Next Bond film in 3D
qbvi
AustraliaPosts: 254MI6 Agent
Saw Avatar in 3D - fantastic
Heard next Bond to be in 3D - Whoo hoo:)
Pity about the wait though
Heard next Bond to be in 3D - Whoo hoo:)
Pity about the wait though
A Whisper of Love, A Whisper of Hate
Comments
Saw Avatar in 3D and couldn't be happier - the 3D actually helped to the immersion in the fantastic world of Pandora, and evertything was done in good taste and not trying to be flashy. But judging from the Alice in Wonderland trailer not everyone's as good as Cameron.
I don't think a 3D Bond would be a good idea, truth be told.
Given the source, I don't know how much validity there is in this story, but Hollywood was already touting 3D as the next big thing to combat the surge in popularity of home video. With the runaway success of Avatar, you can be sure that studios (notorious copycats that they are) will definitely be taking an even longer, harder look at going 3D for any future releases.
Anyhow, here's the article:
http://commanderbond.net/9191/the-sun-stirs-up-3d-rumours-for-bond-23.html
I don't think it's a problem.
Having a 3D Bond film sounds like a bizarre gimmicky approach which seems out of touch for the current Craig-era that is putting more emphasis on story than substance.
Page 3 girls in 3D... now you're talking... -{
(Of course, for some blokes this might would just be like seeing a real woman naked...)
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What I'm trying to say is progress is inevitable. Even the worst of us play catch up eventually.
For me the only problem with 3D is the wearing of the glasses. I already wear glasses; I do use contacts, but only about 20% of the time. 3D is not the most user friendly of mediums... it assumes too much IMO !
I think 3-D is becoming more of a fad rather than films moving into this direction.
I went and saw Avatar twice. Once in 3-D and once in real-D. I preferred the real-D to the 3-D. 3-D just seems to busy, but that's just my opinion.
Leave Bond in 2D, stop shaking the camera and just give us a good movie without all the gee-whiz hocus pocus crapola.
-{
I choose substance over gadgetry any day.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Indeed; in the era of silent films, sound was considered a gimmick. Some decried the advent of color film as a gimmick. When TV started to take off in the 50s widescreen processes like Cinemascope were considered gimmicks.
Cinema has been an ongoing, evolving medium. The real surprise to me is that we've been stuck in the projection era for so long while other forms of entertainment have taken the technological forefront. Whenever ticket sales go down and home video spouts some new martketing angle, Hollywood invariably always tries to find some way to make the moviegoing experience more unique and novel, not to mention finding some way of wringing a few more bucks per ticket.
For better or worse, 3D seems to be the next big thing in Hollywood with more and more high profile productions going in that direction. The final Harry Potter movie will be in 3D for example. Given Avatar's ridiculous box office success you can be sure that more and more prominent films will take a long hard look at the medium And, as I mentioned, everybody who buys a ticket for a 3D showing will have to pony up another couple of bucks for a pair of 3D glasses. That premium isn't lost on Hollywood and is one of the reasons Avatar has raked in so much cash in such a short time.
Interestingly, Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder was filmed in 3D. Hitchcock avoided the gimmicky use of things popping out of the screen every five minutes, instead using the process as just another camera tool like his famous zoom while panning back trick, saving the "pop" for the famous scene of Grace Kelly reaching for the pair of scissors. Beyond that, the 3D was used to improve the image's depth of field so that you got a better delineation between foreground and background.
So, can a Bond movie work in 3D? Of course it can, if the director and cinematographer know how to use the technology to the benefit of the script at hand. It probably won't happen for Bond 23 but if the medium sticks this time, it will happen eventually. If nothing else, it will make the gunbarrell logo that much more interesting. And besides, there will always be some 2D screenings for those people absolutely cannot or will not see a 3D movie.
Having said that, the gunbarrel and opening title sequence would look great but they'd be the best parts of the movie as far as 3D goes - what about the rest of the film?
I also saw the last Harry Potter in 3D at an IMAX and only the first few scenes like maybe 15 minutes were in 3D. I see James Bond having a few of the cgi scenes in 3D to call it "3D". And then after it flashes to take the 3D glasses off. I assume thats the only way a James Bond in 3D would look good and still be able to be marketed as.
James Bond- Licence To Kill
I don't mind a 3D film now and then, but this recent trend to have every major film release in 3D is just getting out of hand.
I do agree that 3D is likely going to be the next step in cinema, and is probably here to stay this time, but as of yet it is still just a gimmick that rarely enhances the viewing experience. There are some who know how to effectively make use of it, and more will learn, but its quality so far beyond the basic "oohs" and "aahs" is in question.
"Oohs" and "aahs" definitely do sell tickets, though.