71 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Well, I very much did think 3D added something to CORALINE and UP, as well as the 3-D converted NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. The added depth brings an immersive quality to the film that isn't present otherwise. I hear it does the same for AVATAR (though I'll find out for myself eventually), and that the 3-D converted STAR WARS test footage (Lucas has been prepping 3-D versions of the STAR WARS films for quite some time) is also impressive.

[tdalton]

Well, I very much did think 3D added something to CORALINE and UP, as well as the 3-D converted NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. The added depth brings an immersive quality to the film that isn't present otherwise. I hear it does the same for AVATAR (though I'll find out for myself eventually).

Well, added depth isn't the least bit important to me in terms of my enjoyment of the film. Films work just fine in their traditional format, and the added third dimension, no matter how well it's done, is nothing more than a gimmick done for the sake of bringing in extra money for the film.

[JimmyBond]

Sure i'm impatient but name me a bond fan who isn't lol.



I'm curious as to what ideas I'm kind loving the idea of Bond going after smugglers (with it being hopefully based off of Ian fleming Diamonds are forever)

Uh...me. I have 22 great films to view if I need a Bond fix. The very idea of another Bond film coming out sometime in the future is enough to keep me going.

I was toying with saying "I'm asking rhetorically please i don't need 500 people coming to me and saying how patient they are" but i figured nah Most people would be interested in the smuggler part of my post and we'd discuss the value of a story from June.



Boy was I wrong.

Perhaps. I don't think there's too many people here that are interested in discussing month old rumors, especially when there is no real date set for production. Be patient man, next year when the movie (hopefully) starts to get underway this forum will be abuzz with plenty of dicussions on potential plotlines for the film.

[Bryce (003)]

There's a lot of ideas floating about. As to the powers that be, well, I'm certain the script is already in shape but just not there....yet.

3D?....No, I just don't see it happening.

[Qwerty]

Which issue of Total Film is this? December '09?

[Safari Suit]

you wouldnt even view them in their non-3d offerings?

No.

Once they venture into 3D filmmaking, even the non-3D versions of the film will still be filled with tons of moments where it's obvious they put them in for the 3D effects. I despise 3D cinema, and once Bond goes in that direction, I'm done with the franchise.

Have you seen any 3D films since 1982? Dark Knight hardly had anyone waving sticks at the audience. I don't remember any sharks flying out of the screen in Up.

Yes, I have seen several 3D movies since 1982.

And, of course there were no obvious 3D gimmick moments in The Dark Knight. That film was not a 3D movie.

I saw Up in 2D and there were no points in the film where I could tell that something was obviously being done for a 3-D effet; it played just as any other 2D movie I've seen in theatres has played. The only 3-D films that I've seen recently which showcased a lot of gimmick effects were Monsters Vs. Aliens, The Final Destination and to a lesser extent My Bloody Valentine 3-D (some films have actually been pretty disappointing in this regard, as there did indeed seem to be no reason for them to have been in 3-D), films that are in many ways being self-consciously trashy. I can't see the Bond producers going for a gimmicky 3-D film that wouldn't play in 2D at this point in the series. During the first 3-D revival at the tail end of the Moore era? Maybe. If modern 3-D had taken off while they were preping a Bond 21 in the style of Die Another Day? Again, conceivable. But not now I don't think. Even though he was wrong about The Dark Knight marktmurphy's point about 3-D films is fair enough even if it was a phrased a little provocatively.

[tdalton]

Even though he was wrong about The Dark Knight marktmurphy's point about 3-D films is fair enough even if it was a phrased a little provocatively.

It may be a fair point (it's not IMO, but I'll concede that others may find it to be), but if one is basically going to call someone else an idiot, then the argument would actually have some merit if it were factually correct.

[Agent 76]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not science-fiction or kid movies.

[JimmyBond]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not science-fiction or kid movies.

Never seen Moonraker eh

[DamnCoffee]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not (...) kid movies.

Actually Cubby believed that they all should be child friendly. They were described as family entertainment, so they're kind of kids movies.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not (...) kid movies.

Actually Cubby believed that they all should be child friendly. They were described as family entertainment, so they're kind of kids movies.

I had a similar conversation with my housemate on Friday when we watched Casino Royale. He said that the film needed some more nudity (regarding Eva Green but still slightly alarming that he should say it in the middle of the movie!). I explained to him that Bond would just be another "cheap thrills and spills sex and gun fest" if it went down the road of showing a pair of knockers every five minutes and that Bond was still about the nitty gritty action and the sex appeal, but in a much more dignified way than the average Arnie or Tarantino movie. (...not that I have anything against Arnie or Tarantino! Many of their films are thoroughly enjoyable!)

[Quantumofsolace007]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not (...) kid movies.

