The Cinematography of NTTD - Linus Sandgren

1356712

Comments

  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    Posts: 2,056
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If the trailer is anything to go by we're in for a real treat with this film, in terms of cinematography. The colours are so rich and vibrant.
    My Mrs mentioned it when she saw the trailer, it really does feel more relatable to Casino and Quantum for the colours displayed

    The cinematogrpahy in Quantum of Solace is actually really nice. Some visually striking shots and a nice colour pallet. Shame its all hidden behind crappy quick editing.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,513
    @Mallory I couldn't have put it better myself
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2019 Posts: 3,497
    Mallory wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If the trailer is anything to go by we're in for a real treat with this film, in terms of cinematography. The colours are so rich and vibrant.
    My Mrs mentioned it when she saw the trailer, it really does feel more relatable to Casino and Quantum for the colours displayed

    The cinematogrpahy in Quantum of Solace is actually really nice. Some visually striking shots and a nice colour pallet. Shame its all hidden behind crappy quick editing.

    This 100% Garreth. :)
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 3,164
    The brilliant thing about Sandgren's work here is that it's this combination of the neon vibrancy of Skyfall, the anamorphic film texture of Spectre and the rawness and grittiness of Casino/Quantum. Kinda a perfect way for a film that's all but meant to bring Craig's run full circle.

    What I'm so excited for is the IMAX stuff - the stuff we've seen in the trailer that is indeed from that footage (namely Matera and ice lake, some Cuba too and the first we see of Jamaica) looks gorgeous even cropped down. EON better be putting some money behind 70mm IMAX prints for this, not just because of tech capabilities of venues here in London (the BFI IMAX still doesn't have laser projection, and to see the film 'proper' without prints one would have to go to Manchester, Plymouth or Brussels) but actually seeing this exhibited from a physical print will add a certain special quality to it also.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The film looks something raw and unique on its own. I’d say it looks closest to QOS. Especially the Norway clips and makes lair.

    Bond is going to go through the ringer in this one. It won’t be like SP were he isn’t bloodied and always clean
  • I can't quite remember, but were the trailers for Spectre tinted yellow? I don't really remember that being an issue until the film was released.
  • antovolk wrote: »
    The brilliant thing about Sandgren's work here is that it's this combination of the neon vibrancy of Skyfall, the anamorphic film texture of Spectre and the rawness and grittiness of Casino/Quantum. Kinda a perfect way for a film that's all but meant to bring Craig's run full circle.

    What I'm so excited for is the IMAX stuff - the stuff we've seen in the trailer that is indeed from that footage (namely Matera and ice lake, some Cuba too and the first we see of Jamaica) looks gorgeous even cropped down. EON better be putting some money behind 70mm IMAX prints for this, not just because of tech capabilities of venues here in London (the BFI IMAX still doesn't have laser projection, and to see the film 'proper' without prints one would have to go to Manchester, Plymouth or Brussels) but actually seeing this exhibited from a physical print will add a certain special quality to it also.

    Honestly, there is no point comparing it to other Bond films. I don't think either Fukunaga or Sandgren were trying to emulate any.

    It looks like Sandren and Fukunaga have looked back at those old 70mm films from the 1950's and 1960's for inspiration. Much in the same way that films of that period inspired 'La La Land.'

    Personally, speaking a lot of the stills look like they were taken from 'La La Land' - which is stunningly gorgeous film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    antovolk wrote: »
    The brilliant thing about Sandgren's work here is that it's this combination of the neon vibrancy of Skyfall, the anamorphic film texture of Spectre and the rawness and grittiness of Casino/Quantum. Kinda a perfect way for a film that's all but meant to bring Craig's run full circle.

    What I'm so excited for is the IMAX stuff - the stuff we've seen in the trailer that is indeed from that footage (namely Matera and ice lake, some Cuba too and the first we see of Jamaica) looks gorgeous even cropped down. EON better be putting some money behind 70mm IMAX prints for this, not just because of tech capabilities of venues here in London (the BFI IMAX still doesn't have laser projection, and to see the film 'proper' without prints one would have to go to Manchester, Plymouth or Brussels) but actually seeing this exhibited from a physical print will add a certain special quality to it also.

    A nice assessment, I would say. Cary being such a big fan of CR is coming through visually in that trailer, I feel, especially with the Matera scenes.

    A print screening is a must at some point. I'd pay substantial figures for a ticket to that. The film looks delicious.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Good points, @antovolk and how I wish I were able to see this film in IMAX. Alas, no. But I'm more excited than ever to see NTTD.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    2Wint2Kidd wrote: »
    I can't quite remember, but were the trailers for Spectre tinted yellow? I don't really remember that being an issue until the film was released.

