› ›

Denis Villeneuve Announced as Bond 26 Director

1…67891012»

Comments

  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,227
    Univex wrote: »
    I take it you guys mean Hollywood run of the mill films and are forgetting italian neorealism, the french nouveau vague, the epics of David Lean, Kubrick’s entire filmography, Ingmar Bergman, Hitchcock, … and all that was true cinema for a long time. But if we do mean 20 years ago, well, there was this post Matrix mania of colour filters that ruined most chances for films to be pretty. And the word “gritty” has been plaguing the last two decades. On that regard, I do agree. Maybe we’re on a renaissance of cinematic beauty.

    There are many Kubrick wannabes. Perhaps it's the film schools' fault
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 5,601
    I think it's just more accessible and 'easier' to create those 'pretty' images nowadays. Telling a story visually and doing it well takes a slightly different mindset. If anything that's what a good film school tells their students, and often those young budding cinematographers/directors have had a few years of snapping and editing images on their phones and posting them on social media (not a bad thing incidentally, as I said it's just a case of being more accessible, but like any craft it's an ongoing process).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 14 Posts: 18,552
    SomethingThatAteHim wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    I'm not convinced, I'm sure I could find equivalents of all these parallels in many other films, if I were to spend the time looking.

    My impression is that they are familiar types of shot, that have been used on numerous occasions before across the decades, in the Thriller / Suspence / Espionage / Crime Fiction genres.

    There are also trends that make films from one era look similar.

    I once mentioned that 20 years ago, "no one" cared about cinematography in films. It was very arty.

    Now movies have to look pretty. Even if it's Mad Max ;)

    That's actually true. Even the blandest Netflix thriller now looks good and is filmed in Prague or Italy or something.

    I actually have the opposite impression. So many run-of-the-mill movies, even B or C grade, looked way better than the majority of contemporary films. I think digital filmmaking has led to a lot of sloppiness on the production side of things because there’s no longer a need to properly light things, things can just be “fixed in post”, you can just shoot a bunch of lazy coverage rather than being intentional, framing stuff with iPhones in mind, etc. So much Netflix stuff just has drab digital sheen to it.
    At the same time television budgets have gone way up, so you do get big location shooting in otherwise crappy stuff, but it’s a trade off.

    Yeah I think it's hard to say that Marvel films look good, whereas Jaws and Raiders and Lawrence of Arabia etc. all looked amazing. I think it just varies really, a certain amount have always looked good and a certain amount haven't. I think they've always tried to shoot things so they look nice, it is their job after all. But some are better than others, and styles come and go, and obviously cinematographers learn from what came before.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,941
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I take it you guys mean Hollywood run of the mill films and are forgetting italian neorealism, the french nouveau vague, the epics of David Lean, Kubrick’s entire filmography, Ingmar Bergman, Hitchcock, … and all that was true cinema for a long time. But if we do mean 20 years ago, well, there was this post Matrix mania of colour filters that ruined most chances for films to be pretty. And the word “gritty” has been plaguing the last two decades. On that regard, I do agree. Maybe we’re on a renaissance of cinematic beauty.

    There are many Kubrick wannabes. Perhaps it's the film schools' fault

    Hey, if you have to imitate, imitating the great is the way to go ;)
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 748
    mtm wrote: »
    I like IMAX because it fits my TV screen :)
    We have this weird situation where TV went widescreen 25 years or so ago, all TV shows fitted the new screens we all bought, and then recently they've been trying to look more cinematic so have introduced black bars at the top and bottom, whereas big movies in IMAX actually fit the screen: so shows made for my TV don't fit it whereas films made for the cinema screen do!

    I think it's a shame that the Mission Impossible Fallout and subsequent films got released on home media with their IMAX scenes intact, whereas the IMAX bits of Skyfall and NTTD are never to be seen again.

