55 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

Does anyone else believe that had this happened the film would have turned out pretty much the same?

GOLDENEYE for me felt very much like an 80s Bond movie even when I went to see it in 1995. It felt really pleasingly out of touch, more British and less like say True Lies.

Thoughts?

[plankattack]

Does anyone else believe that had this happened the film would have turned out pretty much the same?

GOLDENEYE for me felt very much like an 80s Bond movie even when I went to see it in 1995. It felt really pleasingly out of touch, more British and less like say True Lies.

Thoughts?

It would have looked like it was filmed at Pinewood?.....(sorry - two people on two threads inside joke).

I'm not sure I agree. GE felt like on-fashioned Bond, and yes it does feel more British and almost old-fashioned (unlike it's immediate successor, for example). But it does seem to be polished with that "Hollywood sheen" that for example makes True Lies unable to be anything other than a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster.

Yes, there are moments when GE is very much EON-filmed on the back lot, but it has a pacing and look that make it different. I can't quite put into words what I mean, but it seems to be masquerading as an EON-Bond, rather than actually being one. And I'm not sure Glen could have pulled that off. I think GE's success is that both Campbell and Meheux had never worked on a Bond (I'm sure about the former - I might need correction on the latter), bringing an outside vision that for better or worse, Glen, the company man, couldn't have.

I almost feel that Babs and Mike's instructions were to "make if look like one of the old ones" rather than "make it like the old one's".

[HildebrandRarity]

Perhaps Glen would have had pigeons surprise the heck out of Bond while he was flying down towards the plane like Tinkerbell during the Fairy Bond moment in the PTS?

OR...more significantly and in a way, more positively:

He would have insisted on having someone else score the film. We were 'treated' to some real junk by Serra.

[Mister Asterix]

No. Glen’s directing, particularly his camera direction, was much more paint-by-numbers. GoldenEye was slick and had a nicer touch to it than any of Glen’s outings. Much of that may of been budget, but then the choice of the director is a budget consideration as well, isn’t it?.

[tim partridge]

It's funny that you guys pick out the visuals. Have you guys seen THE FORTH PROTOCOL? It stars Pierce Brosnan and is also shot by Phil Meheux, with lots of Russian military costumes. Much of it looks VERY similar to GOLDENEYE. By coincidence, TFP was also directed by John McKenzie, who I remember Royal Dalton saying was Eon's choice to direct the follow up to LICENCE TO KILL.

Phil Meheux's cinematography is pretty pivotal regarding GOLDENEYE's visual success, IMO. You can see all of the trademark tight compositions, high contrast mood lighting and blocking and movement style apparent in pretty much everything he was shooting back then.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 January 2009 - 03:07 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

My guess is that the film would be much better with Glen. Less hollywood pastiche.

[Royal Dalton]

Does anyone else believe that had this happened the film would have turned out pretty much the same?

No, it would have been better.

[plankattack]

Phil Meheux's cinematography is pretty pivotal regarding GOLDENEYE's visual success, IMO. You can see all of the trademark tight compositions, high contrast mood lighting and blocking and movement style apparent in pretty much everything he was shooting back then.

I think it's one of the film's real strengths. Campbell said that he told Mehuex to look at Bonds 62-67 and take inspiration from them for how GE would come across. They repeated their success in CR - in both films the exterior colours really have a vibrancy to them

Not sure that I agree on The Fourth Protocol - I find it a little uneven visually. Yes there are some scenes that look great - Ned Beatty is the cabin for example, but there are too many interiors (pretty much everything at MI-5 with Glover and others) and everything in the houses at the climax that feel too much like television.

[tim partridge]

Meheux's LONG GOOD FRIDAY, MAX HEADROOM and WHO DARES WINS are also all shot in that high contrast, silouhetty commercial style with tight long and wide lens shots. It's a very distinct, tight look.

The other Meheux element worth mentioning that adds a distinct visual character to GOLDENEYE: Smoke. Some of it's borderline Ridley Scott territory (the Russian hotel, church, interogation room, library and the satellite control box).

Edited by tim partridge, 07 January 2009 - 03:42 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Phil Meheux's cinematography is pretty pivotal regarding GOLDENEYE's visual success, IMO. You can see all of the trademark tight compositions, high contrast mood lighting and blocking and movement style apparent in pretty much everything he was shooting back then.

I think it's one of the film's real strengths. Campbell said that he told Mehuex to look at Bonds 62-67 and take inspiration from them for how GE would come across. They repeated their success in CR - in both films the exterior colours really have a vibrancy to them

I'm not an expert but I don't see any similarity between GE and CR cinematography. I see the vibrancy of the colours in Craig's debut, but in Brosnan's first entry I don't see nothing of this (in fact, the tank chase seems rather muted), with maybe the exception of the beach scene.

