› › ›

Sam Mendes to direct Bond 24?

1…2930323435…42

Comments

  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    AgentJM7 wrote:
    Whatever the choice, I think Deakins' cinematography will do B24 wonders. There were several moments in Skyfall where I had goosebumps simply by how amazing it all looked.

    Has Deakins confirmed for Bond 24 or are you just hoping he has? (If he has confirmed that would strongly suggest a director has already been found)
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    He's not confirmed, sadly.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Just noticing, the news this week has slowly gone from 'Nolan in informal talks' to multiple places claiming he is 'expected to take over for Mendes'. Dafuq
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13,355
    I love the internet.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    Samuel001 wrote:
    He's not confirmed, sadly.

    Ah, shame. A DP on board would have to mean that a director was confirmed and Deakins only seems to work with the best (and Nolan must be looking for a new DP now...) Skyfall was the most beautiful Bond film since YOLT / OHMSS.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    Bond 24 will most probably be digital again (unless Nolan ? :) ). Since that somehow levels DP skills "a bit" (everyone can watch the "true" image on the visual feedback at any time during the shoot, you don't have to have the skill to know what the shot will look like on the film), we can expect the next ones to be nicer and nicer (as with many other blockbusters). There's 3D, omnipresent CGI, and HFR though in the mix now :)
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @AgentJM7, you and I both, in terms of the cinematography. It was absolutely amazing. Even if you hated Bond and the films he accompanies, it would be hard to deny that the film has some truly impressive shots in it.

    Make that three. I still can't believe the Academy chose tons of CGI to Deakins' magnificent work. Shanghai and Macao were so beautifully filmed that I didn't care that the principal actors didn't shoot there. Deakins deserved the award far more than Pi, no question about it.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing, exactly what I thought. Even my friend turned towards me during the Oscars and said "Wasn't 'Life of Pi' just full of CGI?"
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Other than finally recognizing a Bond film for more than one award and paying a wee bit of long deserved homage to the franchise, giving Pi the award was yet another damn disgrace perpetrated by the Academy on a yearly basis. Ample reason why I skip that dog and pony show every year.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Have you seen Life of Pi ? The tiger CGI feast is not 100% of the movie. The first half or so of the movie has not much CGI tiger, it's indeed "very beautiful shots" of Pondichery and so on.

    Then we've got this scene with all the candle lights floating on the lake while the boat floats amongst them. Then we've got the island scenes (but done in studio obviously, the island itself being CG). Then we've got animals that are 100% CGI only, ok. And the comment track talking about CGI on almost every shot. But SF, eh..., Life of Pi I meant, is not 100% CGI though :)

    PS : "The Artist" was nominated at the BAFTA for best sound while it's almost 100% mute ;) (ie : almost the score only).

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Not sure who stated 'Life of Pi' is 100% CGI, but alright.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,217
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    Have you seen Life of Pi ? The tiger CGI feast is not 100% of the movie. The first half or so of the movie has not much CGI tiger, it's indeed "very beautiful shots" of Pondichery and so on.

    Then we've got this scene with all the candle lights floating on the lake while the boat floats amongst them. Then we've got the island scenes (but done in studio obviously, the island itself being CG). Then we've got animals that are 100% CGI only, ok. And the comment track talking about CGI on almost every shot. But SF, eh..., Life of Pi I meant, is not 100% CGI though :)

    PS : "The Artist" was nominated at the BAFTA for best sound while it's almost 100% mute ;) (ie : almost the score only).

    I still don't agree that it was the right decision though. Life of Pi was almost completely shot in a studio environment so it was a lot easier for its look to be manipulated and altered in post-production. Deakins was shooting on location, and most of his lighting was achieved on set and in camera apart from the standard colour grading changes that happen in post. He worked a helluva lot harder in my book.

  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    Life of Pi was almost completely shot in a studio environment

    Have you seen the film ?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/gallery/2012/dec/20/life-of-pi-on-location-pondicherry#/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, it still doesn't negate the fact that the film had quite a lot of CGI thrown into it. Deakins losing the Oscar was a real upset.
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, it still doesn't negate the fact that the film had quite a lot of CGI thrown into it. Deakins losing the Oscar was a real upset.

    I think Deakins now holds the record for most times nominated for an Oscar without a win, doesn't he?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I just did a quick search, @Sir_James_Moloney, and sound re-recording mixer Kevin O'Connell has twenty nominations and zero wins.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Suivez_ce_parachute, it still doesn't negate the fact that the film had quite a lot of CGI thrown into it. Deakins losing the Oscar was a real upset.

