It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Far fetched? It's my opinion. How can you have a far-fetched opinion?
OHMSS and some of the early Bond films aren't without their faults, either. I mean, the sped-up scenes with Lazenby in the middle of the fight (like the bit where he tries to break the arm of Draco's henchman), or how the speedboat at the very end of TB is on an abnormal fast forward speed play, which might seem to come straight out of a Charlie Chaplin movie. That said. Some techniques are tried and nothing is without its faults.
SF and SP are among those. They're experimentally tried and like @RC7 said it, it's just a matter of preference. I for one loved the Mexico bit in SP and the whole tonal of the 1940s thematic aspect that played out throughout the film. So, the recent two films aren't the ones that fail "miserably" at cinematography or delivering a solid Bond film by the looks. You all just have to try and find the angle they were trying to take rather than following a linear pattern of what you think a Bond film should look like.
Indeed it's quite easy. Millions and millions of people are practicing it every day.
The most conservative (and classic imho) Bond film of the Craig era has been the one that is most widely respected (even if it doesn't have the highest box office) for several reasons. That is CR.
I'm curious to see how we look back on this era once it's all said and done in four or five years. We can't judge it properly since we are still in the thick of it.
Jolly ho. Although you spelt practising wrong mate.
I do wonder at times why people are here? Surely if you're a Bond fan you would be more positive than negative about it all?
But probably you also have a very clear idea what you like about Bond films or not.
I don't really care what approach they take. However, I'd personally prefer if a Bond film felt authentic when on location. I didn't get that feeling from SP certainly. I did to a degree from SF, but as mentioned, felt there was a strange washed out look to the daytime scenes.
They can experiment all they want with these films. That's what this era has been for the most part. Some like it, and others don't. I'm just curious to know how this will date in time. We will only know in +5 years or so.
Building an extension, not myself ofcourse. Lol! But just had a real long winded farce with the planning department. Been 4 years in the making as I promised my delicious girlfriend that I would sort the house from top to bottom before my Bond mancave will be constructed!
So I am in full pre-production as they say in the movie business. Just awaiting a start date on construction and away we go. Said I would do a weekly picture once it all starts. The real fun begins once all the trades have finished, and all the goodies take up their new home where all you good people will see my collection of goodies!
My sense is that there are film goers, and Bond fans, who simply dislike the "establishment." It's like that in music, too. I sensed that there would always be pushback on Mendes, simply because he represented that establishment. And that seems to be continuing.
Establishment? Apart from maybe Foster just about every Bonddirector has been as establishment as it gets!
"The architect of all your pain."
Blofeld confirmed! :O
Here you go:
https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/18291/colorcorrecting-skyfall-and-spectre#latest
Decided to post them in 'Fan Creations' instead, since they have nothing to do with the production of B25.
Outside of forums like this I see nothing but praise for the cinematography in SF and SP (for the latter - Bond by the way of Fincher or Tinker Tailor), while here I see 'too drab' 'needs to be old-school Technicolor' and so on. Same goes for the stories - people saying that they have to be formulaic, should be purely escapist and so on.
Why not try new takes on the character? If anything I'm seeing so many people - again, outside such Bond communities - pushing for someone like Nolan or Villeneuve or MacKenzie for Bond, not a pure journeyman like Yann, because they would like to see *their* takes and twists on this character.
EDIT: on Paloma - The Architect is her new album that she's collaborating on with Arnold. It's nothing to do with B25
Maybe we have different ideas of establishment, because Forster IS establishment!
London looks like it's been shot for a BBC daytime TV show in SF. It looks really drab and mundane. As I say, that is actually how London often looks, so I suppose you could give credit to Deakins for 'capturing' that quality. But is this what Bond films are about? Any where can be made to look drab and boring. Is that a sign of great cinematography?
I agree a lot of it is down to location and use of location as well. London has a quality in terms of its urban fabric that SF doesn't capture - the tight grain, alleyways and passages etc. SP actually does this marginally better in some of the latter scenes.
I am not too hung up on the SP colour filters issue, although I can see this might wind some people up. Fair point.
But when compared to the SF PTS the SP PTS is streets ahead overall in terms of its conception and execution. Just a much better sequence. Even Mendes admits he was not happy with the SF PTS - admitting it's a rather monotonous chase sequence without the changes in tempo you expect from a great Bond PTS.
However I do prefer a lighter colour grade. Especially when lots of colours are involved.
Pretty much. I think most would agree some of both would be best.