    It was always present even in the trailers. It’s part of the style that the DP was known for. Check out INTERSTELLAR which was made right before and it has the same color palette.
  • Posts: 727
    He is also lensing Tenet. Interesting to see how that will look.
  • edited December 2019 Posts: 4,400
    Not enough is being said about CJF's brilliant decision not to use copious editing on the set-piece stunts. Just take this shot:

    79539617b390f069f0894842ab15515b.gif

    This feels like a big 'stunt' and it looks superb. The decision to play in one take is genius. It's simple, elegant and efficient. In fact, it has more of a 'wow' factor to it then any of the overly busy CGI action scenes in any of the other trailers this week (Wonder Woman 84 and Black Widow)

    The same is the case for the jump of the bridge. Keeping the cutting to a bare minimal increases impact.



    It's one of the reasons the barrell-roll helicopter stunt in SP isn't that impactful. In fact, the DVD making-of contains better clips of it!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,513
    Not enough is being said about CJF's brilliant decision not to use copious editing on the set-piece stunts. Just take this shot:

    79539617b390f069f0894842ab15515b.gif

    This feels like a big 'stunt' and it looks superb. The decision to play in one take is genius. It's simple, elegant and efficient. In fact, it has more of a 'wow' factor to it then any of the overly busy CGI action scenes in any of the other trailers this week (Wonder Woman 84 and Black Widow)

    The same is the case for the jump of the bridge. Keeping the cutting to a bare minimal increases impact.



    It's one of the reasons the barrell-roll helicopter stunt in SP isn't that impactful. In fact, the DVD making-of contains better clips of it!

    Yeah I totally agree mate, the editing of that stunt looks immaculate. It made me sit up just in awe of that amazing stunt, which I'm sure has a lot to do with the directing as well the stunt work itself
    I really do have faith in Cary to deliver a great James Bond film, he seems to understand how to film action
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Not enough is being said about CJF's brilliant decision not to use copious editing on the set-piece stunts. Just take this shot:

    79539617b390f069f0894842ab15515b.gif

    This feels like a big 'stunt' and it looks superb. The decision to play in one take is genius. It's simple, elegant and efficient. In fact, it has more of a 'wow' factor to it then any of the overly busy CGI action scenes in any of the other trailers this week (Wonder Woman 84 and Black Widow)

    The same is the case for the jump of the bridge. Keeping the cutting to a bare minimal increases impact.



    It's one of the reasons the barrell-roll helicopter stunt in SP isn't that impactful. In fact, the DVD making-of contains better clips of it!

    Though it is key to mention that just because it is presented that way in the trailer, doesn't mean it's going to be that way in the film. We could easily find that sequence cutting to a reverse and possibly a reaction shot of the crowd, considering Bond is barreling towards them.

    However, the sentiments I agree with. CJF generally allows his scenes to breathe incredibly well and I think we'll be in for a treat in April in the action department.
  • Posts: 3,164
    A piece from last month, where they talk about shooting what I believe is the Land Rover/Toyota chase in IMAX:
    Within the projects shot in the UK, there has been some great innovation, not least in the latest Bond movie where film was used in 35mm and IMAX. For Bond 25, John Marzano shot both 35mm with an Arri 435 camera and IMAX. With his Eclipse XLHD gimbal he was able to shoot with IMAX cameras. “The best system in the world is the Eclipse XLHD, it’s the most flexible and capable system in existence. We worked throughout the summer with the IMAX technicians and they were relieved to be working with the Eclipse because of the ease of magazine change and access to the camera and everything that goes hand in hand with that. “We were able to do a 1000-feet IMAX reload on the ground with rotors running in about two minutes – other systems need a shutdown and a 30-minute change around. It makes a massive difference to the production as well. Shooting at 24fps with an IMAX camera you get about four minutes screen time. That actually is quite a long time but when you’re shooting an action sequence chasing cars on a hilltop, cliff-side road, looking for moments of brilliance, that 1000 feet of IMAX film goes through very, very quickly.”

