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
But as i understand it, not every cinematographer wants to or can use sdigital? Its not that the prods can just tell them to do it one way or another. Right?
If one wants a controversial hypothesis : with digital, everyone on set, including producers, could watch the final result. Now if you don't want producers telling you what to do you behind your shoulder, shoot on film :)
Oh, apologies. All this talk of October had me mixed up. Thank you for correcting me.. three days later. (:|
Clearly, an Adele-Bassey (Bassey-Adele?) duet is in order.
Sorry, had been away for a few days.
There is no shortage of digital cameras in the world today. Anyone can go and rent the type of cameras they used on Skfall at any time without any problem. Yes, it is expensive for an average person but it never happens that all the cameras are taken by other productions. The only type of cameras that are rare are the IMAX cameras.
Precisely. As Broccoli said, 'Bond opens doors'. If they wanted to shoot digitally, they'd have the cameras they need. It's a very intentional and conscious choice for them to go back to film. Likely a discussion had by Mendes and a new cinematographer, or perhaps a way of luring in a new cinematographer.
I was about to say, that if this is true, perhaps it's a decision that Mendes made as well.
I seem to remember Deakins saying he'd been relucant to shoot SF on digital at the start and that he did a few tests before being convinced.
I personally don't have clue what the difference is. Something I've noticed, which is probably totally unrelated, is that when you watch a film in HD on TV it really loses that 'cinematic' quality. It feels like you're watching TV. Something to do with the sharpness of the images and the amount of detail. I find it really off-putting. Much prefer watching a film on the big screen in the cinema with a slight grainyness.
No, it was the other way around. Mendes was reluctant and Deakins had to convince him. (Deakins shot "In Time" in digital a year before Skyfall and really liked the result.)
No, it means whoever they hired prefers to shoot film.
Ah, well, in the computer world, there's a little thing called constant upgrading that's verrrry expensive in the end. But you won't hear that from people promoting digital cameras. You will hear lots of complaints about it if you have the opportunity to work on a movie set though !
Well, in case they had decided to go digital, I dont really imagine Bond 24 being shot with a second-hand camera and software from last year.. But if you say anyone can take a phone and rent the kind of camera they use on a blockbuster that will be used by Sony to promote next year's super-high definition display when it's out, then well...
Both QT and Scorcesse have used him to great effect, I'd definitely be interested to see what he could bring to Bond 24.
Have you ever looked at something on a 4K TV ? It gives the feeling our eyes are already not fooled anymore by HD, 4K brings something else.
Anyhow, as they say, if you want it to look like film, then shot on film. But now, once it's out of the theaters still showing films with film, we can only watch it in a digital format... And most of the new theaters will show it after digital scanning of the film anyway.
I read an interview with Tarantino the other day and he said that film as he understands it is dead. He regards digital as 'TV on a big screen'.
The final act of SF was essentially a period piece. It was heavily contrived and implausible, but basically it's Bond up against the bad guys with no fancy modern technology. And then at the end Mendes brought back M's old office. It's almost a back to the future approach.
Have to say personally I'd love a full on period Bond, set in the Cold War era.
I'm not a fan of this "digital-shaming" that is going on in Hollywood. If you prefer to use film, then that's fine, but it is an expensive medium and in these difficult times, digital enables amateur filmmakers with a limited resources to get their films made affordably. I think that's a victory for the industry, in the big picture.
But film forces you to prepare, you have to know what you're doing :)
I read that last year or year before last year at Sundance, the majority of the films shown were digital, but all (=100%, yes) those who received awards were shot on film.
That's very true. The flip of that is when Amateurs with a bit of cash to spare, think that shooting 'film' adds an inate quality. If your cinematography and mise en scene isn't up to scratch it's irrelevant what you shoot on. A friend of mine just shot his first feature on 2-Perf 35mm, the same stock McQueen used on Shame. Will it look as good as Shame? I hope so, for his sake, because his budget could have bolstered other areas if he'd shot digital.