No Time To Die: Production Diary

19679689709729732507

Comments

  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Some people on this forum have more clues as to how to make a bond film Better than Roger Deakins as well.

    Yeah. You keep telling yourself that, mate. One day they might even let you shoot the school Panto on your iPhone. If you pass the necessary background checks, of course.

    Settle down Princess.
    I watched SF yesterday and was reminded about the lack of a gun barrel at the start of the film and what Genius didn't put in ?

    Most people on this site i think say it should have been there.

    Roger Deakins as Skyfall's director of photography did a shit job.
    It was too dark and lifeless colours for a bond film.

    What necessary background checks did Deakins pass. His eye site test ? :)
    Sammy mendes got him the job.

    A lot of people on this forum could have done a better job.

    Next thing you'll be praising P&W's brilliant dialogue.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography in Skyfall is the best in the series.

    No, it's not! While I certainly wouldn't go so far to say he did a shit job the movie really is much too dark and dour looking. Also, this is the series that features the likes of TB,YOLT, MR, QoS at the very least so even if these problems had been addressed it still would be a very far fetched statement.

    Far fetched? It's my opinion. How can you have a far-fetched opinion?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    QoS's problem was that it went out of its way to show something what the audience believed to be an adrenaline-driven grit with Marc Forster ordering an agitated camera-work after seeing The Bourne Supremacy. It didn't work. You can still have a gritty blood-fest fistfight and action sequences without resorting to shaky-cam. Just look at how Atomic Blonde achieved that. It was very clear what she was doing. It took me a whole lot of analysis just to see how did Bond kill Slate.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,031
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...
    People love negativity here a lot, mate. Don't let it get you down. And some others are know-it-alls. I've seen people repeatedly slamming Brosnan and found no way to reason with them. So, the best thing is to abandon ship when it's on fire. You'll sleep better at nights.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Some people on this forum have more clues as to how to make a bond film Better than Roger Deakins as well.

    Yeah. You keep telling yourself that, mate. One day they might even let you shoot the school Panto on your iPhone. If you pass the necessary background checks, of course.

    Settle down Princess.
    I watched SF yesterday and was reminded about the lack of a gun barrel at the start of the film and what Genius didn't put in ?

    Most people on this site i think say it should have been there.

    Roger Deakins as Skyfall's director of photography did a shit job.
    It was too dark and lifeless colours for a bond film.

    What necessary background checks did Deakins pass. His eye site test ? :)
    Sammy mendes got him the job.

    A lot of people on this forum could have done a better job.

    Next thing you'll be praising P&W's brilliant dialogue.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography in Skyfall is the best in the series.

    No, it's not! While I certainly wouldn't go so far to say he did a shit job the movie really is much too dark and dour looking. Also, this is the series that features the likes of TB,YOLT, MR, QoS at the very least so even if these problems had been addressed it still would be a very far fetched statement.

    Far fetched? It's my opinion. How can you have a far-fetched opinion?

    Indeed it's quite easy. Millions and millions of people are practicing it every day.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @ClarkDevlin, your comments on QoS indicate that it really is a matter of opinion. That film was just as experimental as the more recent ones. I quite liked what they tried to do there even if it was quite derivative of Bourne.

    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.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    True, @bondjames. It's indeed a matter of opinion. Other people, who are martial arts experts, friends of mine, had no problem following whatever's happening in QoS and the Bourne films. So, definitely it's my opinion on that front.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Some people on this forum have more clues as to how to make a bond film Better than Roger Deakins as well.

    Yeah. You keep telling yourself that, mate. One day they might even let you shoot the school Panto on your iPhone. If you pass the necessary background checks, of course.

    Settle down Princess.
    I watched SF yesterday and was reminded about the lack of a gun barrel at the start of the film and what Genius didn't put in ?

    Most people on this site i think say it should have been there.

    Roger Deakins as Skyfall's director of photography did a shit job.
    It was too dark and lifeless colours for a bond film.

    What necessary background checks did Deakins pass. His eye site test ? :)
    Sammy mendes got him the job.

    A lot of people on this forum could have done a better job.

    Next thing you'll be praising P&W's brilliant dialogue.

    Roger Deakins' cinematography in Skyfall is the best in the series.

    No, it's not! While I certainly wouldn't go so far to say he did a shit job the movie really is much too dark and dour looking. Also, this is the series that features the likes of TB,YOLT, MR, QoS at the very least so even if these problems had been addressed it still would be a very far fetched statement.

