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
I think you're right to criticize the overuse of it. This I know: CGI has made a lot of things doable. Without it, most of the Marvel universe wouldn't be filmable. On the other hand, use of CGI has made Hollywood think it should do things it shouldn't: like a live-action Scooby-Doo (gag).
I'll go a step further with the MR reference. Alien (out the same year) still looks fantastic. Could you imagine MR done with that sort of grittiness and SFX? Wow.
That's why we're on a forum. For most of us this isn't a passive experience. To paraphrase Bill Shankly. 'Bond's not a matter of life or death... It's more important than that.'
Yes, Rome looks excellent. Intrigued to see what the 'day' shots look like. I think it could be really beautiful.
I think you're making comparisons and drawing conclusions way way too soon. For me personally, I think editing can be way more destructive to the final outcome as compared to cinematography....if not done properly. I prefer a movie with perfect editing and flawed color gradings, then a movie with lacklustre 'tough', 'realistic' Jason Bourne-esque editing and wonderful color paletes.
Moreover, like I said before, there's this 'film noir'-esque, 1950's-like idea that seems to run throughout all the trailers so far. And that already started off with the actual -great- first teaser trailer that premiered last March. You see that 'film noir' element running through every aspect of this film so far. (Jany Temime's wardrobe designs, white dinner jacket, Humphrey Bogart-like feel, Lea Seydoux looking like Hitchcock's favourite actress, Grace of Monaco, Sam Smith's title tune, which is very slow-tempo, the use of other props throughout the film, like a glimpse of a classic Citroen Traction Avant in the final trailer, a lot of filming at night, etc.).
So saying that this is a sign of 'insecurity' in my opinion is way way early to tell. And slightly nonsense. So far I actually see good thinking behind these filmmaking choices, cinematography included.
I think the most daring choice with regard to cinematography was shooting the entire PTS in grained black-and-white. I loved that choice. To say that the rest of the cinematography is a 'deliberate update of good old Technicolor' is an exaggeration. Yes, the colors are beautiful, perhaps a bit too saturated at times, but so where all the previous Bond films. Phil Meheux really did good work, but cinematography wasn't the element that made "Casino Royale" stood out from previous Bond films. It was the story, the perfectly adapted screenplay from Fleming's novel, the acting. I think "SkyFall" showed us what one can really do to be brandmarked 'daring, gutsy and artistically spot-on'. And that was Roger Deakins work. No question about it.
Again, a bit too much credit for the wonderful "Casino Royale". Obviously, you love that film. And to me it sounds that so much of your personal taste is interwoven in your arguments. Which is off course nice. But to make it sound that 'these oversaturated colours' should always be part of the Bond franchise for me sound conservative and formularic. I don't want every Bond film to have the same kind of colors.....the same kind of color saturation. I also want a Bond film to have some 'individual character' as well....some kind of ‘feel’ that makes it stand out from previous Bond films. You can either like or hate “Quantum Of Solace”, but it still is a rather unique entry in the Bond canon. One that can not be said from many Bond films from the pre-Craig-era (Brosnan, late Moore-era)
One other thing, I DO think personal taste is important though. Just like some people don’t like to see a copy of another Adele song. We therefore get some nice artistic variation from Sam Smith. But it still is personal taste.
I think here Roger Deakins didn’t just nail a few scenes. And don’t get me wrong, I LOVE the fight scene from the Shanghai skyscraper. I adored it (personal taste). But I think what sets apart “SkyFall” apart from many Bond films before it, even “Casino Royale”, is the ENTIRE cinematography…throughout the film. Not just a couple of memorable parts of the film. In its entirety it was spot-on! Turkey (as warm as Mexico in “SPECTRE”), London (the dreary grey color filters), Scotland, China…it all looked amazing.
With regard to “SPECTRE” so far, I see people who completely adore the cinematography of Hoyte van Hoytema so far….based on the trailers. And others really get irritated by the choice of color filters. But is creating division not the result of a man doing something very daring and bold?? So far, I do think van Hoytema is doing a tremendous job. And I also think that, if we have seen the entire movie, we get to understand the choices of the cinematographer much better. And then we have another unique, daring, bold entry in the Bond series.
But off course in part its also Mendes choice! He’s the director off course. He needs to approve certain decisions that Hoyte van Hoytema comes up with. But I do disagree with you fully that these choices smell like ‘uncertainty’, ‘afraid of fully committing yourself to Bond’ or ‘unconfidence’. I think especially here you’re creating a caricature of how the DoP and the director could be working together. Sam Mendes clearly ‘wants’ it this way. Barbara and Michael were basically praying Mendes to come back, and obviously gave them as much as creative responsibility and freedom as he wanted (something that’s quite unique in the Bond franchise, and that used to be very different when ‘Cubby’ was still alive. But that’s another discussion). My point really is: Just……please…….be a bit more patient. A few more weeks and then you can experience the entire full 150 mins by yourself. And then perhaps your arguments make even more sense….or maybe not.