Actually Cubby believed that they all should be child friendly. They were described as family entertainment, so they're kind of kids movies.

I had a similar conversation with my housemate on Friday when we watched Casino Royale. He said that the film needed some more nudity (regarding Eva Green but still slightly alarming that he should say it in the middle of the movie!). I explained to him that Bond would just be another "cheap thrills and spills sex and gun fest" if it went down the road of showing a pair of knockers every five minutes and that Bond was still about the nitty gritty action and the sex appeal, but in a much more dignified way than the average Arnie or Tarantino movie. (...not that I have anything against Arnie or Tarantino! Many of their films are thoroughly enjoyable!)

Turning into Mathis Conlazmoodalbrocra?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not (...) kid movies.

Actually Cubby believed that they all should be child friendly. They were described as family entertainment, so they're kind of kids movies.

I had a similar conversation with my housemate on Friday when we watched Casino Royale. He said that the film needed some more nudity (regarding Eva Green but still slightly alarming that he should say it in the middle of the movie!). I explained to him that Bond would just be another "cheap thrills and spills sex and gun fest" if it went down the road of showing a pair of knockers every five minutes and that Bond was still about the nitty gritty action and the sex appeal, but in a much more dignified way than the average Arnie or Tarantino movie. (...not that I have anything against Arnie or Tarantino! Many of their films are thoroughly enjoyable!)

Turning into Mathis Conlazmoodalbrocra?

It was a deliberate bit of paraphrasing! Well spotted

[jamie00007]

3D is a terrible, terrible idea for a Bond movie. I hope its nothing they even consider.

[K1Bond007]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not science-fiction or kid movies.

James Bond went into space. How can you deny that many Bond films are science fiction. Furthermore how does being shown in 3D somehow effect the genre of a film or the target audience?

3D is a terrible, terrible idea for a Bond movie. I hope its nothing they even consider.

I don't think it's terrible, but it's definitely gimmicky. There's no need for Bond to go 3D. It'd take more than Avatar to get Bond to go in that direction if you ask me. It'd have to be a pretty major Hollywood trend and even then... I just don't see it happening. Seems like a waste of money. Use that and shoot some awesome scenes in IMAX instead.

[SecretAgentFan]

I´d really be curious whether 3D will come and go or be the norm in ten years and the young members here will ridicule the old Bond films for still being in 2D.

In the end, it´s just a format. Just as the change from black and white to color. If Bond films were made in 3D I wouldn´t think less of them. Therefore, why not? Sooner or later every movie will be in 3D.

Could happen. Right now, it´s the only way to battle piracy, folks. And that´s what will make studio heads decide.

[Agent 76]

3-D ? No!

Bond films are not science-fiction or kid movies.

Never seen Moonraker eh

well................

MISSED THAT ONE! lololol

I agree that sometimes, the Bond movies have science-fiction elements, but I don't really think the franchise needs 3-D to survive. But that's my humble opinion.

[bond 16.05.72]

I saw Zemeckis's Christmas Carol recently in 3D and I'll say the technology as truly advanced but it didn't add anything to the story infact despite it's loyalty to Dicken's literary source it was flinging in scenes which were clearly there to show off the 3D element and not serve the plot.

Incidently I caught a brilliant adaptation of Christmas Carol at the Birmingham Rep Saturday afternoon, this was much rewarding that Zemeckis's empty firework show.

I have no intention to see Avatar, my brother caught the 2D version and he said it was pretty average and over long, he said yes the 3D would have been amazing in some sequences but gone is the time I simply just go for the visual effects in films.

Bond in 3D wouldn't be something I would be bothered about and I don't think they will attempt it for sometime yet if at all.

[tdalton]

I saw Zemeckis's Christmas Carol recently in 3D and I'll say the technology as truly advanced but it didn't add anything to the story infact despite it's loyalty to Dicken's literary source it was flinging in scenes which were clearly there to show off the 3D element and not serve the plot.

Incidently I caught a brilliant adaptation of Christmas Carol at the Birmingham Rep Saturday afternoon, this was much rewarding that Zemeckis's empty firework show.

I have no intention to see Avatar, my brother caught the 2D version and he said it was pretty average and over long, he said yes the 3D would have been amazing in some sequences but gone is the time I simply just go for the visual effects in films.

Bond in 3D wouldn't be something I would be bothered about and I don't think they will attempt it for sometime yet if at all.

Completely agreed with everything you've said here.

Like you, I don't go to films simply for the visual effects, and find such films that are solely there to showcase the effects and offer nothing in the way of story to be complete wastes of my time. If a studio wants to get me into the theater or wants to get my money on a DVD or Blu-ray purchase, then tell me an interesting story and give me a film that is well acted and well written. After seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (which is, quite honestly, one of the worst films I've ever seen, no hyperbole there), I've realized that there's no point in going to see the big action spectacles that offer little to nothing in the way of serious filmmaking, as they're all virtually the same, relying on the visual spectacle rather than bothering to take the time to tell a worthwhile story. I feel the same way about 3D cinema, and hopefully Bond never ventures into that territory.

