55 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

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

What about OHMSS and Q0S?

[Double-Oh Agent]

I think Casino Royale's cinematography is easily one of the best of the series, if not THE best. Certainly it's in the top five of Bond films.

[Colossus]

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.

It looks really yellow, like someone urinated on the negatives or something.

[Single-O-Seven]

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.

It looks really yellow, like someone urinated on the negatives or something.

That would be Pierce Brosnan who did that.

[tim partridge]

Hey, I don't think CR is a bad looking film by any means. The lighting, lens selection, camera angles, blocking and movement are all absolutely first rate (for a non-stylist Bond film). The downside visually for me is the choice of super35 over anamorphic, the artificial looking 2K DI grade, the distractingly grainy and grey looking b/w sequences (I'm not talking about the flashbacks but the main footage) and the clashing art direction and costume design. I am afraid I was expecting something more similar to the classy look of Goldeneye.

CR may be the better film but QOS utterly batters it in terms of production and costume design. I can only dream of a QOS style CR casino instead of that cheap Travelodge we ended up with (what were they thinking with that clashing, ugly blue and yellow coloured bar lighting??). f you are gonna call your Bond film CASINO ROYALE then at least make the subject of the title visually interesting.

By the way, if we are going to mention the best looking 007 films, my list is:

YOLT
OHMSS
TSWLM
TLD
GE
QOS

The first three being the peak template

Edited by tim partridge, 04 February 2009 - 03:45 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Hey, I don't think CR is a bad looking film by any means. The lighting, lens selection, camera angles, blocking and movement are all absolutely first rate (for a non-stylist Bond film). The downside visually for me is the choice of super35 over anamorphic, the artificial looking 2K DI grade

I know this is off topic, but can you explain super 35 and 2K DI grade?

[Mr. Blofeld]

By the way, if we are going to mention the best looking 007 films, my list is:

YOLT
OHMSS
TSWLM
TLD
GE
QOS

The first three being the peak template

The problem is that, even though YOLT is lit quite beautifully, the production design is naff. Ken Adam went overboard in trying to come up with exotic designs, and, in doing so, he twice reuses the War Room-bunker shape from Dr. Strangelove.

Freddie Young's outdoor lighting looks really sumptuous, but the interiors just don't look good with his style; in fact, they look even worse in the following Adam-designed film, DAF, when Ted Moore returned as cinematographer and revealed that film's exotic low-budget sets to be the Batman TV rejects they really were.

[Mr_Wint]

By the way, if we are going to mention the best looking 007 films, my list is:

YOLT
OHMSS
TSWLM
TLD
GE
QOS

The first three being the peak template

The problem is that, even though YOLT is lit quite beautifully, the production design is naff. Ken Adam went overboard in trying to come up with exotic designs, and, in doing so, he twice reuses the War Room-bunker shape from Dr. Strangelove.

Freddie Young's outdoor lighting looks really sumptuous, but the interiors just don't look good with his style; in fact, they look even worse in the following Adam-designed film, DAF, when Ted Moore returned as cinematographer and revealed that film's exotic low-budget sets to be the Batman TV rejects they really were.

Ken Adam did a fantastic job with both YOLT (one of the best looking Bondfilms) and DAF so there's no problem.

[tim partridge]

S35

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Super_35_mm

DI
http://en.wikipedia....al_intermediate

Both combined are very very common in today's filmmaking world (although we are thankfully seeing alot more 4K these days). Alot of people like myself were very disappointed that they dropped Bond's anamorphic heritage in favour of S35 for CR. Eon had been very loyal to anamorphic since TSWLM onwards, something that became expected of the franchise. What's worse is that the cinematographer of QOS was apparently all for shooting the film proper anamorphic, but apparently had to give in to the visual effects requirements (scanning 3 perf S35 is suppose to be cheaper and easier than anamorphic). 2K is undesirable to the taste of many like myself, but it was even worse here with all of the decidedly unsubtle colours added in the grade. Look at the sea in Venice or the already mentioned tint to the Madagasca footage. A lot of it looked as though they made these colour decisions up in post, because the costumes/sets are very uncoordinated (unlike QOS) with very random choices of colours throughout the film (Casino bar once more).

The reason I think GoldenEye looks so good is because the entire look was achieved in camera and with a photochemical grade. They seemed to put way more effort into the visual design of the film, with alot more contrasty lighting, smoke and lens filters there on set. No contrast tweaks or noise reduction etc in the grade. The anamorphic format just made it that much more beautiful. Phil Meheux has said shooting CR S35 was more comfortable for him, I guess with the uncertainty of light capacity in Prague and all of the handheld work and such (though that never hurt Alan Hume on FYEO or Reed on OHMSS, let alone Bogner on any of his Bonds). My heart sank watching the S35 images blown up on the big screen of Craig in close up, the only thing in focus being his ears!

