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
"What did he promise you? His heart? Give her his heart!"
Sanchez was brilliant!
---
Psychology wise, it's probably SF.
The darkness is Silva. I actually felt sorry for the poor sod the last time I saw it (when he was asking M to call him by his 'real name' and recounting how he kept his mouth shut while being tortured,...... and when he couldn't kill her at the end but wanted 'mommy' to finish the both of them). Deeply demented and disturbed, but also very compelling with some sympathetic elements. He was betrayed and sought revenge.
The darkness is also M. What a 'B' as Bond correctly notes. I didn't sympathize actually... she screwed Bond and she screwed Silva
The darkness is Bond. Putting up with the garbage that he has to for Queen and Country. Her Majesty's loyal terrier (hence the bulldog). He was betrayed and keeps coming back for more (unlike his nefarious alter ego). What a glutton for punishment he is.
Sorry. You're right @lalalal2004. My mistake. I had actually already responded to this thread on page 1 a few wks back but only saw the posts above me today and assumed this was a tonal, and not a lighting discussion this time.
Yes, that is correct. I have tried to make that understood. LOL! :))
This discussion is 100% about lighting, not at all about tone. :)
I'll give you a pass...this time!
;)
I personally felt both QoS and SP were visually much more striking. Nothing against Deakins but never got why people have been so obsessed with the SF visuals.
Probably because it's about the only thing of Skyfall that can be called great. You have to hang on to the few good things in such a mediocre movie ;)
So I keep on hearing. May be it is the gloominess that doesn't work for.
Given this was the effect he was going for, it is incredibly well done, and superbly realized.
I'll take that any day over the piss yellow which is unnaturally all over the screen in SP.
My preference overall though would be for the crisp, rich colours which permeate both CR & QoS in particular. That to me is real Bond.
I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.
I suppose it's only natural that SPECTRE should be "spectral."
Your observation, which could refer both to the film's tenebrousness and its tone, is an interesting one, but I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're driving at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that many sequences are almost devoid of extras, and those that are present, are like wraiths passing through the world inhabited by Bond and his interlocutors. And it is this ghostly quality that lends SP much of its tonal darkness. Correct?
Pretty much, yes.
CR has a lot of bright glitz and glamour, befitting the large majority of it taking place in a Casino.
QoS is very bright, particularly in the desert scenes, which is of course fitting
SF has the cloudy gloominess
SP has the darkness we're talking about
Very interesting to consider the evolution, I think... The films do have their distinct looks.
I agree on all above comments except that SP has any darkness. SP, strictly from a lighting perspective, is yellow throughout except in the alpine scenes, where it is a distinct grey.
In all cases, the colour is artificial, unnatural, and a little annoying to be honest.
I think this film would have benefited tremendously from the rich vivacity of colour which characterizes the best Bond films (TWSLM/OHMSS/CR/FRWL/DN/TB etc. etc.) but obviously they took this sort of obvious jaundiced angle for a reason.
One day, I'll figure out why. At present it eludes me.
Nice to see you again, LaLa. It's been a long time.
SF is very dark, any revenge minded films (Bond's in LTK and Silva's in SF) tend to have a certain bit of dark and gritty violence. Craig has always been a gritty SOB but I think SF does bring out a lot of dark nastiness that EON is capable of delivering.
<img src=http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1r46gpFvu1qb6vvvo1_250.gif>;
I've tried to help @thunderball007 . People just don't listen. :-?
In terms of nastiness and cruelty, SP is also the darkest: don't they mention poisoning children and bringing pandemics to Africa? And trying to kill White with cancer, I doubt any potential death has ever been so vile and so chilling in the whole franchise. Someone assassinates you with cancer. Think about it. When White blows his own brain, I actually feel both sorry and relief for him.
There does seem to be conscious effort to keep the background persons to a minimum or almost as a spectral presence.
A couple of scenes come to mind. The dining car scene. Only brief glimpses of other diners and they disappear entirely once the fight starts as does the waiter.
When Bond and Swann visit L'Americaine, the receptionist is purposefully kept at distance or in shadow. No face.
The film has a dream like quality to some extent. And yes when we do get loads of active extras, they are dressed as dead people.
I've expounded at length elsewhere about the paucity of small-part Bond girls. There are none,nada zilch.
This has to be by design, as every other Bond film has them, even SF in the Macau casino.
In SP all we get is Swann, Lucia and Estrella. There is not even a passing glimpse of a 4th.
ie no other girl on screen anywhere for eye candy effect.
Bond and Swann's arrival in Tangiers is populated by extras, as they walk up the road, but still the camera seems very much removed from the shot. There is nothing really going on in the foreground. Its just a setting establishing shot. Maybe a mood setter too.
Good catch though. You know that Mendes and his collaborators are doing stuff like this by design and for thematic effect.