    Exactly. Now the Academy rewards a geek sitting behind a computer creating imagery over someone creating cinematic beauty with their eyes and senses. And I'm not trying to negate that talent of the fellow who won the award, but if computers are going to replace the sheer awesomeness of Mother Nature in all her glory, this is a sad commentary. Excessive CGI does not equal proper cinematography.

    Deakins was robbed!

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing, exactly. Don't get me wrong, 'Life of Pi' looks very beautiful (I've yet to see the film). But, some of those shots that Deakins concocted are beyond words and beauty, and to have him lose over computer generated graphics is astounding.

    Deakins won in my mind. Some of the greatest cinematography I've had the pleasure of witnessing.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Please can you confirm that all of you who say the Oscar for DP was a joke have not yet seen Life of Pi ? :) No one answered my direct question except Creasy who confirmed he had not seen it indeed. Others claiming it's just about CGI and studio shot certainly have not seen it to say this.

    Prepare to spend half of the movie wondering "I thought it was a movie about a tiger in a boat ?" :) I've even met French persons who did not know Depardieu played in it !


  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Suivez_ce_parachute wrote:
    Please can you confirm that all of you who say the Oscar for DP was a joke have not yet seen Life of Pi ? :) No one answered my direct question except Creasy who confirmed he had not seen it indeed. Prepare to spend half of the movie wondering "I thought it was a movie about a tiger in a boat ?" :)

    I have seen it, I think Deakins deserved it instead L-)
    And I remember when it was released a lot of people talking about going see it at the theater.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Just for those who will never see it anyway, let's say the Oscar probably had something to do with things like this. If it had been at the final hour of the movie instead of the first hour, would the voters have seen it as much and vote because of it, we'll never know though :)

    368339vlcsnap2013052311h52m18s171.png

    597017vlcsnap2013052311h57m04s224.png

    703613vlcsnap2013052311h59m35s216.png

    Yes they're a lot of CGI in the first hour too (like in the last image probably), but really, in SF too...
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Just thinking the percentage of CGI in Pi was much higher, from what I have read (no, I have not seen it yet). Way higher.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    I've had a big hankering to watch SF lately, so maybe I'll watch it one night this week, then rent 'Life of Pi' and do a comparison. I will admit, some of those posted shots are quite lovely, but we shall see. I just don't see anything being able to trump what Deakins did with SF last year.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    edited May 2013 Posts: 2,015
    4EverBonded wrote:
    Just thinking the percentage of CGI in Pi was much higher, from what I have read (no, I have not seen it yet). Way higher.
    Because once you're on the boat with the tiger, yes, what is on screen was 99-100% shot on studio and with a CGI animal that everyone wrote about. But the first hour or so is a "classic movie" with very beautiful shots indeed with true DP skill, not just "some software tweaking" (but there is some heavy CG there too in this first hour - the Paris location is studio+ heavy CGI for instance).

    Let's face it, here the biggest problem with Life Of Pi best Cinematography award is that it beat Skyfall. Because the "too much CGI to win best Cinematography" controversy is much, much, more relevant with Avatar IMO !

  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    edited May 2013 Posts: 388
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I just did a quick search, @Sir_James_Moloney, and sound re-recording mixer Kevin O'Connell has twenty nominations and zero wins.

    Poor guy! He must not bother even turning up at the ceremony anymore.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @Sir_James_Moloney, indeed. I wouldn't blame him. Twenty times and luck hasn't struck you once? Such a shame. Though when I did a quick look through what he was nominated for - though some of those projects were excellent - he was up against films that were heavily praised and loved during the time.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I just did a quick search, @Sir_James_Moloney, and sound re-recording mixer Kevin O'Connell has twenty nominations and zero wins.

    Poor guy! He must not bother even turning up at the ceremony anymore.

    What? Stuff the awards, it is about the art, and about you doing something you love. Without the passion what good are some golden statues?
  • FelixLighterFelixLighter
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13
    http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/sam-mendes-back-in-the-picture-to-direct-next-james-bond-film/

    I think that this is a suitable first post. ;-)

    ...New thread?
  • FelixLighterFelixLighter
    edited May 2013 Posts: 13
    I mean...crazy, right?? ;-)
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,409


    Ange Lee and Michael G wilson joking about here back in January this year. I hope Lee gets it.
Sign In or Register to comment.