[tim partridge]

By the way, if we are going to mention the best looking 007 films, my list is:

YOLT
OHMSS
TSWLM
TLD
GE
QOS

The first three being the peak template

The problem is that, even though YOLT is lit quite beautifully, the production design is naff. Ken Adam went overboard in trying to come up with exotic designs, and, in doing so, he twice reuses the War Room-bunker shape from Dr. Strangelove.

Freddie Young's outdoor lighting looks really sumptuous, but the interiors just don't look good with his style; in fact, they look even worse in the following Adam-designed film, DAF, when Ted Moore returned as cinematographer and revealed that film's exotic low-budget sets to be the Batman TV rejects they really were.

I don't agree about YOLT at all. The Osato building interior alone is definitive cinematic Bond for me. The fusion of outstanding photography and Adam's sets (as well as Gilbert's epic stylist direction) really came alive in widescreen for the first time in the franchise. Those images and the whole mise en scene of YOLT are truly iconic.

You know I agree with you about DAF, but I think most of the sets were victims of terrible TV lighting as oppose to being poorly designed in their own right. Much of the Whyte House interior looks brilliant, and the room Bambi and Thumper are in is delicious.

[plankattack]

and the room Bambi and Thumper are in is delicious.

I thought that I read somewhere that the house itself, up on the hill, was a Frank LLoyd Wright original. I may be wrong - anyone know?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

S35

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Super_35_mm

DI
http://en.wikipedia....al_intermediate

Both combined are very very common in today's filmmaking world (although we are thankfully seeing alot more 4K these days). Alot of people like myself were very disappointed that they dropped Bond's anamorphic heritage in favour of S35 for CR. Eon had been very loyal to anamorphic since TSWLM onwards, something that became expected of the franchise. What's worse is that the cinematographer of QOS was apparently all for shooting the film proper anamorphic, but apparently had to give in to the visual effects requirements (scanning 3 perf S35 is suppose to be cheaper and easier than anamorphic). 2K is undesirable to the taste of many like myself, but it was even worse here with all of the decidedly unsubtle colours added in the grade. Look at the sea in Venice or the already mentioned tint to the Madagasca footage. A lot of it looked as though they made these colour decisions up in post, because the costumes/sets are very uncoordinated (unlike QOS) with very random choices of colours throughout the film (Casino bar once more).

The reason I think GoldenEye looks so good is because the entire look was achieved in camera and with a photochemical grade. They seemed to put way more effort into the visual design of the film, with alot more contrasty lighting, smoke and lens filters there on set. No contrast tweaks or noise reduction etc in the grade. The anamorphic format just made it that much more beautiful. Phil Meheux has said shooting CR S35 was more comfortable for him, I guess with the uncertainty of light capacity in Prague and all of the handheld work and such (though that never hurt Alan Hume on FYEO or Reed on OHMSS, let alone Bogner on any of his Bonds). My heart sank watching the S35 images blown up on the big screen of Craig in close up, the only thing in focus being his ears!

Interesting. So it appears SPX requirements give way to anamorphic, even though Bonds have handled anamorphic for years.
I guess it is a preference if you prefer the colours and look to be 'filmed' in the camera or corrected/adjusted in post production?
I like the look of CR, but I think a film should be a film, with post production and colour adjustment used to a minimum.

[tim partridge]

When David Tattersall was announced as DP on DAD I was hoping they might shoot Bond in HD. Sadly, that turned into the first reel of DAD receiving the dodgiest 2K DI treatment I have ever seen.

I'd love to see a future Bond movie shot HD, with anamorphic lenses. One day that will happen.

and the room Bambi and Thumper are in is delicious.

I thought that I read somewhere that the house itself, up on the hill, was a Frank LLoyd Wright original. I may be wrong - anyone know?

I think you are right, but the location choice and direction of the dressing is all under Adam. I also really love that room Bond goes into during the satellite montage, with that big missile thing he holds and the giant bay window.

[Mr_Wint]

When David Tattersall was announced as DP on DAD I was hoping they might shoot Bond in HD. Sadly, that turned into the first reel of DAD receiving the dodgiest 2K DI treatment I have ever seen.

I'd love to see a future Bond movie shot HD, with anamorphic lenses. One day that will happen.

and the room Bambi and Thumper are in is delicious.

I thought that I read somewhere that the house itself, up on the hill, was a Frank LLoyd Wright original. I may be wrong - anyone know?

I think you are right, but the location choice and direction of the dressing is all under Adam. I also really love that room Bond goes into during the satellite montage, with that big missile thing he holds and the giant bay window.