    Far fetched? It's my opinion. How can you have a far-fetched opinion?

    Indeed it's quite easy. Millions and millions of people are practicing it every day.

    Jolly ho. Although you spelt practising wrong mate.
  • Posts: 1,031
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...
    People love negativity here a lot, mate. Don't let it get you down. And some others are know-it-alls. I've seen people repeatedly slamming Brosnan and found no way to reason with them. So, the best thing is to abandon ship when it's on fire. You'll sleep better at nights.

    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?
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...
    People love negativity here a lot, mate. Don't let it get you down. And some others are know-it-alls. I've seen people repeatedly slamming Brosnan and found no way to reason with them. So, the best thing is to abandon ship when it's on fire. You'll sleep better at nights.

    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?
    Beats me, mate.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Dennison wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...
    People love negativity here a lot, mate. Don't let it get you down. And some others are know-it-alls. I've seen people repeatedly slamming Brosnan and found no way to reason with them. So, the best thing is to abandon ship when it's on fire. You'll sleep better at nights.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @001, I can see where you're coming from. The daylight photography in SF is nothing to write home about from my perspective. A bit drab and dreary, which is most likely on account of the locations utilized. They also look a bit washed out (and that includes Istanbul). QoS was far superior from a colour grade standpoint to my eye, with nice contrast and texture.

    Where SF nailed it like no other was in the night photography. It had a rich glow to it due to strategic lighting and most probably due to the use of digital camera. Very sharp and clear.

    Shot framing was superb in both SF and SP, but the less said about the notorious and surreal monotone filters in the latter film the better.

    It seems a lot of this comes down to personal preference on how people think a Bond film should look. For me it should look how the director wants it to look and if that gives the film character, I don't care if it's popping with colour or saturated and melancholic. I don't find any of SF drab or dreary, purely evocative. The scenes in the Highlands in particular are beautifully lensed and very different to any other Bond picture.
    I never said it wasn't beautifully lensed. On the contrary actually.

    However, the daytime scenes lack contrast and texture in my eyes. They have a washed out and unnatural look. I noticed it on first viewing, but didn't mind it due to the dynamism and tension in the actual scene. I recommend anyone to view the PTS in particular and compare it to the Bahamas in CR as an example.

    In terms of contrast, I've always maintained that Bond films have had rich colour contast. It's what differentiates them from more mundane fare. It was there in the night time scenes in SF, but not in the day time scenes. It wasn't there at all in SP, which gave that film a CGI and unnatural look to my eyes. A massive disappointment to me.

    In terms of wanting it to look like how the director desired, I personally disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn't have anything to discuss here. I agree that ultimately it's a matter of personal preference.

    But why would Istanbul look like the Bahamas, texture or colour wise, or even in terms of contrast? There's a hot, dusty feel to the latter and a crisp, clean feel to the former. That's a directorial choice, rather than a case of one being better than the other. I personally prefer the cinematograpy in CR, but I don't see it as a reason to roll out the same presets from film to film.

    In terms of wanting it to look as director desires, you've missed my point. I can still like, or dislike it, my point is that going in with a pre-conceived notion of how a Bond film should look seems limiting. I'm sure we all know what we like, but it's the films that pull away from that that make it a rich experience for us.
    Just to clarify, I'm not saying the Bahamas should look like Istanbul. I just contend that it should look natural. To me, it didn't. I'm not making a big deal out of it, but it's certainly something I noticed. The International, for instance, felt more 'real' to me than SF in Istanbul.

    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.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I will be the first poster on page 1000 :-P!
  • Posts: 12,526
    @RogueAgent What's your Bond project?

    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!
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...

    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.
  • Posts: 1,162
    TripAces wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...

    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!
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Interesting. Although, could that hashtag for The Architect be related to something else?
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Interesting. Although, could that hashtag for The Architect be related to something else?

    "The architect of all your pain."
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    a
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Interesting. Although, could that hashtag for The Architect be related to something else?

    "The architect of all your pain."

    Blofeld confirmed! :O
    Just kidding.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    I see this thread is still full of the same buffoons before I left.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 3,276
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Just uploaded. They went overboard with the colorgrading. Example from my own version and personal preference (comments appreciated):
    It looks excellent, I love it! Also, I would love to see the whole scene colorcorrected without cutting back and forth betweeen the two version. Do you have that? If so, can you please upload it when you have time?

