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
Interesting that Hoyetma spoke out against digital in his speech.
It was predominantly shot on 35mm anamorphic.
My feelings exactly. Tinted films, or filters, are so circa 2000s... Traffic, Minority Report, and so many others I can't remember right now, all after that film debacle with the Matrix samples that went into movie theaters more green that they should have been. A mess. And somewhat of a curtain to hide awful cinematographers.
Give us colours back please. Not overly saturated like, say, M:I2, but vibrant, like CR.
It's certainly vibrant, in that everything-is-orange-and-blue way.
I can forgive the Matrix movies (as much as I dislike the green crap) because it's not real life when green. The real life scenes looked normal.
Beautiful colours have always been a part of Bond films until recently. And I enjoy those lovely colours, especially when watching a Bond film late at night, while the rest of the room is dark and all I have are the beautiful palettes radiating from my screen. But the more sombre, even sinister tone of SP seems well-suited for a different approach.
That said, I don't see the film as all that out of tone or balance, colour-wise. Go through the film again and you'll notice that there's plenty of colour, especially in indoor settings. Sure, sunny Morocco, Northern lakes, desert hideouts, ... all pull colour from the picture. To me, that makes sense. I'm also sure that Hoyte van Hoytema did not just mess it up. I believe this guy was in complete control of his photography, that he had a vision, and that he stuck to it. And I, for one, have always liked the creative choices of this film.
But, I will concede that a lot has to do with me enjoying some of these colour schemes in the first place. I know that many folks are downright offended by Zack Snyder's colour choices in, say, his DC stuff, but frankly, I think his films look twice as good as any of the happy, colourful MCU films. I guess I'm always allowing a film its presentation as intended, not assuming much, to begin with; and when the credits roll, I'll give my opinion. If the film feels good, even if my mind tells me that I normally prefer something else, I'll give it a thumbs up. Ergo, I like SP. But another film that had leaked colours from its palette, Solo, didn't amuse me, visually speaking. I found it odd that a SW film would take this turn as well. So you see, sometimes it clicks, sometimes it doesn't.
Folks are welcome to opinions, still I'm reminded of complaints for how Mad Max: Fury Road unnaturally exaggerated colors for the desert locales.
Where it's actually hard to outdo nature.
I liked Solo.... I guess it's like everything else, down to personal preference. I will say this- the prettiest Bond movies (IMHO) were not made in this Century.
That I absolutely agree with, yes. The ones that set my heart on fire in this context are the '60s Bonds, including CR67. Seriously, the look of TB, OHMSS, DN, ... is hard to beat.
They all looked so luxuriant, so vibrant, so unafraid, so unapologetically stylish. The first 4 and OHMSS are truly unbeatable, I think.
OHMSS is just sumptuous. DAF, for all its foolishness, looks fantastic (& sounds better- Barry).
OHMSS is truly magnificent. And yes, DAF is still vintage Connery Bond, bonkers though it is.
The best-looking of the Moore Bonds, for me, are MR and OP.
And that makes perfect sense for the setting. CR is another one that looks great.
I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark last week and noticed that the desert scenes are quite yellow in tone; even the sky was a very warm colour. I don’t find it too intrusive.
Douglas Slocombe was a master.
Honestly, I don't know if all that many Bond movies have really grabbed me with their look until the last four. The exceptions would be Dr No and Guy Hamilton's 1970s films. They all have a lot of very bold moments, and the use of color is sometimes even a bit garish, adding to the comic book vibe I get from those films, LALD in particular.
But OP is a favorite anyway, so maybe I should take a better look!
Well, it makes sense anywhere, really, which is why it's overused in a lowest-common-denominator kind of way. Blue and orange are a perfect contrast, and you can get a lot of sky/water/skin in there. And a lot of blockbusters turn it up to extreme levels, as in the case of this poor oompa loompa being tortured here! Excessive blue/orange is really the only thing that gets to me in movie color palettes--it's like a refusal to not be cliche.
They had to compete against black and white televisions. This is not an issue anymore.
A strange thesis, that one. I’d say that was never a competition. If you meant they made full use of colour because it was a new thing, you must know that coloured films were a thing since the late 30s, and colour tvs existed for a decade when Dr.No came out. Hitchcock’s To Catch a thief is a gloriously film in beautiful colours from the year Fleming first set his pen on paper, for example.
It was newer than now, that's for sure. They were still making black and white movies in the early 60s.
Which is perfectly fine, of course. But aside from this example, I don't think CR really falls into that category of excessive use of blue and orange in the same scenes all that much. It's full of greens, browns, and yellows too and is certainly a very good looking film.
By this logic then: the fact that people still find them incredible to look at today, when competition is higher, is a great testament to them.
I do sometimes feel we're lucky that Dr No was in colour. Considering British film at the time it may not have been.
Perhaps it was a benefit of having an American and Canadian at the helm. I can imagine it was at least one of the many things that was discussed in relation to Bond appealing to non-UK markets.
Really good point.