Don't forget Bond's suite at the hotel in Las Vegas, with the aquarium-bed and a really delicious design. Then we have Blofeld's flat which is pure Adam/Bond-magic. "The word lobby begins with "L", Mr Bond".

[Colossus]

YOLT's cinematography and production design really are the peak of themselves. I agree with the DAF sets, they do look grimey cheap, but then i think the early 70s was kind of grimey in itself.

[Mr. Blofeld]

By the way, if we are going to mention the best looking 007 films, my list is:

YOLT
OHMSS
TSWLM
TLD
GE
QOS

The first three being the peak template

The problem is that, even though YOLT is lit quite beautifully, the production design is naff. Ken Adam went overboard in trying to come up with exotic designs, and, in doing so, he twice reuses the War Room-bunker shape from Dr. Strangelove.

Freddie Young's outdoor lighting looks really sumptuous, but the interiors just don't look good with his style; in fact, they look even worse in the following Adam-designed film, DAF, when Ted Moore returned as cinematographer and revealed that film's exotic low-budget sets to be the Batman TV rejects they really were.

I don't agree about YOLT at all. The Osato building interior alone is definitive cinematic Bond for me. The fusion of outstanding photography and Adam's sets (as well as Gilbert's epic stylist direction) really came alive in widescreen for the first time in the franchise. Those images and the whole mise en scene of YOLT are truly iconic.

You know I agree with you about DAF, but I think most of the sets were victims of terrible TV lighting as oppose to being poorly designed in their own right. Much of the Whyte House interior looks brilliant, and the room Bambi and Thumper are in is delicious.

I really think that Claude Renoir was the only cinematographer to do justice to Adam's designs in the widescreen Bond films; Freddie Young does fantastic outdoor work in You Only Live Twice (as he did with Sir David Lean on Lawrence of Arabia), but the interiors really throw me off in terms of Bond-ness. I think Adam may have gone too overboard in his zaniness, as it's difficult to compose a dynamic shot when half of the players depicted onscreen are sequestered in a giantic glass-and-concrete balcony in the upper-right corner of the frame.

Diamonds Are Forever features Ted Moore's suddenly naff cinematography. I have to ask, what happened in the six years following Thunderball? Suddenly, Moore's work looks amateurish, and I have three theories for such:

1. Terence Young put more discipline on Ted Moore to get dynamic shots than Guy Hamilton

2. The dearth of interior Adam designs in Thunderball gave Moore more leeway, whereas Diamonds Are Forever featured a wide variety of low-budget Adam designs that limited Moore's choices in lighting and framing

3. Ted Moore went into a decline following Thunderball and never fully recovered, and his work suffered as a result, regardless of director or set design
Now, these are all theories, but one thing is solid fact for me: Syd Cain's set design and Michael Reed's cinematography go hand-in-hand towards making On Her Majesty's Secret Service one of the best-shot films in the series.

I'm sure tim partridge will agree with me on this; won't you, tim?

[jaguar007]

I don't know much about the technical aspects of the cinematography, but I have always felt that the look of YOLT was dark and rather drab compared to the previous 4 films. I also feel CR is visually much more stunning than GE(which I also feel looks a bit drab). I also like the look of FYEO and TLD, but always felt that LTK looked like an overlit TV movie.

[tim partridge]

If you are going to applaud anyone for the visuals of OHMSS I think it should be Peter Hunt overall. GOLD by Hunt is also a similar stunner visually.

[ACE]

The problem is that, even though YOLT is lit quite beautifully, the production design is naff.

[Loomis]

The production design on YOLT is naff? I've heard everything now.

[Harmsway]

The production design on YOLT is naff? I've heard everything now.

Me too.

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is the best-designed film in the entire franchise. Adam's masterpiece.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The production design on YOLT is naff? I've heard everything now.

Me too.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is the best-designed film in the entire franchise. Adam's masterpiece.

A masterpiece? A lair in a volcano?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Adam's work is outstanding for YOLT, I cannot agree with anything else.

[sharpshooter]

YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is the best-designed film in the entire franchise.

Agreed, plus I believe it has the best score and cinematography in the series. Though OHMSS is equally splendid in these areas.

[Harmsway]

Agreed, sharpshooter. Aesthetically, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is tops.

A masterpiece? A lair in a volcano? rolleyes.gif

It's the definitive "Adams" set (and also one of the greatest movie sets in cinema history, whether it's just a villain lair or not). Hence, "Adam's masterpiece."

[Turn]

Just the logistics involved in creating a volcano lair complete with a helipad, rocket launching pad and monorail system is mind boggling. You may not like the whole fantasy element of YOLT, but the results on the screen speak for themselves.

Ken Adam's set designs, along with the music and cinematography, helps it make Japan seem not just like another country, but another world. It's not one of my favorite films in the series, but you can't help but admire what it does well.