‘Skyfall’ Producer Says James Bond ‘Isn’t Quite Ready For 3D’

Published 2 years ago by

James Bond 3D Skyfall Interview Skyfall Producer Says James Bond Isnt Quite Ready For 3D

Skyfall is good. In fact, Skyfall is very good. And while that was likely longtime James Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson’s goal from day one, it begs the question – where to go from here?

Skyfall features tons of suspenseful action sequences, loads of firepower, hot cars and – in true 007 form – stunning opening credits animation. Top that off with a wildly engaging storyline, unforgettable villain and unprecedented access to Bond’s emotions, and you wind up with something that’s going to be tough to top, let alone top twice with Bond 24 and 25.

Nowadays, 3D is synonymous with “bigger and better,” and seems to be the logical progression for an action film with many action sequences – from a commercial standpoint, at least. While promoting Skyfall in New York City, we spoke with Broccoli and Wilson about the past, present and future of the franchise, and in discussing where to go from here, we had to inquire about the topical 3D issue.

Screen Rant: What about 3D? I’m certainly not recommending it, but with movies like this, it’s somewhat becoming an expectation.

Broccoli: 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.

Broccoli didn’t flat out dismiss the potential of adding the extra dimension to films 24 and/or 25, but her intonation led me to believe it’s not in the cards yet – and hopefully, it’ll stay that way. We’ve seen our fair share of 3D films and I still can’t name very many that use the technique to enhance the story, relationships or overall experience.

Bond in 3D Skyfall Producer Says James Bond Isnt Quite Ready For 3D

Yes, Hugo‘s falling snow gives you chills; A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas earns a laugh at 3D’s expense; and a handful of other films feature sets with added depth – but 3D is still most often used as a gimmick. Of course there’s the chance that Bond could be the one to do it right, but it’s a very unique (read: almost non-existent) case whenever we can say, “This movie is better BECAUSE it’s 3D.”

What do you think? Is it a good thing that Broccoli and Wilson are steering clear of the third dimension? Or could 007 be the franchise to justify dropping the extra cash on a 3D ticket?

[poll id="418"]

-

Skyfall will be in theaters on November 9, 2012.

Follow Perri on Twitter @PNemiroff

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: james bond, skyfall

36 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. Bond does not need 3D!

  2. 3D does not need to be in movies. IMAX all the way.

  3. I cant believe they mention 3D…its getting ridiculous !

  4. Wonderful.

    Share a website with you ,

    ( h t t p : / /w w w. w h o l e s a l e m k t. n e t )

    Believe you will love it.

    We accept any form of payment.

  5. iMAX is the only thing more movies need to gravitate towards.

    • Not really. IMAX is still a rarity, if all screens were replaced with IMAX screens then it would be a sensible push.

  6. I thought the whole point of 3D was supposed to be gimmicky.

    • isn´t that the fun-factor about the 3d medium, to be a bit gimmicky. for what else should it be good ? but james bond don´t need 3d. 3d should stay in horror/fantasy and animated movies, but not crap-like -justin bieber in 3d- or those terrible street dance movies in 3d. for those movies it shozld be forbidden.

  7. When I read the comment about their being no movie that was enhanced by 3-D I instantly thought of Hugo so I’m glad you put that after. Bond doesn’t need 3-D and I can’t see it helping in any way.

  8. James Bond and 3D…I never thought there’d be a day where those words would be said in a single sentence…

    • I think if it had carried on on the Die Another Day path, then 3D would have very quickly been installed into the franchise.

      • Good point. Although I really hope Bond doesn’t go down that wacky path again.

  9. Not that we needed proof. But if this does not closed the case on MOVIE STUDIOS trying to force as much money out of people as they can. Even thinking about making Bond in 3D is the ultimate proof.

    Sadly, they must be destroyed, before the evening news becomes 3D.