    Fallout is a brilliant example of how effective the IMAX scenes are for a home viewing experience. The way the black bars just gradually open up into the IMAX framing is really cool and very cinema-like. I've seen it on other films (The Dark Knight Rises, for example) where there's just a sudden jump from black bars to no black bars.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 15 Posts: 18,552
    Yeah I love that shot in Fallout in the back of the plane as the bars expand, it does make it feel like a cinema somehow, you're right. I think they did a similar thing in Ghost Protocol for that shot as Ethan swings out to the outside of the Burj but I'm not sure (also not in IMAX on home media!).
    People said there was a good transition in Final Reckoning but I missed it as it's kind of in your peripheral vision. I'm guessing maybe the bars expanded as the water level rose in the airlock or something?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,309
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah I love that shot in Fallout in the back of the plane as the bars expand, it does make it feel like a cinema somehow, you're right. I think they did a similar thing in Ghost Protocol for that shot as Ethan swings out to the outside of the Burj but I'm not sure (also not in IMAX on home media!).
    People said there was a good transition in Final Reckoning but I missed it as it's kind of in your peripheral vision. I'm guessing maybe the bars expanded as the water level rose in the airlock or something?

    They expanded as Ethan turned the wheel inside the airlock, which was quite clever!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,552
    Oh that's very cool, thank you.
  • MalloryMallory
    edited July 16 Posts: 2,307
    Mark Kermode interviewed Barbara Broccoli and John Carney about Sing Street on his podcast Kermode on Film, and asked Broccoli briefly about Bond

    He is a fantastic film maker. I am thrilled he is going to be doing it.

    Kermode tried to get her to say a bit more but she very quickly changed the subject.

    https://podfollow.com/kermode-on-film/view

    Roughly 20 mins in.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 2,022
    If she thinks she's going to go the rest of her life without having to answer for what she did, she's insane. And that's coming from someone who likes her.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited July 16 Posts: 5,601
    Effectively she’s a silent partner for this franchise. I don’t expect her to say much in the short term, or at least not directly.

    At any rate it’ll probably be years before we get the full story of what happened.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited July 16 Posts: 3,299
    I suspect that BB's position will be the same as that of Doug Liman's re. the post-Identity Bourne films - credited as 'executive producer' for contractual reasons, but with no creative input or influence whatsoever.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    Posts: 2,545
    I've been told that Barbara acknowledged that NTTD's ending had been a mistake. It came from a person linked to London and the film industry.

    I replied that that had to be in private, but this person doubted and couldn't remember.

    Has anyone read something about it??
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 748
    Venutius wrote: »
    I suspect that BB's position will be the same as that of Doug Liman's re. the post-Identity Bourne films - credited as 'executive producer' for contractual reasons, but with no creative input or influence whatsoever.

    I've thought about that. Even if a somewhat meaningless credit, it'll be nice to see the "Broccoli" name somewhere in there.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,169
    ggl007 wrote: »
    I've been told that Barbara acknowledged that NTTD's ending had been a mistake. It came from a person linked to London and the film industry.

    I replied that that had to be in private, but this person doubted and couldn't remember.

    Has anyone read something about it??

    Sounds like something someone made up to help them cope.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,552
    Ryan wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    I suspect that BB's position will be the same as that of Doug Liman's re. the post-Identity Bourne films - credited as 'executive producer' for contractual reasons, but with no creative input or influence whatsoever.

    I've thought about that. Even if a somewhat meaningless credit, it'll be nice to see the "Broccoli" name somewhere in there.

    It will be interesting to see if they get an exec credit. As the co-owners of the character it seems possible.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,701
    Minion wrote: »
    ggl007 wrote: »
    I've been told that Barbara acknowledged that NTTD's ending had been a mistake. It came from a person linked to London and the film industry.

    I replied that that had to be in private, but this person doubted and couldn't remember.

    Has anyone read something about it??

    Sounds like something someone made up to help them cope.

    The strongest connection I have is a friend of the Broccoli and Wilson family. I don’t know why this person would claim such a silly thing. At best it’s inaccurate. At worst they’re lying.

    @Minion is right on the money and this person made up to cope with death of Bond. I’ll guess he’s projecting onto Broccoli what he wishes she’d say.

    So silly.

    Craig-Bond has been dead for coming on four years . Time to get over it.
Sign In or Register to comment.