    https://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2019/11/20/fresh-air
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    antovolk wrote: »
    A piece from last month, where they talk about shooting what I believe is the Land Rover/Toyota chase in IMAX:
    Within the projects shot in the UK, there has been some great innovation, not least in the latest Bond movie where film was used in 35mm and IMAX. For Bond 25, John Marzano shot both 35mm with an Arri 435 camera and IMAX. With his Eclipse XLHD gimbal he was able to shoot with IMAX cameras. “The best system in the world is the Eclipse XLHD, it’s the most flexible and capable system in existence. We worked throughout the summer with the IMAX technicians and they were relieved to be working with the Eclipse because of the ease of magazine change and access to the camera and everything that goes hand in hand with that. “We were able to do a 1000-feet IMAX reload on the ground with rotors running in about two minutes – other systems need a shutdown and a 30-minute change around. It makes a massive difference to the production as well. Shooting at 24fps with an IMAX camera you get about four minutes screen time. That actually is quite a long time but when you’re shooting an action sequence chasing cars on a hilltop, cliff-side road, looking for moments of brilliance, that 1000 feet of IMAX film goes through very, very quickly.”

    https://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2019/11/20/fresh-air

    Incredible!
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    edited January 2020 Posts: 4,343
    Sandgren's work is stellar.

    No-Time-to-Die-tr-001.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-014.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-018.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-020.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-025.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-030.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-036.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-053.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-065.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-067.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-074.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-075.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-078.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-077.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-081.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-098.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-099.jpg
    No-Time-to-Die-tr-107.jpg
  • Not enough is being said about CJF's brilliant decision not to use copious editing on the set-piece stunts. Just take this shot:

    79539617b390f069f0894842ab15515b.gif

    This feels like a big 'stunt' and it looks superb. The decision to play in one take is genius. It's simple, elegant and efficient. In fact, it has more of a 'wow' factor to it then any of the overly busy CGI action scenes in any of the other trailers this week (Wonder Woman 84 and Black Widow)

    The same is the case for the jump of the bridge. Keeping the cutting to a bare minimal increases impact.



    It's one of the reasons the barrell-roll helicopter stunt in SP isn't that impactful. In fact, the DVD making-of contains better clips of it!

    Though it is key to mention that just because it is presented that way in the trailer, doesn't mean it's going to be that way in the film. We could easily find that sequence cutting to a reverse and possibly a reaction shot of the crowd, considering Bond is barreling towards them.

    However, the sentiments I agree with. CJF generally allows his scenes to breathe incredibly well and I think we'll be in for a treat in April in the action department.

    Point well made.

    However, there are a number of other examples where action is shot in such a way to emphasis the 'in camera' element.

    Such as the explosion with the plane flying by and the jump from the bridge.....

    21824652-7756599-Thriller_The_trailer_for_the_newest_James_Bond_instalment_No_Tim-a-186_1575485892358.jpg

    Very Goldeneye...

    source.gif
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    Not enough is being said about CJF's brilliant decision not to use copious editing on the set-piece stunts. Just take this shot:

    79539617b390f069f0894842ab15515b.gif

    This feels like a big 'stunt' and it looks superb. The decision to play in one take is genius. It's simple, elegant and efficient. In fact, it has more of a 'wow' factor to it then any of the overly busy CGI action scenes in any of the other trailers this week (Wonder Woman 84 and Black Widow)

    The same is the case for the jump of the bridge. Keeping the cutting to a bare minimal increases impact.



    It's one of the reasons the barrell-roll helicopter stunt in SP isn't that impactful. In fact, the DVD making-of contains better clips of it!

    Though it is key to mention that just because it is presented that way in the trailer, doesn't mean it's going to be that way in the film. We could easily find that sequence cutting to a reverse and possibly a reaction shot of the crowd, considering Bond is barreling towards them.

    However, the sentiments I agree with. CJF generally allows his scenes to breathe incredibly well and I think we'll be in for a treat in April in the action department.

    Point well made.

    However, there are a number of other examples where action is shot in such a way to emphasis the 'in camera' element.

    Such as the explosion with the plane flying by and the jump from the bridge.....

    21824652-7756599-Thriller_The_trailer_for_the_newest_James_Bond_instalment_No_Tim-a-186_1575485892358.jpg

    Very Goldeneye...

    source.gif

    Absolutely. I think your view here is sound. Or at least I hope it will be proven to be sound!
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 4,400
    The cinematography in the new trailer for Billie Eilish's song is stunning.....

    From the trailer, I get the reason why Craig is in that very garish suit. It's all part of the colour scheme that Cary and Linus are creating. The shirt is meant to match the sky. It's actually much prettier when photographed in film than set photos

    EQvt585W4AIKWlM?format=jpg&name=large

    Do we think this shot has a CGI backdrop though?

    EQxEQ2kW4AAYM-9?format=jpg&name=large

    Other winners...

