Jump to content

Close
Photo

Skyfall may have altered my views on HD

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#1
markm

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:37 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
I watched Skyfall last night My first visit to the cinema for a long time as Money ihas been very tight these last few years I have to say I was quite unimpressed with the cinematography and I know that couldn't be down to Roger Deakins. I felt the film had a videoey feel to it and had lost the richness film gives. I have long been an advocate for real film but have been shouted down so many times I kind of gave up as HD doesnt look to bad on the computer. I'm wondering if things may have been different if shot at 4k or maybe the prints may have been digital when deliverd to the cinema or a lower standard to save costs. I watched the film at cineworld theatre 2 stevenage.

I was disapointed.

Also disapointed in the film itself and think they have lost their way with it. The key ingredients of a Bond film has always been the gadgets The women The suave charm and of course the villains and cars as well as Bonds intelliigence at working out stuff..
They have ditched all those things in favour of an athlete with bulbous legs a bodybuilders pose without the muscles and poses that made me cringe.He looks for all intents and purposes like a games avatar and actually the villain. The gadgets are gone as is the charm. His intelligence is replaced by a knowledge not suited to the roughness his character potrays.

They gave him weaknesses like substance abuse boozing and a bad childhood this time round. Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him. But I feel they trashed that.

The film itself seemed to want to please the critics and the storyline was just horrible. The opening was the best part of the film and couldnt help feeling they should have had the opening at the end of the film. They started with casino royale saying it was a reboots but now they are trying to reboot it even further back The storyline almost seems opportunistic and fits with the film makers needs to well and it detracts from the story making it nonsensical as we already know the past history through countless films. If they think this is a way to reboot the franchise they are losing their grip. We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love.

I know this has so far done well at the box office. I wonder how well the next film will do.

I also wonder if they made a big mistake ditching film.
  • Axel likes this

#2
Axel

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:10 AM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany

We all know what we want with Bond and that is Glamour gadgets women Fast cars and excitement all the things critics hate and all the things we love.


At least for now they had to move away from the old cliches (the ones that made Austin Powers and Johnny English look more authentic than Pierce Brosnan and his muppet show co-actors)

Please I dont want to feel sorry for Bond I want to admire him.


Needs some new make up for our modern time. Movie quiz? Don't use Google:
'Nothing is over 'til it's over.'
'What's that from? The 80's?'
'That's probably the 70's'
Either you care - or you don't

#3
markm

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:14 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
I guess they sort of got Bond right with Sean Connery who could play 007 believably

I think Pierce Brosnon wasn't that bad and gets lambasted for his looks but he did have the physical fitness as well as the charm. But didnt have the ruthless playfulness to the degree of Sean Connery. I think all the Bonds have been good in their own way and for their time with one exception.

I often liked the one liners as long as they are clever and not all of them are. Its also a part of Bond. One liners I think make it more authentic for the psychopathic nature of the character. The point is none of its believable . Skyfall is as far fetched as moonraker. they make it believable because you see it with your own eyes and thats the fun of films like this being able to suspend your disbelief for the moment. No one believes Superman can fly or that Luke Skywalker really uses the force or that indiana jones can jump out of a plane with a life raft land going down hill and fall into a ravine into a river.

Its okay putting in far fetched gadgets as long as they are not used as plugs for bad scripts and the actor makes his use of them believable.

The problem is Bond is from post world war Britain where soldiers accepted their fate with an upbeat philosophy that if it's your time it's your time. Our new Bond is an orphan with a troubled childhood and with the looks and mannerisms of a thug, believable as a hard man but completely unbelievable as a Ladies man OR as someone with any refinement or abilty to adapt to the lives of the glamourous people he is likely to mingle with. They got one thing right at the expense of everything else.

They lost their way in trying to copy everybody else by thinking they were being original they actually became imitators and forgot who Bond is..

#4
andy lee

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:37 AM

andy lee

    ANDY LEE

  • Moderators
  • 1,762 posts
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM
I thought it was a very good film , its modern and now , Bond has to move on for a 2012 audience you can always watch the old classics ones on dvd.
I thought the cinematography was great and it told the story which is what its supposed to do... it drove the film forward.
I watched it on a Sony 4k Projection system and I do have to say it looked stunning!

Andy Lee
LTI Films
Tecnoir

'If it looks good , it is good!'