[kneelbeforezod]

People seem to get strangely wound up about 3D. Fine, it's not your cup of tea, but why the anger? Also, repeatedly insisting it's a gimmick strikes me as a little ignorant. It can be a gimmick, sure, but like any technology it depends entirely on how it's used. James Cameron is clearly going for something more with Avatar for example, and having seen that film I can say that it does add to the sense of immersion in the environment. And is anyone actually claiming it adds anything to the story? I don't think so. That's why they offer both 2D and 3D versions, the story is obviously the most important thing, but if you want experience it with an added layer of depth, you have that option.

This technology is in it's early days too. I genuinely think there are ways it could be used interestingly in the future, especially in action scenes (and no I don't mean things flying out of the screen). If you're one of the people that gets a headache from it, then fine, watch the 2D version, and if you resent the way it's been monetised by the studios and don't want to pay the premium, then fine, watch the 2D version. But to give up on a series of films you presumably enjoy because of it? That's just daft.

[tdalton]

Also, repeatedly insisting it's a gimmick strikes me as a little ignorant.



This technology is in it's early days too.

Because it is a gimmick. It offers nothing to the cinematic experience, and it sole purpose is to get people to see movies they wouldn't otherwise see. I seriously doubt that, based on the trailers, that as many people would be going to see Avatar if James Cameron wasn't insisting that it was going to "revolutionize the cinema experience". Without the 3D, it would just be another mediocre-looking action/romance story that wouldn't net a whole lot at the box office. The same can be said for just about every other 3D film released recently. I doubt anyone would have gone to My Bloody Valentine 3D were it not for the 3D.

No, the technology is not in it's early days. They've been making 3D movies for decades, and it's mostly used as a gimmick to get people into films they wouldn't normally see. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the 3D element is generally a gimmick that very few filmmakers have ever used in a worthwhile fashion.

But to give up on a series of films you presumably enjoy because of it? That's just daft

I'm stupid for deciding to vote with my wallet? That's a far more absurd and offensive statement than anything you've accused me of saying.

Just giving EON my hard earned money even though they've put out something that I don't want to see would be "daft".

[jaguar007]

Because it is a gimmick. It offers nothing to the cinematic experience, and it sole purpose is to get people to see movies they wouldn't otherwise see.

Wouldn't you say that visual stimulation is part of the cinematic experience? OF course 3D does offer something to the cinematic experience, saying it does not is like saying color, scope or any sort of visual effects at all does not add to the cinematic experience. Weather or not you like 3D is personal preference, but to say it has nothing to do with the cinematic experience is a bit ignorant.

For the record I am not for a Bond movie in 3D, until the day that 3D movies are standard.

[tdalton]

Weather or not you like 3D is personal preference, but to say it has nothing to do with the cinematic experience is a bit ignorant.

The only thing that 3D "adds" to the cinematic experience is some of those great shots into films that are simply there to showcase the 3D technology, and do nothing to further the narrative. Film is a two dimensional medium (the screen itself is only two dimensions, i.e. it's flat), and as such, 3D adds nothing to it other than another way for the studios to make money by adding 3D to an otherwise terrible film and trying to get people to go see it. But, I suppose the argument holds no weight seeing as how I'm an ignorant person.

[Skudor]

Also, repeatedly insisting it's a gimmick strikes me as a little ignorant.



This technology is in it's early days too.

Because it is a gimmick. It offers nothing to the cinematic experience, and it sole purpose is to get people to see movies they wouldn't otherwise see. I seriously doubt that, based on the trailers, that as many people would be going to see Avatar if James Cameron wasn't insisting that it was going to "revolutionize the cinema experience". Without the 3D, it would just be another mediocre-looking action/romance story that wouldn't net a whole lot at the box office. The same can be said for just about every other 3D film released recently. I doubt anyone would have gone to My Bloody Valentine 3D were it not for the 3D.

No, the technology is not in it's early days. They've been making 3D movies for decades, and it's mostly used as a gimmick to get people into films they wouldn't normally see. Are there exceptions? Sure, but the 3D element is generally a gimmick that very few filmmakers have ever used in a worthwhile fashion.

But to give up on a series of films you presumably enjoy because of it? That's just daft

I'm stupid for deciding to vote with my wallet? That's a far more ignorant statement than anything you've accused me of saying.

Just giving EON my hard earned money even though they've put out something that I don't want to see would be "daft".

