› ›

SPECTRE Production Timeline

1…9192949697…870

Comments

  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Does this mean Bond 24 will still be shot in digital I wonder. I can't see them going back to film now. Not after finally making the switch.

    They will probably use digital cameras again but I would say that anything can happen. For example The Amazing Spiderman was shot with digital cameras but for the sequel they shot on celluloid.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Now that "the" news has gone, I find this very interesting:

    Deakins will not be returning with Sam Mendes to shoot "Bond 24" next year. "He's got a great idea for another film, which is really an extension [of 'Skyfall'] but from my point, I don't know what else I could do with it, really."

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/crafts-roundup-talking-cinematography-with-the-five-oscar-nominees?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel

    "Extension"? Well, let´s debate...
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Superintendent wrote:
    Murdock wrote:
    Well if Deakins isn't coming back, bring back Phil Meheux. The cinematography in Casino Royale was stunning.

    Agreed. I actually preferred the cinematography in CR.

    That's a good call! Be great to have Phil back!
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    ggl007 wrote:
    Now that "the" news has gone, I find this very interesting:

    Deakins will not be returning with Sam Mendes to shoot "Bond 24" next year. "He's got a great idea for another film, which is really an extension [of 'Skyfall'] but from my point, I don't know what else I could do with it, really."

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/crafts-roundup-talking-cinematography-with-the-five-oscar-nominees?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel

    "Extension"? Well, let´s debate...

    It fits in with what Logan was saying. What has been set up will be carried forward into this next film. That means MI6 to the rescue. Someone, give me strength!
  • karatemanchan37karatemanchan37
    Posts: 584
    Any chance we get Hoyte van Hoytema? The guy who did Tinker Tailor was pretty good.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Samuel001 wrote:
    ggl007 wrote:
    Now that "the" news has gone, I find this very interesting:

    Deakins will not be returning with Sam Mendes to shoot "Bond 24" next year. "He's got a great idea for another film, which is really an extension [of 'Skyfall'] but from my point, I don't know what else I could do with it, really."

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/crafts-roundup-talking-cinematography-with-the-five-oscar-nominees?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel

    "Extension"? Well, let´s debate...

    It fits in with what Logan was saying. What has been set up will be carried forward into this next film. That means MI6 to the rescue. Someone, give me strength!

    Actually I was more excited by "He's got a great idea for another film..."
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited February 2014 Posts: 13,355
    At least the bulk of it will be great, right. ;) In all seriousness we are in safe hands, as long as some areas are not overdone.
  • LegateDamarLegateDamar
    Posts: 381
    Samuel001 wrote:
    At least the bulk of it will be great, right. ;) In all seriousness we are in safe hands, as long as some areas are not overdone.

    Don't worry, I'm sure a lot of people will still find something to bitch about.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    RC7 wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I don´t have a problem with Deakins not returning. I didn´t like what he did in SF.

    Not a fan of expert framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour... ?

    Those were in the movie? Specifically the Scotland scene where everything was gray and shabby.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I don´t have a problem with Deakins not returning. I didn´t like what he did in SF.

    Not a fan of expert framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour... ?

    Those were in the movie? Specifically the Scotland scene where everything was gray and shabby.

    It's Scotland, not Jamaica. I thought it had a majestic quality, personally, and was tonally appropriate to the climax of the film. What exactly should it have looked like, in your mind?

    I can understand people not caring for the film, but if you can't see the level of technical skill on display in how it was lensed, I can only assume you need to book an appointment at the opticians.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Risico007 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    boldfinger wrote:
    I don´t have a problem with Deakins not returning. I didn´t like what he did in SF.

    Not a fan of expert framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour... ?

    Those were in the movie? Specifically the Scotland scene where everything was gray and shabby.

    That was the point! It was grey and gloomy and that was good, it made a real atmosphere, almost apocalyptic. Fitted what was happening perfectly.

    And it's not like the whole film was like that. Istanbul and Macau were very colourful and looked great thanks to Deakins.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846


    this is Scotland lush green gorgous
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    But lush green countryside wouldn't have fitted what was happening at all. He made it look gloomy and grey for a reason. And again, it's not like the whole film was shot this way. Istanbul and Macau were very colourful.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote:
    lush green gorgous

    SF needed an ominous sense of impending doom. Deakins delivered that. Stop acting the fool.
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    So grey dull depressing back drops means is ominous for you... ok


    Like I said I like the Macau stuff the best even Istanbul was kind of well grey...
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited February 2014 Posts: 12,837
    Risico007 wrote:
    even Istanbul was kind of well grey...

    No it wasn't.
    Risico007 wrote:
    So grey dull depressing back drops means is ominous for you

    It was ominous! It was really eerie you could tell that something bad was going to happen. And yeah, that was down to how gloomy it looked. If it was all lush and green and sunny then no, it wouldn't have felt ominous.