Ooowh, and most importantly. Let's look on the bright side: There's another Bond film coming :-D!
Look at the Mexico scene for instance, we know Bond is not authorized to be there and he is involved in an assassination. His character is wearing a mask for part of the sequence. Ultimately, we can infer that he doesn't know what he is involved in at the time of his actions. If the audience is seeing it through a subtle filter, then we are in the same position as Bond. You can't say that can or will take you out of the film when it's very inclusion is there to to convey itself to you in a more intimate way.
See my post above @Mansfield. I fully agree with you. It's also a bit balsy to say that with such long posts, that are full, FULL of arguments, neatly summed up, you "completely agree with every word of it". I find that a bit....eh....weird :-). I love this discussion though, and guys like @BombeSurprise are such welcome additions to this forum. Welcome @BombeSurprise :-D! Although I disagree with most of his remarks.
people are bashing him? I like everything about it except his voice. Oh and the fact that my gay neighbors downstairs are playing it very loudly sometimes.
My sympathies. Truly...
Not Sam Smith's fault. And beside, it's their smoking in their flat that bothers me: for some reason we can smell it from here.
you know you're getting close to the release of a new bond film when @RC7 quotes the great man himself. Squeaky bum time almost!
The division you mention in your post is simply because no one has an emotional attachment in a trailer. Certain clips give you thrills and excitement, but there is little dialogue and the frames cutaway too quickly to follow a scene through from point A to point B. Naturally, it's expected that their artistic decisions cannot be appreciated until the entirety of the product can be experienced. The quality of the trailer is really insignificant to the quality of the film.
Art is meant to move the senses. If the color grading works in a way that supports the characterization by providing a more detailed sensory experience, it is an artistic success.
I don't know about anybody else, but that's what I want.
And I fully agree with you again. Perhaps we're all getting very.....geeky, worried, over-critical (in a good way), perhaps suffering from insomnia.......only a few weeks before "SPECTRE" premieres ;-).
Business as usual! :)
I distinctly remember the silence during the bungee jump, and the laughs at the Brosnan fake plane catch, and it was not a laugh with the movie, but a laugh at the movie.
Me too. Vividly.
I’m just a bit down on excessive colour-grading in general. It’s an effect which is meant to operate on you subliminally; overdone, and therefore no longer subliminal, it feels pushy and embarrassing like catching the magician palming the card. Some movies (the Hobbit films were horribly heavy-handed in this respect) that try and subdivide the moods of the film into big simple blocks (twenty minutes of cold blue - tense! - fifteen minutes of warm amber - cosy!) seem to me to be hoping that four or five broad-brush decisions will take care of the entire visual side of things. Or even provide a ‘style’ for free. It’s an example of an easy technology tempting people to take short cuts. Even talents like Fincher can allow what should be a faint subconscious enhancement to hypertrophy into a sort of aesthetic tyrant that looms over everything. I have a feeling that there’ll soon be a strong reaction against crude colour-grading, but we’ll see.
In the meantime I’m completely sure that HvH’s work will have absolutely nothing to do with all the above, and will be terrific. Tell you what I really liked: the shot of Bond driving to Austria.
In the case of The Hobbit, there is little characterization. That's the real problem with the color grading for those films. The only time it really works is in some of the scenes with Martin Freeman because he is the only character we really want to get to know with the way the story is presented. Every other scene it is just a generic ploy to convince us of the emotionality we should be feeling. In contrast with The Lord of the Rings, which I previously stated as an example of this same color grade modification, it works subliminally because we care so much about the characters and the story that we don't even take notice. When you look at the trailers for The Lord of the Rings, take notice of all the differences in Lothlorein, Gondor, Mordor, etc. Most of them look so much more immersing in the grade they were filmed at, but within the context of the film, it would be hard to imagine it another way.
Considering this is the backstory of Bond as an adolescent, which should make it more personal than a simple mission briefing adventure, the color grading should not be unsupported by powerful performances. That will put it more in the realm of effectiveness with The Lord of the Rings.
My prediction is this: The people who like the story threads and characterization will be totally immersed in it and find the color grading appropriate. While the people who don't like the story will use the color grading as an excuse or a reason for it not being enjoyable. The truth will be somewhere in between, though. Even if it isn't a great Bond film, if the elements that the color grading accentuates are present, that part of the production will be on point.
This one?
Yup, it has more elaborate interaction between MI6-staff members 'M', 'Q' and Moneypenny. It's also in the list down below:
Fantastic!!! Especially the very end of trailer nice touch :-)
EPIC!
Just curious,
Would someone be able to do this on the Spectre Trailer
Again, my thoughts exactly. I think Hoyte's done an amazing job. It looks even better than Deakin's work on SF, and I agree it has a Michael Reed feel.