#5
Axel

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:06 PM

Axel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,013 posts
  • LocationGermany

Skyfall is as far fetched as moonraker. they make it believable because you see it with your own eyes and thats the fun of films like this being able to suspend your disbelief for the moment. No one believes Superman can fly or that Luke Skywalker really uses the force or ...


'Seeing is believing'?
It's more complicated, I think.
If one wants to believe, he will.
The old SFX (the term says analog effects, props, explosions, travelling mattes) were too crude to make anyone see and believe.
The new VFX, where anything goes, are completely photo-realistic, but they lost the 'special'. Today, if you see impossible things with such impliciteness, you can't care less.

A film works like a dream, not like a 3D computer game. Do androids dream of electric sheep? Another movie quiz.
Either you care - or you don't

#6
markm

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
Andy

Drove the film forward?

The plot was non existant Here is a quote from someone highlightiing the holes.

Can some explain to me why the villain went to all the trouble of stealing the data disk, blowing up MI6, releasing the top secret info on the web, purposely allowing himself to be captured just so he could escape, dress up as a (very unconvincing fancy dress shop) policeman, blow up a tube train and then shoot his was into a heavily secured court room just to kill M. Surely he could have just dressed up as a policeman and tried to kill M without all the other add ons?

Even better the Villain could have gone to her home like Bond did.

The film seemed to me an excuse to replace Judi Dench with a new actor and to give Daniel Craig his own space to act the part cringingly up himself.

I accept we all have different opinions and I really set out to like the fillm. When Bond takes M to safety after the court battle it just became so slow and tedious and really didnt feel like Bond at all. His relationship with M was downright weird The bit M and the House caretaker were flahing a torch around for the villain to see and the church scene were just so amazingly insigniifigant Where is the pizaz the glamour the amazing effects. Just have the amazing acting of Daniel Craig and Judy Dench doing her farewell speel.

I would say they PUT the actors in charge of to much. The whole thing for me was just plain wrong.

Anyway thats just my opinion and we all know that like A holes everyone has one!

#7
andy lee

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:43 PM

andy lee

    ANDY LEE

  • Moderators
  • 1,762 posts
  • LocationUNITED KINGDOM
Its a Bond film ....its far fetched they all are !!
I thought it was good film I enjoyed it....!
it was entertaining and thats what I want at the cinema ;)

Andy Lee
LTI Films
Tecnoir

'If it looks good , it is good!'


#8
markm

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
Another problem for me was I wrote a screenplay four years ago and then wrote another five sequels and have big hopes for it.

Skyfall has just about every set piece from my script in it. I feel like I wasted a year of my life.

Still I guess thats life huh. if my film ever got made which is unlikely I'd be accused of copying Skyfall.

#9
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:34 AM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

I'm wondering if things may have been different if shot at 4k or maybe the prints may have been digital when deliverd to the cinema or a lower standard to save costs. I watched the film at cineworld theatre 2 stevenage.

I was disapointed.



I also wonder if they made a big mistake ditching film.


Skyfall:
ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Redcode RAW (5K) (source format) (aerial shots)


Printed film format

35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383)
70 mm (horizontal) (IMAX blow-up) (Kodak Vision 2383)
D-Cinema

#10
markm

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:56 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts
Thanks Gravitatemediagroup

Some try to get a film look but Roger Deakins says there are differences between film and digital and he just loves the look of his arri.

Maybe its me after all the work I've done in HD Seeing it on the screen like that is nothing special. However I feel its more than that Film has richer fatter better colour that can't be copied with HD's more water colour look. If you over saturate HD you just end up with an oversaturated picture but film will colour in better. Of course this is just my opinion but I thought Casino Royale had better cinematography because of it.

I'd also add the end of Skyfall looked more like a western showdown than Bond.

#11
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

I'd also add the end of Skyfall looked more like a western showdown than Bond.


no spoiler alert warning? thanks

you might as well get used to film fizzling out. it's too expensive and a much more complicated process of editing and audio.
  • andy lee likes this

#12
FilmMan

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:25 PM

FilmMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 831 posts

Another problem for me was I wrote a screenplay four years ago and then wrote another five sequels and have big hopes for it.

Skyfall has just about every set piece from my script in it. I feel like I wasted a year of my life.

Still I guess thats life huh. if my film ever got made which is unlikely I'd be accused of copying Skyfall.

After you wrote your screen play did you send a copy to yourself via registered mail? Just don't open the letter as it is proof of the date of your script. The late actor John Candy told me to do this years back. Also, ideas are repeated all the times. Keep at it and go for it.

