Skyfall Cinematography Discussion
#61
Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:10 PM
#62
Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:25 PM
#63
Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:40 PM
A-ha!! Think I've got a brilliant idea for a new website...www.skyfallisnotgoingtobeagoodbondfilmbecauseithasthewrongshadeoforange.com
Someone should start one called nothingelegantorclassyintheworkofstanleykubrick.com
#64
Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:06 PM
A-ha!! Think I've got a brilliant idea for a new website...www.skyfallisnotgoingtobeagoodbondfilmbecauseithasthewrongshadeoforange.com
Made my morning !
#65
Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:27 PM
Hardly anyone on this Board is willing to show some individuality, Or say what they believe in
Everyone seems to follow a herd mentality where in, If someone of higher stature says "Roger Deakins is the best "everyone agrees,No one questions or thinks for themselves,and if someone says "Arnolds music is Generic,Generic is bad" we all have to agree. I havent seen many with their own principales.
oh well...
#66
Posted 12 October 2012 - 08:50 PM
Which one?There is nothing elegant or classy of the picture you have posted.
I Best leave this thread
Hardly anyone on this Board is willing to show some individuality, Or say what they believe in
Everyone seems to follow a herd mentality where in, If someone of higher stature says "Roger Deakins is the best "everyone agrees,No one questions or thinks for themselves,and if someone says "Arnolds music is Generic,Generic is bad" we all have to agree. I havent seen many with their own principales.
oh well...
There are (including me) but you don't agree with it. Without knowing who Roger Deakin was when I saw the Skyfall trailer I said, "Wow! This looks great!" That's my own opinion. I came to that view on my own waaay before this thread came along.I havent seen many with their own principales.
So whenever someone disagrees with you its simply because they're "following the herd mentality." Which is completely untrue (at least in my case).
#67
Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:35 PM
I Best leave this thread
Hardly anyone on this Board is willing to show some individuality, Or say what they believe in
Everyone seems to follow a herd mentality where in, If someone of higher stature says "Roger Deakins is the best "everyone agrees,No one questions or thinks for themselves,and if someone says "Arnolds music is Generic,Generic is bad" we all have to agree. I havent seen many with their own principales.
oh well...
As an unthinking dogmatist, I resent this blatant attempt to jolt me out of my complacency.
#68
Posted 13 October 2012 - 02:06 AM
I Best leave this thread
Hardly anyone on this Board is willing to show some individuality, Or say what they believe in
Everyone seems to follow a herd mentality where in, If someone of higher stature says "Roger Deakins is the best "everyone agrees,No one questions or thinks for themselves,and if someone says "Arnolds music is Generic,Generic is bad" we all have to agree. I havent seen many with their own principales.
oh well...
Careful now. Let's not start making blanket statements just because people disagree with your views. One of the things that makes this a unique forum is everyone has their own opinions, and are respectful of those opinions. Maybe instead of writing everyone off as mindless sheep, perhaps it's better to try and understand why those people feel the way they do.
#69
Posted 13 October 2012 - 03:31 AM
I Best leave this thread
Hardly anyone on this Board is willing to show some individuality, Or say what they believe in
Everyone seems to follow a herd mentality where in, If someone of higher stature says "Roger Deakins is the best "everyone agrees,No one questions or thinks for themselves,and if someone says "Arnolds music is Generic,Generic is bad" we all have to agree. I havent seen many with their own principales.
oh well...
Very biased and generalised statement, my first reaction after seeing the first teaser was to think how beautifully shot the film looked, while Quantum had some beautiful shots in between the shaky camera there was nothing in it that I feel compared to the shots we have seen in the Skyfall trailers ( what in QoS compares with the Aston Martin driving up the moors?) The fact that so many people agree would suggest they would have had a similar reaction (even if you personally cannot get past the orange) instead of assuming that no one is sharing their opinion and writing them off as sheep, maybe look at the fact they are sharing their opinion and try to understand why the have this opinion (and why you disagree with it.)
