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.
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.
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?
Skyfall will be in theaters on November 9, 2012.
Follow Perri on Twitter @PNemiroff