. It fits the contemporary feel of Bond. £D usually gives me eyestrain!

What does everyone else think?

Jarvio

I don't understand why james bond would need to be in 3d anyway. Many films seem to be going 3d for the sake of it

Thunderpussy

I'm glad to hear it, I've yet to see a film that has been "Improved " by
being shot in 3d.

Blackleiter

I believe 3D actually did enhance the experience of viewing Avatar, but I definitely don't think it would do anything for Bond.

Thunderpussy wrote:

I'm glad to hear it, I've yet to see a film that has been "Improved " by
being shot in 3d.

BIG TAM

For me, 3D is a load of rubbish. Yet another technical bauble with which to fool the masses. Studios would be better off investing money into three dimensional scripts rather than visual gimmickry.

Thunderpussy

Blackleiter wrote :

I believe 3D actually did enhance the experience of viewing Avatar, but I definitely don't think it would do anything for Bond.

I've just remembered the masterpiece that was Piranha 3DD , 3D really helped that along. )

minigeff

BIG TAM wrote:

For me, 3D is a load of rubbish. Yet another technical bauble with which to fool the masses. Studios would be better off investing money into three dimensional scripts rather than visual gimmickry.

spot on.

all too often these days films are made in 3D to make up for a crap plot or bad acting. 3D films are nothing new either, so I can't really understand all the hype. when I saw avatar in 3D, all I got was a headache from the horrible head squashing daft glasses you have to wear. plus everyone looks like joe 90. not cool, man.

digitally remastered yes, remade in 3D no. i'm glad bab's isn't interested in a 3D bond film, but I would have prefered her to say 'we don't need to rely on gimmicks just yet' with a little wink.

Agent007jamest

Thunderpussy wrote:

I'm glad to hear it, I've yet to see a film that has been "Improved " by
being shot in 3d.

My thoughts exactly! I just want to view my films with the best picture and sound quality possible and right now that is IMAX

Blackleiter

I think you were enjoying the DDs more than the 3!!! )

Thunderpussy wrote:

Blackleiter wrote :

I believe 3D actually did enhance the experience of viewing Avatar, but I definitely don't think it would do anything for Bond.

I've just remembered the masterpiece that was Piranha 3DD , 3D really helped that along. )

Barry Nelson

I agree there is no reason to have Bond in 3D. I do believe there is a place for 3D, I thought 3D helped Avatar and having seen the standard Avengers and the 3D Avengers, I thought the 3D increased the enjoyment of The Avengers. When I watched the Dark Knight Rises I never once thought gee I wish this was in 3D.

Matt_Double_O

Glad to hear that. I also liked Avatar in 3D, but for me Avatar was really about the technology and visuals (amazing), not the story (which isnt).

Just had a disturbing thought of the DAD tsunami surfing scene in 3D!!

Bond already has stunning locations, women, cars and action to please the eye. No 3D (and not much CGI) required. All IMO.

Jimatay

3D is a gimmick that was brought back into film to attract people to the cinema. The problem is, few films are actually shot in 3D and are rather added into 3D in post production. This doesn't work as good, and is pretty much pointless. Films shot with actual 3D technology do add to the visuals.

However, it's still a gimmick and would most defiantly be out of place in a bond film. In comic book films and brainless action films I see no harm in 3D. But in "real world" flicks like Bond, story should ALWAYS come first.

Helpful chap77

Jimatay wrote:

3D is a gimmick that was brought back into film to attract people to the cinema. The problem is, few films are actually shot in 3D and are rather added into 3D in post production. This doesn't work as good, and is pretty much pointless. Films shot with actual 3D technology do add to the visuals.

However, it's still a gimmick and would most defiantly be out of place in a bond film. In comic book films and brainless action films I see no harm in 3D. But in "real world" flicks like Bond, story should ALWAYS come first.

I couldn't agree more. I feel that Bond would be 3D right now if we were still stuck in the Brosnan era, no offence to him as I did enjoy two of his Bond films. If Die Another Day was released today I bet it would be in 3D, thank God they went down the more realistic path and cast Daniel Craig in the role. James Bond in 3D would just be ridiculous.

Thunderpussy

I picked up a fun fact the other day. Before AVATAR the
most successful 3d movie was ......................... The Stewardesses.
The Stewardesses

The Stewardesses is a 1969 softcore, later R-rated, theatrical 3D film produced, directed and written by Allan Silliphant and starring Christina Hart, Monica Gayle, Paula Erickson, and Donna Stanley.

Produced on a budget of just over $100,000, the film grossed $25 million in 1970, becoming the most profitable 3-D film ever released. In budget-relative terms, it remains among the most profitable theatrical movies ever made. Originally, self rated "X," the film was largely re-shot and re-edited to receive an MPAA "R" rating to qualify for a wide general release. At the same time, the technology of the projection print was enhanced by means of anamorphic 3D to a larger image.

TonyDP

3D is just like any other cinematic tool: an option to be used at the filmmaker's discretion and I don't agree that it can't be used effectively in "serious" films. Martin Scorsese's Hugo was shot in 3D and was both critically acclaimed and even in contention for numerous "prestige" oscars including best picture. Ang Lee's forthcoming Life of Pi is another "serious" 3D production already generating a lot of critical buzz and a 3D version of The Great Gatsby is waiting in the wings to be released next year.

I also think that people who think of 3D as another fad are being naive. Sound, color and widescreen were all derided as fads when they first made their appearances. Yes, Hollywood has used it as a means of artificially increasing ticket prices and have traditionally been short-sighted about properly supporting and nurturing the technology. But those sensibilities have been gradually changing, especially since the release of Avatar. Its also important to remember that the top three grossing movies of all time were 3D. Seven of the top ten grossing films for 2012 were released in 3D and in just about every case at least 50% of their grosses came from 3D screenings. Film companies like Dreamworks and Pixar are also making nearly all their films in 3D now (how many CG movies are being released in 2D these days?). Noted filmmakers like Ridley Scott have embraced the medium and 3D is even finally starting to make inroads into the home (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/3d-starts-popping-up-us-380198).

As to Bond, I really don't see why 3D wouldn't be a viable option if done correctly (shot natively and by a cinematographer familiar with the technology and a director who knows how to frame his shots to take advantage of the medium). The added sense of depth that 3D affords would yield a far more immersive image and the action sequences would, if shot correctly, have far more impact.