    I get that you don't like SF but to say that the cinematography was bad is just silly.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote:
    So grey dull depressing back drops means is ominous for you... ok

    Well, no, usually sunshine and sing-songs.

    It would perhaps be better if you could qualify your opinions and show some knowledge of the art of cinematography before slating it. I'm not sure that's going to be particularly forthcoming though, is it? You'll be busy with your ever burgeoning collection of 'I want Quantum back', posts.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    RC7 wrote:
    You'll be busy with your ever burgeoning collection of 'I want Quantum back', posts.

    And a Fleming title. Don't forget the Fleming title.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    thelivingroyale wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    You'll be busy with your ever burgeoning collection of 'I want Quantum back', posts.

    And a Fleming title. Don't forget the Fleming title.

    Of course. How could I forget?
  • Risico007Risico007
    edited February 2014 Posts: 9,846
    Like I said different strokes for different folks. I am sure some on this board put Die Another Day in their top 5.


    Like I said I found a majority of the London and Scotland stuff Grey and depressing.. I understand the rational behind it (to sett the mood because Bond is dead etc)

    Doesn't mean I have to like the way it looks. Sorry but I just didn't like it.

    However I would prefer something a bit more colorful.. Even in the Nolan films in Batman Begins Batman is in the rain yet its not as dreary and depressing as Skyfall.


    I don't hate the film it's in the middle of the road for me, and here is something shocking

    I just want a good bond film. For those that liked Deakins works sorry he isn't returning?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Risico007 wrote:
    Like I said I found a majority of the London and Scotland stuff Grey and depressing.. I understand the rational behind it (to sett the mood because Bond is dead etc)

    Doesn't mean I have to like the way it looks. Sorry but I just didn't like it.

    That's fine, obviously. I was merely bemused by your apparent lack of appreciation for the elements I listed - framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour

    With the absence of colour, which you seem to think is missing in SF (I personally see colour, not as something bright, but as something that adds texture and atmosphere whether it's at the white end of the spectrum or the black) I don't see how one could knock Deakins' ability to frame, light and add depth to his shots. There are simply hundreds of shots in that movie which display someone whose technical expertise are second to none. If push came to shove, I'd have taken Deakins' return over Mendes'. I think he's that good.

  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    What a shame... that Mendes-Deakins duo was outstanding.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    edited February 2014 Posts: 1,548
    I agree, very sad news but BB and MG haven't let us down yet (apart from the iceberg fiasco in DAD!) so I trust them wholeheartedly. As long as the the script and rthe cast is first rate the rest will fall into place. Now the biggest question is who to cast as Blofeld?
  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    RC7 wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    Like I said I found a majority of the London and Scotland stuff Grey and depressing.. I understand the rational behind it (to sett the mood because Bond is dead etc)

    Doesn't mean I have to like the way it looks. Sorry but I just didn't like it.

    That's fine, obviously. I was merely bemused by your apparent lack of appreciation for the elements I listed - framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour

    With the absence of colour, which you seem to think is missing in SF (I personally see colour, not as something bright, but as something that adds texture and atmosphere whether it's at the white end of the spectrum or the black) I don't see how one could knock Deakins' ability to frame, light and add depth to his shots. There are simply hundreds of shots in that movie which display someone whose technical expertise are second to none. If push came to shove, I'd have taken Deakins' return over Mendes'. I think he's that good.

    Which perhaps my Dislike is more Mendes then Deakins as it was Mendes choices Deakins had to work with I suppose.

  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,541
    Sandy wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    ggl007 wrote:

    Deakins will not be returning with Sam Mendes to shoot "Bond 24" next year. "He's got a great idea for another film, which is really an extension [of 'Skyfall'] but from my point, I don't know what else I could do with it, really."

    http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/crafts-roundup-talking-cinematography-with-the-five-oscar-nominees?page=2#blogPostHeaderPanel

    "Extension"? Well, let´s debate...

    It fits in with what Logan was saying. What has been set up will be carried forward into this next film. That means MI6 to the rescue. Someone, give me strength!

    Actually I was more excited by "He's got a great idea for another film..."

    Well, you wouldn´t expect him to say "He's got an awful idea for another film..." :D

    That's why I found more intriguing the "extension" thing... :-?
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,409
    Risico007 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    Like I said I found a majority of the London and Scotland stuff Grey and depressing.. I understand the rational behind it (to sett the mood because Bond is dead etc)

    Doesn't mean I have to like the way it looks. Sorry but I just didn't like it.

    That's fine, obviously. I was merely bemused by your apparent lack of appreciation for the elements I listed - framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour

    With the absence of colour, which you seem to think is missing in SF (I personally see colour, not as something bright, but as something that adds texture and atmosphere whether it's at the white end of the spectrum or the black) I don't see how one could knock Deakins' ability to frame, light and add depth to his shots. There are simply hundreds of shots in that movie which display someone whose technical expertise are second to none. If push came to shove, I'd have taken Deakins' return over Mendes'. I think he's that good.

