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
Yeah. You keep telling yourself that, mate. One day they might even let you shoot the school Panto on your iPhone. If you pass the necessary background checks, of course.
Settle down Princess.
I watched SF yesterday and was reminded about the lack of a gun barrel at the start of the film and what Genius didn't put in ?
Most people on this site i think say it should have been there.
Roger Deakins as Skyfall's director of photography did a shit job.
It was too dark and lifeless colours for a bond film.
What necessary background checks did Deakins pass. His eye site test ? :)
Sammy mendes got him the job.
A lot of people on this forum could have done a better job.
Next thing you'll be praising P&W's brilliant dialogue.
Roger Deakins' cinematography in Skyfall is the best in the series.
Obviously that's not all about Deakins. Production design and locations play a part. SF is perhaps one of the most underwhelming in the series when it comes to use (or rather lack of) locations. Even London and the Highlands are squandered - made dreary and pedestrian. Perhaps they are, but isn't the purpose of a Bond film to amp up location and atmosphere to the max? I get no real sense of Bond being in Scotland - probably because most of the external Skyfall sequences were filmed in England. London looks drab (as it often does in reality) and feels almost incidental as a location - just another backdrop - rather than a 'character' in the film. It was a big deal having Bond finally shoot extensive scenes in London (hadn't they originally planned a rooftop London chase for OHMSS?) but what they gave us doesn't cut it IMO.
Poor use of location has been an issue for a while I suppose but SF certainly didn't buck that trend.
As a Bond film it's undermined by rather a lot of obvious CGI as well. The OTT lift scene, Silva's Island (why not use establishing shots of the real Japanese island rather than recreate it with CGI?), Komodo dragons etc etc. I know it was made on a tight budget but surely they could have done better?
Your views are more extreme than mine. :)
The gunbarrel being at the end was Mendes' fault and Deakins did a great job with SF. Took it to another level. There were lots of vibrant colours in scenes/locations that needed them? Only film that beats it for cinematography is OHMSS imo.
You sit tight, buddy. They'll soon be down with your methadone.
Have you been straitening Banana's Again ? :)
SF is nicely lensed, but suffer from awful colorgrading. That is, if you prefer a natural and vibrant look, and not faded and dark. I blame Mendes and his "creative choices" for this, though.
I prefer the cinematography in YOLT (Fred Young) and (no laughs, please) MR (Jean Tournier) .
Nothing wrong with MR. It's a beautiful looking film.
Am I star of my own version of the Truman Show and this forum is just populated by the scriptwriters pretending to be imbeciles just to wind me up? I thought your comments on Liverpool were idiotic but you've taken your deranged 'We'll beat Hoffenheim 5-0' delusion and turned it up to eleven.
You have to wonder if Broadmoor patients really should be allowed to access to the internet like this. If this guy is allowed to churn out this drivel god alone knows what Sutcliffe is getting up to in the next cell?
Although in fairness @001 may well actually be Sutcliffe as you'd have to be someone with one eye missing and the other half blind to have such a visually impaired opinion of Deakins work on SF. I guess the childish bubble gum colour palate of DAD is more appealing when you are reduced to about 30% vision in one eye.
Suffice it to say I do hope you weren't up in front of the parole board trying to convince them that you are now sane and fit to go back out into society any time soon @001 as you've just blown that out of the water. It's straightjacket time for another 20 years for you old son.
And know here is your penalty.
Your buddy Jonathan for your desktop.
Where SF nailed it like no other was in the night photography. It had a rich glow to it due to strategic lighting and most probably due to the use of digital camera. Very sharp and clear.
Shot framing was superb in both SF and SP, but the less said about the notorious and surreal monotone filters in the latter film the better.
It seems a lot of this comes down to personal preference on how people think a Bond film should look. For me it should look how the director wants it to look and if that gives the film character, I don't care if it's popping with colour or saturated and melancholic. I don't find any of SF drab or dreary, purely evocative. The scenes in the Highlands in particular are beautifully lensed and very different to any other Bond picture.
However, the daytime scenes lack contrast and texture in my eyes. They have a washed out and unnatural look. I noticed it on first viewing, but didn't mind it due to the dynamism and tension in the actual scene. I recommend anyone to view the PTS in particular and compare it to the Bahamas in CR as an example.
In terms of contrast, I've always maintained that Bond films have had rich colour contast. It's what differentiates them from more mundane fare. It was there in the night time scenes in SF, but not in the day time scenes. It wasn't there at all in SP, which gave that film a CGI and unnatural look to my eyes. A massive disappointment to me.
In terms of wanting it to look like how the director desired, I personally disagree. If that were the case, we wouldn't have anything to discuss here. I agree that ultimately it's a matter of personal preference.
Problem is EON doesn't. At least not until two days before shooting.
What genius came up with a yellow looking Mexico in Spectre?
Shocking, positively Shocking. :)
If they want to continue down this path, it's obviously their call. The box office has been decent and if that's their driver & motivation, more power to them. I hope they don't.
No, it's not! While I certainly wouldn't go so far to say he did a shit job the movie really is much too dark and dour looking. Also, this is the series that features the likes of TB,YOLT, MR, QoS at the very least so even if these problems had been addressed it still would be a very far fetched statement.
OHMSS is superbly photographed and edited.
I see what your saying. It pisses my dad off too that skyfall has too many dark scenes. Would that be Deakens or the screenplay or mendes?
Absolutely! That's why I wrote "at the very least".
But why would Istanbul look like the Bahamas, texture or colour wise, or even in terms of contrast? There's a hot, dusty feel to the latter and a crisp, clean feel to the former. That's a directorial choice, rather than a case of one being better than the other. I personally prefer the cinematograpy in CR, but I don't see it as a reason to roll out the same presets from film to film.
In terms of wanting it to look as director desires, you've missed my point. I can still like, or dislike it, my point is that going in with a pre-conceived notion of how a Bond film should look seems limiting. I'm sure we all know what we like, but it's the films that pull away from that that make it a rich experience for us.