(As for the comparisons with the Arnold debate, that is a perfect example of why the people on this forum are not mindless sheep, I have seen alot of vocal opinion for both sides of the debate, not simply a unanimous 'Arnold is generic' opinion. I personally like Arnold's music and think his Casino and QoS scores are among the strongest in the series)
#70
Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:02 AM
Moreover, the ideals of elegance and class do not really strike at the heart of what good cinematography is supposed to do. It is not just about being aesthetically pleasing, but also about conveying themes and emotions through images. From what I've seen, Deakins's cinematography is a great fit for Bond. The Bond series has always been stylized in its approach to action, storytelling and music. Deakins' cinematography reflects that approach. The lighting is very dramatic and expressionistic. That can be seen through the dark shadows (Bond walking down the dark hallway in the PTS) and the vivid colours (the strong blues of the Shanghai sequence and the oranges and reds of the Macau scenes). This strong use of lighting gives the film an appearance of heightened reality, which closely fits the element of escapist fantasy that has always been a part of the Bond series. Moreover, I think the use of colour is highly thematic. If this thread was in the spoiler section, I would go into what I think the meanings of the different colours are.
Edited by TheManwiththeWaltherPPK, 13 October 2012 - 05:07 AM.
#71
Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:08 AM
If this thread was in the spoiler section, I would go into what I think the meanings of the different colours are.
First and foremost, welcome to CBn TheManwiththeWaltherPPK!
if you wish to talk about something that contains spoilers
[ SPOILER ]Type the spoiler text between these brackets - BUT remove the spaces between the brackets[ /SPOILER ]
#72
Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:20 AM
Would I be allowed to post some screencaps from it here?
#73
Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:50 AM
Oh, and for those who have already seen the film, feel free to talk about it and discuss it now that the film's been released in your respective country.
#74
Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:13 PM
And a bonus from the beginning of the special:
#75
Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:49 PM
#76
Posted 08 November 2012 - 06:50 PM
Quick question--was Skyfall shot on film or digitally? Most of the theaters in my area have gone digital, but if the movie was shot on 35mm I might be able to find a theater that plays honest-to-God film..
Digital.
#77
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:48 PM
Quick question--was Skyfall shot on film or digitally? Most of the theaters in my area have gone digital, but if the movie was shot on 35mm I might be able to find a theater that plays honest-to-God film..
Digital.
Thanks Ace--this means I don't have to worry about what theater I see it in. Does anyone know if this is the first Bond film to have been shot on video?
#78
Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:30 AM
Quick question--was Skyfall shot on film or digitally? Most of the theaters in my area have gone digital, but if the movie was shot on 35mm I might be able to find a theater that plays honest-to-God film..
Digital.
Thanks Ace--this means I don't have to worry about what theater I see it in. Does anyone know if this is the first Bond film to have been shot on video?
It is. If you can, I suggest watching it in IMAX. Breathtaking experience.
#79
Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:14 PM
Am planning on seeing it again today. Should I see the standard version or stick with IMAX? I do not know if the standard version loses information on the top and bottom or the IMAX version loses information on the left and right sides of the frame as a result of the conversion. Appreciate any wisdom that can be shared.
Cannot wait to see it again either way.
Nevermind found an article that answers my question
http://www.deadline....s-bond-skyfall/
Edited by Bucky, 09 November 2012 - 02:18 PM.
#80
Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:52 PM
#81
Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:19 AM
I can't get over how great his film looks. Particularly of note are the sequences in Shanghai, as well as the finale. I thought it was the best looking action-type film I've ever seen.
Agreed. The Film looked beautiful in Digital Projection and Amazing today in IMAX. Haven't seen action scenes look this good in a very long time.
#82
Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:49 AM
#83
Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:31 AM
That shot alone warrants any next viewing in a cinema. Marvelous. This is a movie made for the big screen, and while I hope it'll transport well to a TV screen (after the DVD etc. release), I fear it'll be a bit wasted on small format.3) Scotland: Great shots of the moors particularly the aerial shot of the Aston driving down an empty road in a valley with the heavy fog.
#84
Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:56 AM
Anyone can point a camera, put things in a frame with the right lighting and have it look good - people do it with photographs all the time, but REAL cinematography is what the shots and frames tell us about the story without the dialogue, it straight away explains mood, tone and setting and what is to come.
Some of the stills shown in 'Quantum Of Solace' look nice, but that's simple framing work. Rene and Bond drinking wine looks nice but it's nothing more than a well captured shot, which does look good, but compare that to Severine and Bond drinking in the Macau casino, it's just the same with different light and mood.