[Judo chop]

The smallness in scope probably would have been similar between the two, but the action probably would have suffered a little under Glen.

Bad comedy may or may not have been injected. Glen backed off the 'hyucks' with Dalton (and AVTAK), but with Broz, he may have sensed the need to reinstate a very bad idea.

Though I’d imagine the greatest difference is that Glen wouldn’t have pulled the same performances from the leads.

[tim partridge]

Phil Meheux's cinematography is pretty pivotal regarding GOLDENEYE's visual success, IMO. You can see all of the trademark tight compositions, high contrast mood lighting and blocking and movement style apparent in pretty much everything he was shooting back then.

I think it's one of the film's real strengths. Campbell said that he told Mehuex to look at Bonds 62-67 and take inspiration from them for how GE would come across. They repeated their success in CR - in both films the exterior colours really have a vibrancy to them

I'm not an expert but I don't see any similarity between GE and CR cinematography. I see the vibrancy of the colours in Craig's debut, but in Brosnan's first entry I don't see nothing of this (in fact, the tank chase seems rather muted), with maybe the exception of the beach scene.

Agreed. Even on the big screen in 1995, the Monaco scenes from GE did seem rather drab (even for a print). The image is so diffused by backlighting and smoke in most shots, which is especially true in the later jungle scenes, muting much of the colour. Most of the exteriors throughout the movie are grey buildings in overcast Russia, too.

I was hoping for the return of the smokey anamorphic look in CR, but instead we got lots of turquoisey digital grading and Ipcressy dutched camera angles.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 January 2009 - 05:23 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Phil Meheux's cinematography is pretty pivotal regarding GOLDENEYE's visual success, IMO. You can see all of the trademark tight compositions, high contrast mood lighting and blocking and movement style apparent in pretty much everything he was shooting back then.

I think it's one of the film's real strengths. Campbell said that he told Mehuex to look at Bonds 62-67 and take inspiration from them for how GE would come across. They repeated their success in CR - in both films the exterior colours really have a vibrancy to them

I'm not an expert but I don't see any similarity between GE and CR cinematography. I see the vibrancy of the colours in Craig's debut, but in Brosnan's first entry I don't see nothing of this (in fact, the tank chase seems rather muted), with maybe the exception of the beach scene.

Agreed. Even on the big screen in 1995, the Monaco scenes from GE did seem rather drab (even for a print). The image is so diffused by backlighting and smoke in most shots, which is especially true in the later jungle scenes, muting much of the colour. Most of the exteriors throughout the movie are grey buildings in overcast Russia, too.

I was hoping for the return of the smokey anamorphic look in CR, but instead we got lots of turquoisey digital grading and Ipcressy dutched camera angles.

That's one of the reason why I don't care about GE, whereas I love CR. The former seems pretty average (for its time), while the latter seems old school- sixties style-.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I don't think it would have been the same. Campbell is a much more energetic film maker, (although he is making films in an era where action movies are much faster paced and cut, than 20 years ago in Glens time with Bond). Also when GE was made, the series needed new blood. Not because what had gone before were bad films, but change brings new perspective. I doubt we would got a female M if Glen had signed on, but who knows?

[Royal Dalton]

I was hoping for the return of the smokey anamorphic look in CR, but instead we got lots of turquoisey digital grading and Ipcressy dutched camera angles.

Horrible-looking film.

[tim partridge]

Additionally, I think the art direction is rather poor in CR, especially compared to QOS. That really impacts and limits much of the photography and lighting. M's office for example looked like a portacabin with a lowered roof (Barrandov restrictions?), painted the most ghasty shade of yellow. The less said about the actual Casino interior, the better. Some of the Czech location doubling also doesn't exactly do the story justice or leave much visual scope (especially during the Casino restaurant/exterior scenes).

Didn't help that the costumes were so random and uncoordinated colour wise too. This all lead to a very uncontrolled and low contrast look that's hard on the eyes (though still much much better than DAD IMO) that they have tried to counteract in post by wacking select colours up in the grade.

Edited by tim partridge, 07 January 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Additionally, I think the art direction is rather poor in CR, especially compared to QOS. That really impacts and limits much of the photography and lighting. M's office for example looked like a portacabin with a lowered roof (Barrandov restrictions?), painted the most ghasty shade of yellow. The less said about the actual Casino interior, the better. Some of the Czech location doubling also doesn't exactly do the story justice or leave much visual scope (especially during the Casino restaurant/exterior scenes).

Didn't help that the costumes were so random and uncoordinated colour wise too. This all lead to a very uncontrolled and low contrast look that's hard on the eyes (though still much much better than DAD IMO) that they have tried to counteract in post by wacking select colours up in the grade.

I extremely disagree. I'm not much of an expert in this matters, but I think CR is the most beautiful looking Bond film.

