‘Dr. No’ May Be Coming to IMAX 3D

A Taiwanese Blu-ray 3D version of the very first James Bond movie offers intriguing possibilities about a potential theatrical conversion.

The first James Bond movie Dr. No may receive an IMAX 3D conversion
The first James Bond movie Dr. No may receive an IMAX 3D conversion
The blockbuster release of last year's Skyfall was the culmination of MGM and Sony's celebration of the James Bond franchise's 50th anniversary. If a new report is to be believed, there may be plans in the works for a 3D conversion of the first Bond movie, Dr. No.

The rumor stems from a Taiwanese Blu-ray 3D release of Dr. No, and the fact that Moviefone has created an entry for an IMAX 3D re-issue. Nothing has been confirmed by Sony Pictures or MGM Studios, both of which distribute the James Bond movies. Since Skyfall was the highest-grossing 007 movie of all time, the dashing character's popularity has been skyrocketing, so it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see the studios trying to cash in on Bond's resurgence.

Fox Home Entertainment handles the domestic Blu-ray and DVD releases for the franchise. Last summer, the studio made the surprise announcement that they converted the 2D sci-fi movie I, Robot for a Blu-ray 3D release. If a Dr. No 3D theatrical release is in fact in the works, then we can most certainly expect a domestic version of the first 007 movie on Blu-ray 3D.

Dr. No was released May 8th, 1963 and stars Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman, Jack Lord, Bernard Lee, Anthony Dawson, Zena Marshall, John Kitzmiller. The film is directed by Terence Young.

Tags: James Bond

Share this story yet?

5 11 1 0 1


Comments (35)

  1. Nicholaus XX

    @dan1 -- Now, that's more like it. Dan The Hillbilly; who would of thought?

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  2. Corey W.

    @dan1 I mean I don't think I brag about it or anything. In fact, I use it as a shield when people question me when I see sh*tty looking movies. Not a huge deal either. I work part time at a movie theater. I'd rather have a steady, consistent job and pay for movies rather than a sh*tty, cooking job and see them for free. Not as worth it as some think at the end of the day

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  3. Dan

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx Sh*t, my secret is out. Better come clean, I suppose. Gonna hunt squirrel later, while chewing tobacco, and screw my wife/cousin in celebration while we watch those crazy kids on Buckwild.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  4. Dan

    @corey It's fine, I just tire of hearing how you see movies for free, honestly. I do think it's muddled your principles somewhat, but that's your issue, noone elses.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  5. ejk1

    @corey Dude, it's cool. My whole issue is what you said about how the upconvert won't do anything to improve the film, but they'll raise the prices on tickets for this nonsense.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  6. Corey W.

    @ejk1@dan1 I apologize if I came off as a dick. I have no reason for sticking up for this idea the way I am. I'm just a fan of seeing movies I love in theaters that I wasn't around to see when they came out. That being said the 3D idea is lame, and I honestly hope they just decide to show it in normal, 2D IMAX.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  7. Corey W.

    @dan1 Even though I already said that even if I didn't work at a theater I'd pay for it. I might not be working at one either by the time this happens and I will STILL pay for it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself but I'm not talking about money. I get the idea that you guys are staying away and bitching about it because it's ridiculous to spend extra for a pointess 3D format, but I'll be paying to see it for the experience of seeing it on the big-screen and that reason only.

    And I do understand th hostility. I haven't been seeing free movies since the day I was born, Dan. Only since last May, and I still always pay for and support bigger event films such as The Avengers, TDKR, The Hobbit, etc. just because their ticket sales are usually high during the weekend and the managers have us pay if the movies are packed and almost sold out.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  8. Nicholaus XX

    @dan1 -- You're a fan of Jersey Shore and Buckwild, I see.

    @corey -- I don't know if you got @ejk1's point or not, but just in case: People don't want to spend an extra $3.50 on something that isn't necessary, especially if and when people already find the price of admission to be too high in the first place. I repeat, the film coming to the big-screen isn't the problem; it's the needless conversion doing it in.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  9. Dan

    @narrator I f*cking try, goddamnit.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  10. Dan

    @corey Do you just go along with anything Hollywood does? That's the impression I get. I guess if I saw everything for free, I wouldn't care, either. Perhaps you'll have a different mindset when you stop working at the theater and have to pay again like the rest of us. Until then, don't act surprised when those of us who do have to pay, get a little bitchy over a completely pointless conversion for a movie that's been out since 1962 and was never intended for 3D conversion except as a cash grab. Again, it makes no difference to you, since you don't pay, therefore you don't understand the hostility. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing with @ejk1.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  11. supermanvenom

    @bawnian-dexeus Yeah i got to agree with you there. I hate it when i find out tickets we got are 3D

