It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
What were they trying to evoke? It looks like someone got the filters completely wrong, IMO.
Why shoot in a place like Rome and use such color correction? I genuinely am not sure what they were trying to say or evoke through that decision, past, say, Mendes wanting to add a different "look" to the film compared to SF, and I know most films enjoy similar corrections, but I don't care for it at all. Different strokes for different folks.
I may not like either of Mendes' installments, but at least SF was absolutely gorgeous to look at and admire.
It's not a misunderstanding, It's fixing something that's glaringly not good. Color correction can be good but it can also be bad. I've seen TV shows with the filters dialed up so much that I thought my TV was broken. Subtly is key.
While I myself don't hate Serra's score, I very much enjoy it and while some of it's cues are synth heavy, It still has classic orchestral cues. Severnaya suite and ect. It doesn't flat out abandon its musical roots. And it's not fair to call Arnold banal. He doesn't flat out copy Barry. In fact he's not like Barry at all. The only thing in common between the two of them is they use a lot of brass and the occasional wah wah trumpet section. So no Arnold is not banal. He takes the ground work Barry has laid out and he modernized it with electronica and drum and bass elements making it his own. And I know that's not to everybody's liking but to accuse him of being banal is dishonest. That's hardly sticking to the parameters.
It's great to try out new ideas of course, when it works. But sometimes ideas can be terrible and shouldn't be done. And what does the Brosnan era have to do with the color pallet of Spectre? Seems like a cheap jab at those films. At least the Brosnan films set out to be a celebration of the films of old and didn't have a care in the world. It's unfair to call TWINE timid when Skyfall had some tremendous acts of timidness. Pot calling the kettle black on that one.
Oh, excellent post mate! Nice to hear someone else who likes SP!
There were certainly some interesting ideas in this film, but for whatever reason the themes didn't come together in a way which resonated as successfully for many viewers.
I think SP probably would have been better as a two parter, which was apparently the original intent. This would have given the film makers more time to explore their ideas in a holistic way.
Youve done it again @Murdock. Well said.
Thank you! Given the current harshness regarding Spectre in this community I felt the need to write something positive about this beautiful Bond adventure. Plus I believe that in a few years Spectre will be more appreciated by a lot of fans here, just like what's happening with QoS...
Thank you @bondjames for the kind response. You know, Spectre certainly has its flaws. In fact, speaking about the characters, the relationship between Bond and Madeleine needed more development to justify Bond's final choice. It's not a Skyfall situation, where the emotional foundation of the movie lies between two characters with an already well established relationship. The movie needed more time for this two character to come together more naturally (and not mainly because Blofeld told us she could have been a perfect match for 007) but it's already a really long and, perhaps, over saturated film. That's probably why it didn't resonates, as you say. If you compare Skyfall with Spectre is pretty clear that the concept behind the latter is more abstract and hermetic, both from a plot narrative perspective both from a meta discourse about Bond and his legacy. So yes, Spectre - even if it has still some dumb things - is a more "cryptic" movie than its predecessor. Or, at least, it's less straightforward speaking about themes, references and character motivation. Which for me is a plus.
In the end I see Spectre as a sort of The Dark Knight Rises of the franchise. A really mammoth effort with some flaws but still extremely cinematic and enjoyable.
I recall some members stating on this forum after release that the relationship wasn't really meant to be important. I always found that line of reasoning suspect, especially when we knew that they had considered initially ending the film with the line "We have all the time in the world". Mendes and Craig have also confirmed on camera that this was intended to be more than an ordinary relationship for Bond. So that was the intention, even if it didn't come across so convincingly onscreen. It's a pity, because if that central relationship had clicked, the film would have been much better.
SP is a film with many layers, and its themes can be interpreted in different ways depending on one's perspective. It perhaps could very easily have been excellent with a bit more time to pull everything together. I think it will be reassessed in time more positively by some, especially once B25 is out. This is normally how things go with Bond films.
It's about evoking certain moods through the use of colors, which many films beyond Bond have done effectively. I think SPECTRE achieves that for the most part. The way Mexico looks in the film makes sense after the statement of "the dead are alive", which wouldn't be as effective if we just had clear naturalistic blue skies. We're not supposed to be taken in by the beauty of Mexico. That would be missing the point. If you don't care for that kind of artistic license, fair enough. If you're just going to disparagingly refer to it as "piss-soaked", I don't know what to tell you.
The color correction looks fine for me with SPECTRE. A bad example of color correction would be MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, which often times looked too much like a CSI episode with all the levels cranked up to absurdity. That's what not being subtle is. Of course that was Abrams' first feature film, so he tried to make it look more cinematic than his TV work, but I think he overdid it.
Wasn't referring to Brosnan era's color pallet, more of the general idea of not enough chances being taken like Craig's has, at least after GE. As for timidness, I took a jab at TWINE because it frankly comes off as such, especially when it tried to evoke OHMSS in so many ways. Conceptually, the film's premise is a brilliant idea: Bond lets his guard down for a woman who may be his next great love, but then she turns out to be the villain of the story and it's a conflict he has to deal with. Where he lost Tracy in OHMSS, he's forced to kill Elektra. So much of the film sets up that dynamic to mirror OHMSS, but then that's undermined a lot of factors, most particularly by giving the film a Roger Moore type ending with Bond rogering Denise Richards and a crass one-liner. That just shows the producers did not have confidence in going for an ending where Bond is alone. They were afraid Bond audiences wouldn't accept a somber ending. Hence why it doesn't end with a song like "Only Myself to Blame", which was meant to compliment a more somber ending. SKYFALL, in comparison, does a better job of trying to give an uplifting ending through the use of the rooftop scene after M's death where Bond finds his peace taking in the view of London, before meeting with M. Certainly would have been more off putting to just have Craig shagging a woman at the end with a bad one-liner.
Though the ending of QOS is quite jarring. After a nice somber ending, we get assaulted with the blaring Bond theme, again as if EON was afraid audiences wouldn't like leaving a Bond movie with a downbeat ending, so the Bond theme tries to be uplifting. Admittedly, even OHMSS had this problem. After a very sad rendition of "We Have All the Time in the World", the Bond theme blares.
Now I'm just imagining a bad ending for OHMSS. Like in the book, it's Tracy that drives the vehicle, and after getting shot, crashes. Bond comes to, looks at her then quips "women drivers". DUH DUH BOOOOOOOM DUH DUH BOOOOOOOOM DUH-DUH, DUH DUH DUH.
‘1917’ is a cool and simple title. Plus, it looks as though Universal are marketing this as an ‘event’ film. Which is intriguing, as I thought we were getting something more ‘prestige’. Though I suppose those categories are becoming less and less mutually exclusive these days……
My goodness that to me was pretty powerful.
That's what I was thinking. Boy, Sam Mendes really owns Christopher Nolan his career, starting with Skyfall.
Go and tell it to Sam's Oscar.
New interview with Mendes. This guy loves to talk.
Thanks for sharing. When does he talk about SP?
Spectre was the complete opposite, such a trainwreck of a film. Bad writing, direction and acting.
Mendes finest film is still his phenomenal debut American Beauty, such a unique and layered film. I doubt he will ever top it.
Boy, he speaks the truth. Interesting opinions, I agree with him and have seen what's he's talking about.
They've been borrowing from each other since 2002.
This looks glorious. I think Mendes is doing something very ambitious and technically accomplished. I think this will supersede Dunkirk and possibly get some Oscars.
Ido not rate Mendes al that high.
Mendes will be so upset.
I know I was totally aiming for that. ;)