The point on Avatar is simply wrong (you haven't seen it, have you?). The 3D is not just a gimmick in this film - the rest of the special effects are far more impressive and would more than hold their own in 2D. The 3D simply adds ... an extra dimension (in more than one way).

[tdalton]

The point on Avatar is simply wrong (you haven't seen it, have you?). The 3D is not just a gimmick in this film - the rest of the special effects are far more impressive and would more than hold their own in 2D. The 3D simply adds ... an extra dimension (in more than one way).

Well, I'll just chalk it up to my ignorance on just about everything.

No, I haven't seen it, nor will I ever. But Cameron has been shouting from the rooftops that the 3D technology he's used in this film will revolutionize filmmaking, and that, to me, looks to be the driving force behind the hype for the film. Otherwise, the special effects as shown in the promotion for the film doesn't look all that much better than anything we've seen before.

[Skudor]

The point on Avatar is simply wrong (you haven't seen it, have you?). The 3D is not just a gimmick in this film - the rest of the special effects are far more impressive and would more than hold their own in 2D. The 3D simply adds ... an extra dimension (in more than one way).

Well, I'll just chalk it up to my ignorance on just about everything.

No, I haven't seen it, nor will I ever. But Cameron has been shouting from the rooftops that the 3D technology he's used in this film will revolutionize filmmaking, and that, to me, looks to be the driving force behind the hype for the film. Otherwise, the special effects as shown in the promotion for the film doesn't look all that much better than anything we've seen before.

I very much doubt that you're ignorant - unless you disagree?

The special effects in Avatar are certainly better than anything I've seen recently - I genuinely couldn't see the joints. And I'm sure the 3D is revolutionary, on some technical level, and it probably did add something to the general reality of the environment, but it's so darned subtle that I'm not sure what it is (there are some obvious points where you know things are different from 2D - but it's inward into the scene rather than popping out at you). I personally missed a 'spear in your face' moment to be honest.

The rendering of the Na'vi is beyond anything I've ever seen. I'm convinced they must have used some make up and real people for some of it.

Anyhoo... I have no interest in coverting you into seeing something you patently despise for your own reasons, so will leave it at that.

[tdalton]

I very much doubt that you're ignorant - unless you disagree?

I might as well disagree in terms of my ignorance. It's been said to me that I am both around here and other places repeatedly in recent days and months. As they say, the opinion of the masses is generally right.

As for the technical merits of Avatar, I hadn't heard all of the talk about what the special effects were doing to revolutionize the cinema industry. The only thing that I had heard about was the revolutionary 3D technology, which had been discussed as though it was a separate issue from the rest of the special effects (at least in the things I'd read and heard about the film). If they've made strides in the special effects department, then good for James Cameron, I'm glad that the industry is moving forward. I still have about zero interest in Avatar, and the self-promoting that has gone on with that film has been extremely off-putting.

[jaguar007]

The only thing that 3D "adds" to the cinematic experience is some of those great shots into films that are simply there to showcase the 3D technology, and do nothing to further the narrative.

First, I apologize for using the term "ignorant".

Second, I agree with you that 3D does nothing to further the narrative of the film.

However, to say it does nothing to the cinematic experience is like saying color in films does nothing to the cinematic experience. One can get the narrative of a movie on a 13 inch black and white TV just fine, but most would rather see it in color (if that is how it was originally filmed) and on a big screen. That does add to the "cinematic experience".

I have not yet seen Avatar, but I have seen a couple recent movies in 3D and the technology is far better than it was in the 1950s (although I still hate to have to wear those glasses).

[Gobi-1]

I'm very curious to see a Bond film in 3D. I know the gun barrel and credit sequence would be quite amazing in the format.

I saw Avatar over the weekend and the 3D was never once used to throw things at the audience. Quite the opposite actually. As with Up the 3D was used to draw you in with a sense of depth, like a view finder. Some of the best 3D in the film was actually the quite moments when we saw a scene shot through a Plexiglas window or watching a guy clean out a giant test tube. Little things like that can be quite startling in 3D because it feels so real. 3D adds an extra layer to the film going experience. As long as it is handled correctly.

True some will abuse the format, but some will use to visual enhance a movie. Is 3D absolutely necessary? No. But neither is IMAX, Cinemascope, Technicolor, or Sound. They were all once gimmicks too. Film got along just fine for 30 years without sound. It doesn't matter how the film was made. All that matters is if the film was good.

A crappy movie in 2D is still a crappy movie in 3D but the opposite is also true, a wonderful 3D movie is still wonderful in 2D, take Up for example. 3D is just another tool in the filmmaker's toolbox. If you have a problem with it then fine don't see it. It's a fairly simple concept.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Brilliantly stated! Couldn't agree more, Gobi-1

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 22 December 2009 - 02:35 AM.