    2 years agoby @supermanvenomFlag

  12. Thomas Clarke (Kiion)

    I hope it gets released over here too, like you lot all stated the fact that a classic is returning the big screen is great news to all those not old enough to have watched it there in the first time release. 3D is part of The film industry now; obviously more people enjoy than don't otherwise they wouldn't put effort into making it like that would they? Just go with it. It maybe be tacky but it may also be good . Who knows to you watch it,that's what I say :)

    2 years agoby @thomasclarkeFlag

  13. the Narrator

    To elaborate on my previous comment, I'd pay to see Dr. No in theaters for the experience of seeing it with my old man, seeing as that's our mutually favorite Bond film (he prefers GoldenEye to my Casino Royale). The sheer sentimental value that viewing would hold is more than worth the price of admission. That being said, this 3D conversion version can go f*ck itself and I won't see it. That's why I'm torn about the idea in general.

    Lol @dan1. Very articulate post, my good sir.

    Exactly, @bawnian-dexeus. What's wrong with re-releasing a classic for theaters exactly as it was meant to be seen, without any tampering? Just like my local cinema did for "Labyrinth" last month. They'd earn my money easily. And I'm right there with you about having to wear two glasses. I've tried to make it work with mine, but it's just annoying as f*ck.

    2 years agoby @narratorFlag

  14. Corey W.

    @ejk1 I'm sure plenty of people won't have a problem with paying to see Dr. No on the big-screen. The movie isn't forcing you to see it either, so there is no reason for people to get angry with the idea of it happening. I see movies returning to theaters as an event. And even if it is converted to 3D, oh well, I'll live with it but enjoy it at the same time cause I'll be seeing a classic on the big-screen.

    And quit talking to me about money, too. I'm not even talking about money. Only reason I brought up seeing movies for free is because you brought up three lousy dollars, which was completely off of WHY I'm excited this is happening. I'm excited as a fanboy to see a film I love on the big-screen...not to sit back and laugh at people "waste" money. I'd pay for it if I didn't work at a theater. Hell, I might not be working at a theater by the time this happens and I'll still pay for it.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  15. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Not even sure why they need to release it in 3D. I mean, CineMark has been showing classic films in theaters as old or older than Dr. No for the past year, without the need of 3D, and they were advertised as events with the tagline "Go back to see the classics the way they were meant to be seen", or something like that. Jaws, African Queen, Men Under a Bridge and others were part of it. No 3D. Jurassic Park may be doing the same, but I'll find the 2D showing like I did Beauty and the BEast and Lion King

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  16. ejk1

    @corey No, you're missing the point with your first and subsequent comments. People don't want to spend their hard earned money on something that you yourself said isn't going to see that much of an upgrade. You don't understand that because as you said, you don't have to pay to see films. You don't have to care about costs. That's fine. But don't go telling people that they should be happy to spend their money when you know damn well that you won't be spending yours.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  17. Corey W.

    @ejk1 You're missing the point of what I said in my first comment. I don't care what format it's in...I don't care what the cost is...I'm excited about being able to see the very first 007 film on the big-screen.

    I'm not talking about it being a money-milker, a failure, or even how lame it is that it's being converted to 3D. I'm just excited to see a classic on the big-screen, and I don't understand why a lot of others aren't.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  18. ejk1

    @corey You see films for free. That's great, but not everyone does.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  19. Corey W.

    @ejk1 I see movies for free....so me being able to see the first James Bond on a huge IMAX screen (for free, mind you) is not something I'll ever complain about.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  20. ejk1

    @corey Reread what you just wrote me. Do you not see anything wrong with that? Essentially, you're saying there going to do basically nothing (a strong possibility), and charge us three bucks extra to watch the film! C'mon, dude, you gotta know you're on the wrong side in this one :P

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  21. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    If I may continue where my friend left off...F*CK OFF!

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  22. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @corey Lol. Do you know how uncomfortable it is to watch a 3D movie with two pairs of glasses on?

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  23. Corey W.

    @dan1 grumpy :P

    @ejk1 I mean, even if they do add 3D...let's be honest, is anything EVEN in 3D? I'm sure we'll just be wearing glasses for the hell of it.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  24. Dan

    @corey Because I like bitching.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  25. ejk1

    @corey Seeing it in theaters as it was created, yes. Having them add 3D? No.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  26. Corey W.

    Why's everyone bitching? I'd love to see the first James Bond in theaters.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  27. Nicholaus XX

    @dan1 -- Love you, too, babe.

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

  28. Dan

    @XxNickTheFilmCriticXx F*ck off.

    2 years agoby @dan1Flag

  29. Nicholaus XX

    @dan1 -- You and your "f*ck offs". ;P

    2 years agoby @XxNickTheFilmCriticXxFlag

From The Web