    Which perhaps my Dislike is more Mendes then Deakins as it was Mendes choices Deakins had to work with I suppose.

    I think RC7 has described exactly what good cinematography is and Risico007, no offence, has missed the point.

    Cinematography isn't merely about colour and lighting it's about photographing a moving image. So while lighting is important there are a host of other factors at play including framing and composition.

    Deakins is a world-class DP and probably the best working in Hollywood. The fact he looked twice at a Bond film is staggering and his contribution made SF less a disposable popcorn-blockbuster and elevated the film into more a artful atmosphere.

    I'm not just referring to the obvious beauty-shots of the film but just his simply framing choices during some of the dialogue scenes stand out. Like this moment where Mallory and M first meet:

    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2073.jpg
    http://i2.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2102.jpg
    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2103.jpg

    The photography clearly shows the pair to be equals and what we are witnessing is essentially a boxing-match in armchairs.

    Other interesting choices made by Deakins:

    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-8461.jpg
    http://i2.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1.jpg

    Bond and Silva's introductions in the film both mirror each others emphasising the doppelgänger nature of the pair. Deakins should have won the Oscar alone for Silva's introduction speech.

    The whole finale when Skyfall Lodge goes up in smoke is possibly the most beautifully-shot sequence in any Bond movie. Action movies don't typically look anywhere near as accomplished as SF.

    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1666.htm
    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1630.htm
    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1499.htm


  • Risico007Risico007
    Posts: 9,846
    Pierce2Daniel wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Risico007 wrote:
    Like I said I found a majority of the London and Scotland stuff Grey and depressing.. I understand the rational behind it (to sett the mood because Bond is dead etc)

    Doesn't mean I have to like the way it looks. Sorry but I just didn't like it.

    That's fine, obviously. I was merely bemused by your apparent lack of appreciation for the elements I listed - framing, lighting, depth, tone, colour

    With the absence of colour, which you seem to think is missing in SF (I personally see colour, not as something bright, but as something that adds texture and atmosphere whether it's at the white end of the spectrum or the black) I don't see how one could knock Deakins' ability to frame, light and add depth to his shots. There are simply hundreds of shots in that movie which display someone whose technical expertise are second to none. If push came to shove, I'd have taken Deakins' return over Mendes'. I think he's that good.

    Which perhaps my Dislike is more Mendes then Deakins as it was Mendes choices Deakins had to work with I suppose.

    I think RC7 has described exactly what good cinematography is and Risico007, no offence, has missed the point.

    Cinematography isn't merely about colour and lighting it's about photographing a moving image. So while lighting is important there are a host of other factors at play including framing and composition.

    Deakins is a world-class DP and probably the best working in Hollywood. The fact he looked twice at a Bond film is staggering and his contribution made SF less a disposable popcorn-blockbuster and elevated the film into more a artful atmosphere.

    I'm not just referring to the obvious beauty-shots of the film but just his simply framing choices during some of the dialogue scenes stand out. Like this moment where Mallory and M first meet:

    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2073.jpg
    http://i2.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2102.jpg
    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-2103.jpg

    The photography clearly shows the pair to be equals and what we are witnessing is essentially a boxing-match in armchairs.

    Other interesting choices made by Deakins:

    http://i1.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-8461.jpg
    http://i2.wp.com/screencaps.us/201/2-skyfall/full/skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1.jpg

    Bond and Silva's introductions in the film both mirror each others emphasising the doppelgänger nature of the pair. Deakins should have won the Oscar alone for Silva's introduction speech.

    The whole finale when Skyfall Lodge goes up in smoke is possibly the most beautifully-shot sequence in any Bond movie. Action movies don't typically look anywhere near as accomplished as SF.

    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1666.htm
    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1630.htm
    http://screenmusings.org/Skyfall/pages/skyfall-1499.htm




    all of what you have said are opinions. I never claimed Deakins was bad just that I had some issues with Skyfall.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    And now I am thinking how much I loved Deakin's work in Skyfall and am again depressed. I wanted him back more than anyone, excepting Mendes. :o3

    I know there are other excellent DPs, cinematographers, whatever the correct title is. I just want another one of that high a quality. I would feel better if they would tell us someone is confirmed ... I am getting a tad impatient. Especially getting negative news; I crave something positive. Besides Mendes returning, which I am happy about.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    karatemanchan37 wrote:
    Any chance we get Hoyte van Hoytema? The guy who did Tinker Tailor was pretty good.
    +1. I like his work.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    as long as Michael Bay's DOP stays well away from B24 I think we'll be ok!

Sign In or Register to comment.