    EQvt59LWoAYW-EN?format=jpg&name=large

    EQvt58uWsAM8hzB?format=jpg&name=large

    EQtSoHZVAAApI9l?format=jpg&name=large
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,869
    EQtSoHZVAAApI9l?format=jpg&name=large
    THIS SHOT! Love it, gives me slight Goldfinger vibes :)

    And also that other shot of Madeleine, is she in Safin's base?
  • MalloryMallory Do mosquitoes have friends?
    edited February 2020 Posts: 2,056
    @Pierce2Daniel

    Regarding the “is it a cgi backdrop” of the second image, Sandgren captured the exact same look in La La Land, in camera, and won an Oscar for it.

    My money would be on real.

    lalaland2.jpg?w=1575&ssl=1
  • Posts: 6,677
    Do you guys think they'd spend that amount of money building that room with that view atop scaffolding in Matera just to CGI the backdrop?

    Of course it's real. It's all Fukunaga's sunset scramble ;)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Univex wrote: »
    Do you guys think they'd spend that amount of money building that room with that view atop scaffolding in Matera just to CGI the backdrop?

    Of course it's real. It's all Fukunaga's sunset scramble ;)

    They had two sets of the hotel room. One in Pinewood and one in Matera. From what i heard all interior scenes were done in Pinewood and only the view and balcony stuff was done in Matera. Might be this shot is a merger, but the background would definitly be 'real'
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Univex wrote: »
    Do you guys think they'd spend that amount of money building that room with that view atop scaffolding in Matera just to CGI the backdrop?

    Of course it's real. It's all Fukunaga's sunset scramble ;)

    Exactly why would they go for all that trouble to build the set around the city if they wanted to use CGI.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 6,677
    00Agent wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Do you guys think they'd spend that amount of money building that room with that view atop scaffolding in Matera just to CGI the backdrop?

    Of course it's real. It's all Fukunaga's sunset scramble ;)

    They had two sets of the hotel room. One in Pinewood and one in Matera. From what i heard all interior scenes were done in Pinewood and only the view and balcony stuff was done in Matera. Might be this shot is a merger, but the background would definitly be 'real'

    Could be, yes. I had no ideia they built it in Pinewood as well.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Univex wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Do you guys think they'd spend that amount of money building that room with that view atop scaffolding in Matera just to CGI the backdrop?

    Of course it's real. It's all Fukunaga's sunset scramble ;)

    They had two sets of the hotel room. One in Pinewood and one in Matera. From what i heard all interior scenes were done in Pinewood and only the view and balcony stuff was done in Matera. Might be this shot is a merger, but the background would definitly be 'real'

    Could be, yes. I had no ideia they built it in Pinewood as well.

    Yeah the crew told me in Matera.
    They literally build this whole construction just for the view and around one day of filming lol.

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 4,400
    I could see this film getting a cinematography Oscar nod in 2021.....

    rro4vead.jpg
    Mallory wrote: »
    @Pierce2Daniel

    Regarding the “is it a cgi backdrop” of the second image, Sandgren captured the exact same look in La La Land, in camera, and won an Oscar for it.

    My money would be on real.

    lalaland2.jpg?w=1575&ssl=1

    In that case....it's pretty staggering. I always thought those La La Land shots were augmented by CGI but if you are telling me they are in camera, then I believe you.

    Personally, I'm one of those basic people that just adores those purple sunsets and always has to take a picture. They are just so damn pretty!!!

    I'm sorta enamoured that Fukunaga and Sangren have gone out of their way to get these shots. They are very difficult and time-pressured to get.

    Also, it is me or has the colour-grading changed on these two shots compared from the old and the new trailer respectively:

    Chfu7Iu.jpg
    tjhsbvum.jpg

  • Also, it is me or has the colour-grading changed on these two shots compared from the old and the new trailer respectively:

    Chfu7Iu.jpg
    tjhsbvum.jpg

    Most likely. Colour grading is almost always the very last thing that gets finished on a film as it's the most time-consuming effect, seeing as how it has to be applied on every single shot.

    Even when it is applied, it is still tinkered with endlessly until the last day of post-production in order to better bring out the subtleties in the image and not make it look like they slapped the same filter over every shot.

    @Zekidk pointed out that the grading already got updated between the first trailer and the Superbowl spot.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Original trailer:
    r5p13Ba.png

    TV spot:
    088bGIN.png
  • Thank you for the insight @AKillToAView

    I recently watched TDK again and it's truly quite startlingly the distinction between 35mm and IMAX. The IMAX stuff is just gorgeous and the clarity of the image is stunning. Does anyone know if we have seen any IMAX footage in the trailers yet (but it's just been cropped into widescreen?) I have a hunch that @antovolk will know.........
Sign In or Register to comment.