Page 1 of 1
James Bond 003 D
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:10 pm
by Phil J.
From Virgin Media-
The new James Bond film will be in 3-D.
The next instalment in the British spy movie franchise - which stars Daniel Craig as 007 - has been delayed because bosses reportedly want the movie to utilise new three-dimensional technology.
An insider said: "The 23rd Bond movie has been put back a few months and that has given them the time to prepare to film it in 3-D. Everyone involved in the project is really excited because it will take the franchise in a new direction."
The as yet untitled project had already bee delayed due to issues surrounding the impending sale of MGM Studios.
Producer Michael G. Wilson previously said: "Our timeline's a little up in the air, so we have to be flexible. We just don't know enough about the situation to comment, but we know it's uncertain."
Sam Mendes - who won an Oscar for his debut feature 'American Beauty' - is also reportedly set to direct the film.
Sara Keene, Sam's publicist, confirmed he had met representatives of the Bond franchise to discuss the possibility of him helming the movie but is adamant nothing has been finalised.
She said: "I can confirm that he has had a meeting, but Sam always has lots of projects on the table that he might direct next. Sam's method is to have a number of projects as possible next films and at some point confirm which film he's going to do."
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:21 pm
by Dr_Jones
Thank you!
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:06 pm
by Analog-Umph
Was just reading about that last night.
A new direction huh?
Can't wait to see what that is.
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:42 pm
by AnDrOiD
The new direction is probably just the 3D thingy. Now Bond will be pointing his gun out of the screen towards you. It's like he's really pointing it at you, almost touching your nose. Whoa!
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:01 pm
by Velodynamic
...and then he says: "...this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world
and will blow you head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk??"
Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:16 pm
by Kanta
I am not sure I want Daniel Craig that close to me.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 1:54 pm
by Jon
I was reading something about Bond over Christmas, complaints from drink aware groups saying that 007 drinking onscreen is like smoking onscreen, not exceptable. Oh come on, smoking I can understand, but drinking. How is a Bond scene going to look without is classic drink invloved. . . .
Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:59 pm
by Analog-Umph
Kanta wrote:I am not sure I want Daniel Craig that close to me.
Just sit futher back!
Or knock his lights out if he comes too close.
It's actually really funny watching people react to thin air when wearing 3D glasses.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:00 pm
by Analog-Umph
Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:33 pm
by Kanta
Analog-Umph wrote:Kanta wrote:I am not sure I want Daniel Craig that close to me.
Just sit futher back!
Or knock his lights out if he comes too close.
It's actually really funny watching people react to thin air when wearing 3D glasses.
Or I could just fast forward.
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:51 pm
by Jon
Analog-Umph wrote:Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
I would love to hear Bond ask for a "Bacardi Breezer"
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:40 am
by Analog-Umph
Jon wrote:Analog-Umph wrote:Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
I would love to hear Bond ask for a "Bacardi Breezer"
Or James Boag's Premium Lager
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:57 pm
by GeeJee
Analog-Umph wrote:Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
It's not about the Martini. There is a difference in taste between shaken and stirred. Evidence: Mythbusters
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:45 pm
by Jon
GeeJee wrote:Analog-Umph wrote:Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
It's not about the Martini. There is a difference in taste between shaken and stirred. Evidence: Mythbusters
Is that Mythbusters as in Discovery Channel Mythbusters who have got a few of their experiments wrong?
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:45 pm
by Analog-Umph
GeeJee wrote:Analog-Umph wrote:Jon wrote:Bond to waiter - "Diet coke with ice. . . . . shaken, not stirred"
He shouldn't even be saying "shaken, not stirred" anymore. The martini has improved a hell of a lot since the 1960's.
It's not about the Martini. There is a difference in taste between shaken and stirred. Evidence: Mythbusters
Evidence, what evidence?
I know all about the differences, but the original way in which Flemming might have intended the meaning could have very much to do with the quality of the martini.
It's either that or the difference in hydrogen peroxide, which is diminished with shaking.
So could be either reason that Flemming intended (as is implied in the Casino Royale novel) or both.