However, the cinematography is best used for the establishing shots of all the locations, the shots used to show where the characters are, what they are doing and the environment they are in. Shanghai does this the best during the film as it captures the menace, the beauty and the deception of the situation Bond is in. It doesn't just look nice, but it tells our brains that this is dangerous, deceptive, surreal and not to trust our senses as Bond and Patrice come to blows, and that fist fight adds to the brutal realism of what they are doing - fighting to survive as one of them has to die there and then.
Scotland does it very well too, capturing the isolation, the coldness and bleakness ahead the characters involved face together, and alone.
Not saying I'm right of course, I just feel there is a big difference between 'nice shots' and 'cinematography' used to tell the story, not just carry it foward.
#85
Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:49 PM
As a Media Degree and A-Level graduate (ooh, check me!), reading some comments I think people get mixed up with how well a frame looks and what cinematography actually means.
Anyone can point a camera, put things in a frame with the right lighting and have it look good - people do it with photographs all the time, but REAL cinematography is what the shots and frames tell us about the story without the dialogue, it straight away explains mood, tone and setting and what is to come.
Some of the stills shown in 'Quantum Of Solace' look nice, but that's simple framing work. Rene and Bond drinking wine looks nice but it's nothing more than a well captured shot, which does look good, but compare that to Severine and Bond drinking in the Macau casino, it's just the same with different light and mood.
However, the cinematography is best used for the establishing shots of all the locations, the shots used to show where the characters are, what they are doing and the environment they are in. Shanghai does this the best during the film as it captures the menace, the beauty and the deception of the situation Bond is in. It doesn't just look nice, but it tells our brains that this is dangerous, deceptive, surreal and not to trust our senses as Bond and Patrice come to blows, and that fist fight adds to the brutal realism of what they are doing - fighting to survive as one of them has to die there and then.
Scotland does it very well too, capturing the isolation, the coldness and bleakness ahead the characters involved face together, and alone.
Not saying I'm right of course, I just feel there is a big difference between 'nice shots' and 'cinematography' used to tell the story, not just carry it foward.
Well Said!
#86
Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:53 AM
#87
Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:44 AM
I loved Shanghai, that was incredible. I want to see this in IMAX, it would be really cool.
The Shanghai sequences were so beautiful in IMAX, really made me appreciate Deakins work even more and the art of cinematography. Of Course the whole film's cinematography is outstanding, another piece that really stands out for me are the Scotland scenes.
#88
Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:50 AM
#89
Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:00 AM
#90
Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:29 AM
As a Media Degree and A-Level graduate (ooh, check me!), reading some comments I think people get mixed up with how well a frame looks and what cinematography actually means.
Anyone can point a camera, put things in a frame with the right lighting and have it look good - people do it with photographs all the time, but REAL cinematography is what the shots and frames tell us about the story without the dialogue, it straight away explains mood, tone and setting and what is to come.
Some of the stills shown in 'Quantum Of Solace' look nice, but that's simple framing work. Rene and Bond drinking wine looks nice but it's nothing more than a well captured shot, which does look good, but compare that to Severine and Bond drinking in the Macau casino, it's just the same with different light and mood.
However, the cinematography is best used for the establishing shots of all the locations, the shots used to show where the characters are, what they are doing and the environment they are in. Shanghai does this the best during the film as it captures the menace, the beauty and the deception of the situation Bond is in. It doesn't just look nice, but it tells our brains that this is dangerous, deceptive, surreal and not to trust our senses as Bond and Patrice come to blows, and that fist fight adds to the brutal realism of what they are doing - fighting to survive as one of them has to die there and then.
Scotland does it very well too, capturing the isolation, the coldness and bleakness ahead the characters involved face together, and alone.
Not saying I'm right of course, I just feel there is a big difference between 'nice shots' and 'cinematography' used to tell the story, not just carry it foward.
Very well put.
In my high-school film class, one of the shots that we studied really helped me understand this was the establishing shots at the start of No Country for Old Men - it subverts the John Ford idyllic West, and shows the bleakness of what is about to take place. Best part is that it's another Roger Deakins film.
Like everyone else said, Shanghai and Macau look brilliant. When I talk to people about this movie that's what I talk about. Scotland was great as well of course. I didn't do IMAX but I am seeing the film for sure like 25 billion more times if only just to have those shots fresh in my memory constantly until (BD-)DVD release.