    Sure, I can do that. I can also include other examples from both SF and SP. The only two Bond movies I felt like colorcorrecting.

    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.

  • Posts: 4,619
    007Blofeld wrote: »
    Of course not. Why would anyone be working on the title song TWO YEARS before the release?
  • Posts: 1,680
    They had Sam smiths done a year before release.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 3,164
    I feel that this whole cinematography debate and the other day's thing about Silva succeeding in SF be symptomatic of a school of thought which is irking me - nothing should be bigger than the Bond brand, not even the director.

    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
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 4,619
    @antovolk I agree. Except with Yann being a journeyman. Paul McGuigan is a journeyman director, Yann isn't (at least not at this point in time). '71 is a far better movie than what a journeyman director would ever hope to direct.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    TripAces wrote: »
    Dennison wrote: »
    When people start slamming the cinematography on the last two Bond films, I'm beginning to wonder if people on here a bit over negative about the Bond films ...

    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!

    Maybe we have different ideas of establishment, because Forster IS establishment!
  • Posts: 11,425

    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @001, I can see where you're coming from. The daylight photography in SF is nothing to write home about from my perspective. A bit drab and dreary, which is most likely on account of the locations utilized. They also look a bit washed out (and that includes Istanbul). QoS was far superior from a colour grade standpoint to my eye, with nice contrast and texture.

    Where SF nailed it like no other was in the night photography. It had a rich glow to it due to strategic lighting and most probably due to the use of digital camera. Very sharp and clear.

    Shot framing was superb in both SF and SP, but the less said about the notorious and surreal monotone filters in the latter film the better.

    It seems a lot of this comes down to personal preference on how people think a Bond film should look. For me it should look how the director wants it to look and if that gives the film character, I don't care if it's popping with colour or saturated and melancholic. I don't find any of SF drab or dreary, purely evocative. The scenes in the Highlands in particular are beautifully lensed and very different to any other Bond picture.
    I never said it wasn't beautifully lensed. On the contrary actually.

    However, the daytime scenes lack contrast and texture in my eyes. They have a washed out and unnatural look. I noticed it on first viewing, but didn't mind it due to the dynamism and tension in the actual scene. I recommend anyone to view the PTS in particular and compare it to the Bahamas in CR as an example.

    In terms of contrast, I've always maintained that Bond films have had rich colour contast. It's what differentiates them from more mundane fare. It was there in the night time scenes in SF, but not in the day time scenes. It wasn't there at all in SP, which gave that film a CGI and unnatural look to my eyes. A massive disappointment to me.

    In terms of wanting it to look like how the director desired, I personally disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn't have anything to discuss here. I agree that ultimately it's a matter of personal preference.

    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.
    bondjames wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @001, I can see where you're coming from. The daylight photography in SF is nothing to write home about from my perspective. A bit drab and dreary, which is most likely on account of the locations utilized. They also look a bit washed out (and that includes Istanbul). QoS was far superior from a colour grade standpoint to my eye, with nice contrast and texture.

    Where SF nailed it like no other was in the night photography. It had a rich glow to it due to strategic lighting and most probably due to the use of digital camera. Very sharp and clear.

    Shot framing was superb in both SF and SP, but the less said about the notorious and surreal monotone filters in the latter film the better.

    What genius came up with a yellow looking Mexico in Spectre?
    Shocking, positively Shocking. :)
    The first time I viewed that scene in a trailer my jaw dropped. I just couldn't believe that they had taken this route for a Bond film, as this approach is quite prevalent in CGI infested make believe fare from Marvel and the like. It was most obvious in the recent Fassbender vehicle entitled Assassin's Creed.

    If they want to continue down this path, it's obviously their call. The box office has been decent and if that's their driver & motivation, more power to them. I hope they don't.

    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.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited August 2017 Posts: 1,756
    Great cinematography is all about setting the perfect mood. This idea that every shot in a Bond film has to be bright, colourful, full of life, is somewhat uneducated. This isn't an animal planet documentary.

    However I do prefer a lighter colour grade. Especially when lots of colours are involved.
  • Posts: 12,473
    Great cinematography is all about setting the perfect mood. This idea that every shot in a Bond film has to be bright, colourful, full of life, is somewhat uneducated. This isn't an animal planet documentary.

    Pretty much. I think most would agree some of both would be best.
Sign In or Register to comment.