I think Czech Republic make a wonderful doubling regarding Montenegro, and particularly to the literally fictitious Royale-Les-Eaux, because they achieve the appearence of a small and typical european town (if that really exist nowadays). Besides, the red dress for Vesper wasn't randomly choose it.

I only agree, that M's office could have received a better treatment.

[Harmsway]

Does anyone else believe that had this happened the film would have turned out pretty much the same?

I don't. I think Campbell's direction in GOLDENEYE - while far from masterful - was more interesting and elegant than what Glen did with Bond.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I don't. I think Campbell's direction in GOLDENEYE - while far from masterful - was more interesting and elegant than what Glen did with Bond.

No doubt. Glen was a very good director for me, although, I found him less exotic than Campbell.

[Colossus]

It would have been more bland and not as vibrant or thrilling i'd have to say.

[jaguar007]

The smallness in scope probably would have been similar between the two, but the action probably would have suffered a little under Glen.

I disagree. Some of the best action scenes in the series came under Glen's direction (much as 2nd unit director). While GE was a pretty good Bond movie, it did not have any of the series most memorable action scenes.

[HH007]

Additionally, I think the art direction is rather poor in CR, especially compared to QOS. That really impacts and limits much of the photography and lighting. M's office for example looked like a portacabin with a lowered roof (Barrandov restrictions?), painted the most ghasty shade of yellow. The less said about the actual Casino interior, the better. Some of the Czech location doubling also doesn't exactly do the story justice or leave much visual scope (especially during the Casino restaurant/exterior scenes).

Didn't help that the costumes were so random and uncoordinated colour wise too. This all lead to a very uncontrolled and low contrast look that's hard on the eyes (though still much much better than DAD IMO) that they have tried to counteract in post by wacking select colours up in the grade.

I extremely disagree. I'm not much of an expert in this matters, but I think CR is the most beautiful looking Bond film.

I think Czech Republic make a wonderful doubling regarding Montenegro, and particularly to the literally fictitious Royale-Les-Eaux, because they achieve the appearence of a small and typical european town (if that really exist nowadays). Besides, the red dress for Vesper wasn't randomly choose it.

I only agree, that M's office could have received a better treatment.

I also extremely disagree. I think CR is one of best (if not the best) looking Bond films. I mean, the black & white opening alone does it for me... not to mention the rest of the film, which looks incredible.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

The smallness in scope probably would have been similar between the two, but the action probably would have suffered a little under Glen.

I disagree. Some of the best action scenes in the series came under Glen's direction (much as 2nd unit director). While GE was a pretty good Bond movie, it did not have any of the series most memorable action scenes.

GE had the best straight hand to hand combat since From Russia With Love and I'd say most people remember the Tank chase.

[DR76]

Does anyone else believe that had this happened the film would have turned out pretty much the same?

I don't. I think Campbell's direction in GOLDENEYE - while far from masterful - was more interesting and elegant than what Glen did with Bond.

I have to disagree. Although both directors are great in filming action, Glen has always struck me as a more elegant director than Campbell. He seemed a little better in capturing the atmosphere of a movie's setting.

GE had the best straight hand to hand combat since From Russia With Love and I'd say most people remember the Tank chase.

I have to disagree with this, as well. I think that the hand-to-hand fight scene in GOLDENEYE was much better than the one in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or any other Bond film. While the fight in FRWL was brutal, I think that it is also slightly overrated.

Edited by DR76, 02 February 2009 - 03:14 AM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Yes I would agree with you DR76 about your points about atmosphere (although I find little of this in LTK, but that is a bit off topic!)
I particularly like the fair sequences in TLD, especially after the death of Saunders. The sequences with Maud Adams as OP also spring to my mind, as do the Chantily sequences in AVTAK.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 02 February 2009 - 01:46 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Perhaps Glen would have had pigeons surprise the heck out of Bond while he was flying down towards the plane like Tinkerbell during the Fairy Bond moment in the PTS?

I sometimes find it hard to believe that I even write such things!

[DLibrasnow]

I was hoping for the return of the smokey anamorphic look in CR, but instead we got lots of turquoisey digital grading and Ipcressy dutched camera angles.

Horrible-looking film.

I agree. I think cinematography is one of the areas which really hurts Casino Royale.

[Loomis]

Eh? It has by far the best cinematography of all the Bond films, rivalled only by YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

[HildebrandRarity]

I agree. I think cinematography is one of the areas which really hurts Casino Royale.

Um, how do you come to that conclusion?

[Single-O-Seven]

I thought CR brought out some of the colour and exotic vibrancy that had been lacking in the films for the previous 20 years. Some shots, especially those in the Bahamas and the establishing shots of "Montenegro", brought to mind - for me, at least - the rich colours apparent in the early films.