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
Like with GE it felt claustrophobic, maybe because of its many, many interior shots.
Totally agree. The fuss over SF is all media hype.
Is there something in using film, that cannot be achieved by filming in digital?
Not being a film director, please could you tell me what this means? Thanks :)
Nope. But the fashionable slagging of SF on this board is little more than silly iconoclasm and denial of the patently obvious.
I think the way some are really down on SF I'm like that with SP, Skyfall was a so much more satisfying experience, it might seem media hype to some but I maintain this film will date better and be more highly regarded in and out of the fanbase than SPECTRE in years to come, SP will actually be instrumental in that as well.
SPECTRE isn't going to age well and overtime people will realise the missed opportunity of it. SF wasn't carrying such a big load with it's content as SP was, the first time in this era that really dug back into Bond mythology and went for the big one and to me it failed and the return of Bond's most famous adversary was not the memorable and hairs on the back of the neck moment it should have been.
The brother element is getting cut allot of slack here by those that love the elements that were bought back in, it wasn't a mission entry it was another personal journey, it didn't need to be and it jars with the desire to make it also full of depth. Which is fine but the idea they cooked up makes SF plotting and big moment seem a minor crime compared to the ball they dropped here.
The ham fisted way they tied all the entries together, I had no problem with them doing this but it was done like an afterthought.
While I marginally prefer it to QOS that film doesn't infuriate me like SP does, I think I'll come to terms with it like I did Quantum but like that film it will still slightly niggle although Solace doesn't commit the crimes that Bond 24 has in my view.
Now I know how those people felt when they walked out of Skyfall let down and disappointed.
I've actually dropped it now to 3 1/2 out of 5.
Agreed. I sound boring to myself repeating this, but placing a villain in Bond's childhood makes this movie worse than it actually is. It is something that doesn't belong in a Bond film, IMO. Before SPECTRE, I would have laughed at the idea that any villain, much less Blofeld, is someone who knew Bond in his youth. Sounds like a very bad fan fiction.
B-)
I'm sorry, but that's impossible. [-X
Hey, I also enjoy the bulk of it. I like the classic Bond elements it brings, and I particularly like the anti-surveillance stance the film takes.
There are some other things I don't like (somewhat weak script, colour filters) but I can live with them. On the other hand, this Bond-and-Blofeld-know-each-other stuff sticks out like a sore thumb in a very bad way.
Yes - digital tends to give a 'colder', more sober image. Film generally gives a more subtle, warmer and classically cinematic look. It is also a lot more expensive to shoot on film and reproduction is costlier & more laborious.
Film has what's called a broader exposure latitude than digital. Areas with more light per unit area are rendered better on film than on a digital format.
With digital, a corner of the frame with little to no light could go completely black, whereas on film this area would still show a certain amount of detail - it is more nuanced.
For some films the digital 'coldness' enhances the story. But for others it can actually detract from it. Michael Mann's 'Public Enemies' (2009) is an example of a film that probably should have been shot on film rather than digital...
And SF isn't done any favours by it either, imo.
SF certainly is extremely clear during Shanghai & the Scotland finale, and I always felt that was on account of his use of digital. It is also definitely colder, but suited the mood of that film, and so I think this was an intentional creative decision on their part. I think it's also cheaper, which may have played into their decision as well.
One day, hopefully, someone will explain the creative decision to use obvious colour filters on SP. I believe it is to hide CGI, but hopefully it is explained eventually.
1. CR
2. SF
3.SP
4. QoS
So I guess I rank SF over SP
Let us know how you feel about SP after a second viewing, @OHMSS69, if you do indeed get one. It made all the difference for me, so I'm interested in seeing if another watch sways you in much the same way I was.
The Oberhauser nonsense was P&W after all it seems, while the Warlord stuff is questionable no I don't think Oberhauser is any better. The more I hear the more SPECTRE becomes even more of a disappointing experience.
P&W & Mendes need to stay far away from Bond, I love Skyfall so you expect me to embrace more of both of them but seriously they well truly fecked this film up.
@Shardlake, I've been screaming to get rid of P&W since TWINE! No matter where you stand on SP or SF; TWINE has one of the most disappointing scripts in the history of the series for me.
As far as SP is concerned, I can tell you're upset about certain things. Personally, I like SP a whole lot more than SF but neither of both can top CR, period. The last true peak for me in the Bond series? 2006 so far...
I agree, P&W should be replaced with new writers, fresh ideas are needed for Bond.
I liked SF, but CR was really a great Bond film. Often when i've left cinemas after watching the latest Bond films, i hear other people say to their family or friends, "oh the film was ok, but i much preferred CR".
Definitely. Before that, it was 1987, IMO. I'm afraid we'll have to wait a long time till the next one.
Peaks for me:
2006
1995
1987
1963
1962
I'm not saying the rest isn't good or even great but these are the peaks for me.
GoldenEye was okay, but I'm not a huge fan. The entire 1960s were terrific, and 1963 is the pinnacle.
IMO, all of the films in the 60s are peaks, sans YOLT. Ironically, it was my favourite Bond film when I was a kid.
I would classify it as a piz.
2006
1995
1987
1969
1963
1962
Yes, of course. I love OHMSS. My mind was elsewhere. ;-)