To me the Films of the mid to late 60's YOLT, OHMMS & DAF had a unique cinematic quality. Other films from this period such as the Len Deighton movies, Alfie, Battle of Britain, CCBB seem to have the same quality.I am not a technical movie buff but i believe lighting may have something to do with this and they were filmed in England.
What's the best Cinematic Quality Bond film ?
Started by
Rolex
, Oct 16 2001 04:45 PM
7 replies to this topic
#2
Mister Asterix
-
- The Admiralty
-
- 15519 posts
Commodore RNVR
- Location:38.6902N - 89.9816W
Posted 16 October 2001 - 05:05 PM
I'd say OHMSS was top. I felt that if Michael G. and Babs ever asked me to do a Bond film I would tell them that I want to strive for the look of this era. There is a beauty to every little thing about the films of the late 60s, from the editing to the lighting to the odd saturation of colours on the film.
(Of course what I would really say to them would be, 'Are you crazy, Spielberg and Tarantino are on their knees begging to do a Bond film and I, on the other hand, don't know how to get my auto-focus Instamatic to focus!)
(Of course what I would really say to them would be, 'Are you crazy, Spielberg and Tarantino are on their knees begging to do a Bond film and I, on the other hand, don't know how to get my auto-focus Instamatic to focus!)
#3
Rolex
-
- Crew
-
- 448 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
- Location:Surrey UK
Posted 17 October 2001 - 01:13 PM
scaramanga (17 Oct, 2001 11:02 a.m.):
I would have to say Thunderball because didn't it win an Oscar for Best Visual Effects for the underwater climax? OHMSS also had quite an epic feel to it.
Maybe TB YOLT OHMSS & DAF could been seen among many fans as visually classic among the series and used as a rule when watching the others. I would be interested to see the views of fans brought up with Moore ,Dalton & Brosnan films.
#4
scaramanga
-
- Veterans Reserve
-
- 1089 posts
Commander RNR
Posted 17 October 2001 - 10:02 AM
I would have to say Thunderball because didn't it win an Oscar for Best Visual Effects for the underwater climax? OHMSS also had quite an epic feel to it.
#5
Jim
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 14266 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:Oxfordshire
Posted 12 November 2001 - 05:02 PM
I just think it's the advent of the video recorder which has made the films more cramped. Also, the sense of wonder about seeing somewhere new in the world.
Consider Thunderball. It must look absolutely extraordinary on the big screen. Panned and scanned on TV or on full screen video, and so much is lost. Additionally, imagine watching it in the cold of a post war British winter, seeing something new and exotic and colourful. Must have been amazing. Same with You Only Live Twice and OHMSS.
Although there are attempts at epic in The Living Daylights, the last really expansive spectacular was Moonraker. Since then, we've had close ups and cramped shots and the sense of scale has all gone. Moonraker may have been very stupid, but it's undeniably a spectacle.
GoldenEye, on the other hand, looks like it's been filmed really close up all the way through. Works quite well on the TV as a result, but the sense of epic spectacle has gone. Also, the locations aren't really anything new (hard to say what would be new; Death Valley maybe. Lordy, even the outback (now there's an idea....)).
Let's have a Bond film with something really wildly exotic in it. And not bloody Phuket again. Exotic it may be, but we've seen it twice now.
Consider Thunderball. It must look absolutely extraordinary on the big screen. Panned and scanned on TV or on full screen video, and so much is lost. Additionally, imagine watching it in the cold of a post war British winter, seeing something new and exotic and colourful. Must have been amazing. Same with You Only Live Twice and OHMSS.
Although there are attempts at epic in The Living Daylights, the last really expansive spectacular was Moonraker. Since then, we've had close ups and cramped shots and the sense of scale has all gone. Moonraker may have been very stupid, but it's undeniably a spectacle.
GoldenEye, on the other hand, looks like it's been filmed really close up all the way through. Works quite well on the TV as a result, but the sense of epic spectacle has gone. Also, the locations aren't really anything new (hard to say what would be new; Death Valley maybe. Lordy, even the outback (now there's an idea....)).
Let's have a Bond film with something really wildly exotic in it. And not bloody Phuket again. Exotic it may be, but we've seen it twice now.
#6
mrmoon
-
- Veterans Reserve
-
- 939 posts
Commander RNR
- Location:London
Posted 16 October 2001 - 06:46 PM
I know exactly what you mean, but I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, It's just something atmospheric about them.
#7
White Persian
-
- Veterans
-
- 1218 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 17 October 2001 - 08:19 PM
For my money, OHMSS has the best cinematography of the series. The Alpine shots are breathtaking. Was the cinematographer Michael Reed?
FYEO and LD are pretty good among more recent entries.
This whole topic brings up something I've noticed in movies generally. The films of the late fifties and sixties seem so much better photographed than more recent movies. It's particularly obvious in westerns -all those wide open spaces, I guess- but seems to hold up in all genres. The old films have a crystal clarity and pin-sharpness that you just don't get anymore, not even from a Spielberg or Cameron. In a "conspiracy theory" moment, I even wondered whether the sharpness has been deliberately reduced, so that fuzzy CGI effects won't stand out like the proverbial.
More likely it's something to do with film stock or lenses.
FYEO and LD are pretty good among more recent entries.
This whole topic brings up something I've noticed in movies generally. The films of the late fifties and sixties seem so much better photographed than more recent movies. It's particularly obvious in westerns -all those wide open spaces, I guess- but seems to hold up in all genres. The old films have a crystal clarity and pin-sharpness that you just don't get anymore, not even from a Spielberg or Cameron. In a "conspiracy theory" moment, I even wondered whether the sharpness has been deliberately reduced, so that fuzzy CGI effects won't stand out like the proverbial.
More likely it's something to do with film stock or lenses.
#8
Friedrich Baxter
-
- Crew
-
- 426 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 06 November 2001 - 02:48 PM
Another quality of Bond movies, that they are totally uncovering the phenomenons 'The Seventies', 'The Nineties', 'The Eighties', if you understand what I mean.
Look for instance to DAF. When Bond arrives on the airport we see all the passengers in TOO much seventies look. I really like that. And with the music, we were introduced with Bond 'In The Seventies'
The same counts for TND. Look the party again at the Hamburg congres centre of Elliot Carver. Hear the music and watch the typical Nineties look.
Watch TSWLM where Naomi takes Triple X and 007 to Atlantis. What a georgious woman, that Naomi. Nice late Seventies look!
Watch Dr. No. When Bond destroys the camera of Mrs Taro, we see at the background the typical Sixties dance.
Look for instance to DAF. When Bond arrives on the airport we see all the passengers in TOO much seventies look. I really like that. And with the music, we were introduced with Bond 'In The Seventies'
The same counts for TND. Look the party again at the Hamburg congres centre of Elliot Carver. Hear the music and watch the typical Nineties look.
Watch TSWLM where Naomi takes Triple X and 007 to Atlantis. What a georgious woman, that Naomi. Nice late Seventies look!
Watch Dr. No. When Bond destroys the camera of Mrs Taro, we see at the background the typical Sixties dance.