#13
markm

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:28 PM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

no spoiler alert warning? thanks

you might as well get used to film fizzling out. it's too expensive and a much more complicated process of editing and audio.

Spoiler alerts? Thought you'd seen the film. Many reviews going up now that go into detail without spoiler warnings Really Dont read threads that have Skyfall in the title its pretty obvious what Im going to be talking about.
I reckon at some point there will be a return to film when the enthusiasm for digital begins to fall and yes it is convenient shooting in HD but so what . If your a cinemtographer and the film has a budget then you would shoot on the format best for the film. Would you shoot a film the easy way or the best way for your production. Youd have to be pretty dumb to shoot a film that doesnt look the best when investors have invested millions. Or are you talking about its easier to use when you make a film about your cats? Personally I prefer to shoot on film then transfer to a DI for editing as I dont have a steenback and I'm not Steven Spielberg Although I could edit 16mm film but I think I'll give that a miss as its to easy to mess it up.

After you wrote your screen play did you send a copy to yourself via registered mail? Just don't open the letter as it is proof of the date of your script. The late actor John Candy told me to do this years back. Also, ideas are repeated all the times. Keep at it and go for it.

Yep all registered with the writers guild of America four and a half years ago. The screenplay was given to lots of people BBC writers room a forum British film council script doctors etc One of whom completely rubbished it.
Of course ideas are repeated and my story line re MI6 is different but its like a lot of my ideas even small stuff are there and probably down to coincidence.

#14
GravitateMediaGroup

Posted 07 November 2012 - 10:14 PM

GravitateMediaGroup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 155 posts
  • LocationIndiana/Kentucky

Spoiler alerts? Thought you'd seen the film. Many reviews going up now that go into detail without spoiler warnings Really Dont read threads that have Skyfall in the title its pretty obvious what Im going to be talking about.
I reckon at some point there will be a return to film when the enthusiasm for digital begins to fall and yes it is convenient shooting in HD but so what . If your a cinemtographer and the film has a budget then you would shoot on the format best for the film. Would you shoot a film the easy way or the best way for your production. Youd have to be pretty dumb to shoot a film that doesnt look the best when investors have invested millions. Or are you talking about its easier to use when you make a film about your cats? Personally I prefer to shoot on film then transfer to a DI for editing as I dont have a steenback and I'm not Steven Spielberg Although I could edit 16mm film but I think I'll give that a miss as its to easy to mess it up.


The topic is about the format of Skyfall, not "thoughts on skyfall" and not everyone has seen it, I don't go out of my way to see every movie that hits theaters and I am not the biggest fan of 007, nor do I read reviews of movies because I could care less about another persons opinion, I'll be the judge for myself what I really think of a movie.
Don't hold your breath on film making a major comeback to the same amount of use as back in the day. A few people will use it here and there, but camera geeks are the only ones that care about the "true film" look & feel and the average person could care less and Hollywood understands this. Cheaper, Faster, Less Time, More money. The comment I made about cats was completely sarcastic, I don't even own a cat, it was making fun people that buy $6000 cameras to shoot videos of their cat for youtube.
I really would like to see some of your film work, is it online by chance?

#15
markm

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:44 AM

markm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 640 posts

The topic is about the format of Skyfall, not "thoughts on skyfall" and not everyone has seen it, I don't go out of my way to see every movie that hits theaters and I am not the biggest fan of 007, nor do I read reviews of movies because I could care less about another persons opinion, I'll be the judge for myself what I really think of a movie.
Don't hold your breath on film making a major comeback to the same amount of use as back in the day. A few people will use it here and there, but camera geeks are the only ones that care about the "true film" look & feel and the average person could care less and Hollywood understands this. Cheaper, Faster, Less Time, More money. The comment I made about cats was completely sarcastic, I don't even own a cat, it was making fun people that buy $6000 cameras to shoot videos of their cat for youtube.
I really would like to see some of your film work, is it online by chance?


Well I had actually almost been swayed by digital after watching the last crusade which was shot on film until I watched Skyfall in the theatre and as you haven't seen Skyfall you cant really judge it yourself can you.

If instead of answering my posts with argument and instead going to be sarcastic make undermining statements and refer to those who prefer film negatively as geeks then all you really want to do is insult and promote your favourite cause then what point is discussion.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users