  10. I think we can all agree a 3D James Bond film, would be deeply silly, and let’s all hope 3D for 3D’s sake dies a quick death.
    But it won’t. Makes it harder to film them in the cinema and makes the studios a bucket load of cash. And movie studios really, really like cash. They’re like Mr Crabs.

  11. NO 3D!! ’nuff said!

  12. 3D yuck – no thanks! Bond is 2D only, come on 23 successful movies in 2D – why mess with it. Personally I am not a fan of 3D, it has it’s place in specific movies only and only to watch it like that once, Bond does not need 3D at all.

  13. He’s Been Married!

    He’s Come Back From The Dead!!

    He’s Been To Outer Space!!”

    And Now James Bond 007, will enter the Third Dimension!!!!

    • hahaha, nice one.

  14. NOOOO! Don’t ruin Bond by giving me a headache four minutes in. Nice cover photo for the article btw, very 3Dish.

  15. Dear Lord, no!

  16. Also, I forgot how amusing that top picture of Craig is, when they were trying to play down the fact that he had blond hair.

  17. most of you dislike 3d, but what about the fun factor .have some of you fun in their life ? if i go with friends in a good used 3d movie,then we always have fun, you can watch it later on home-cinema without 3d. but, i would never buy a 3d t.v. because the 3d techn. of the t.v.´s are not good like on the big screen.

    • because it isn’t fun. Certainly not for me, I have to wear the 3D glasses over my regular glasses which is a pain, not to mention the headaches 3D gives a lot of people still.
      And more importantly, you have to understand, the reason for 3D. it rarely is a creative decision. It is all to do withe money, in the UK it costs between 50-100% extra on top of the normal ticket price to watch a film in 3D.

  18. Thank. God.

    Some of us would just like to watch the movie, please. Story is always the essential, no matter what other producers try to fool themselves into believing.

  19. NO absolutely not. The line must be drawn here. IMAX is perfect. i’m not saying 3-D is a gimmick i like it. actually i love it. But it’s kinda like putting 3-D in a romance. Bond is not your typical action thriller it’s an institution. if it was the first 3-D movie that would be one thing but to me bond doesn’t follow everyone else bond movies make their own rules.

    Remember BOND movies are the inventor of the first ten minute rule in films that everyone now follows. it would be a crime to sell out… But you never know maybe i’m just getting old. It’s just my opinion.

    • You’re not getting old. Bond at his best is always classic with a capital C. His movies fail mostly when they try to follow the latest trend that nobody cares about ten years later. Mr. Craig, in my opinion, gets this completely.

    • i´m absolutely with your opinion. agreed.

  20. what this bond series needs after skyfall, which look awesome is Christopher Nolan for james bond 24

    • He will do one, but he’s expressed interest in waiting until the current run is over, what he means is he has in mind someone to play Bond and it’s not Daniel Craig.
      Most likely he wants Tom Hardy. And I’m all for that. So it’ll be Nolan for Bond 26.

      • i´m with you on that point. it would be perfect if nolan would make a bond-movie. and to the 3d glasses,they are really not comfortable. i do not wear glasses,but i can imagine how it hurts the eyes after a while. peace : )

  21. 3D is a waste of time. The ten people who want it are not enough to make it worthwhile. Just a dead horse the movie industry thought if it flogged long enough would come to life.

  22. The first Bond film already said: NO!

  23. Definitely does not need 3D. 3D does not makes sense for every movie just because it did for Avatar, which made tons of money off of it.

    Especially since it’s supposed to have a larger format for IMAX. I was so thankful that I didn’t have to see The Dark Knight Rises in 3D to see it in IMAX.

  24. Bond would look awesome in 3D imo! Obviously, the Bond movies are great! But why not add 3D to the mix? If done properly, Bond movies would be even more of a blast to watch!

  25. I can’t believe all these backwards incomparable people. Bond would be great in 3D, but you don’t have to watch it in 3D if you don’t want to. If you don’t think it would be great then you are watching it wrong or you only have 1 eye.

  26. There you can find subtitles for not only the latest and hottest popular movies but also TV films.