No Time to Die on Blu-ray

1121315171826

Comments

  • Posts: 2,465
    I feel like Hoytema was underused (like Waltz).

    That Waltz-Craig head to head shot at the end with the glass was AMAZING. The SPECTRE meeting was also great.

    I hope he gets another chance and does even better job in B25.
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    I got it, and wow I really didnt appreciate hoyte's work in this film in the theatre as much as I do now

    It's a really distinctive looking Bond film. The photography is pure class IMO.

    Agreed. The Rome scenes in particular stood out for me this time around. There's a certain graininess factor Van Hotyema's uses that gives it a vintage, 60s era look to it.

    I love what Deakins did for SF. I think it's a great looking film, but If I'm being completely honest with myself, I prefer the look of SP just a bit more. It has a smokey look to it, very old school.
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    One of my gripes with this movie was definitely the yellow tints that invade everything. Seeing it regraded to show the natural colors makes me sad that that wasn't what we got in the first place. It gives a completely new life to the entire movie, and makes it feel closer to SF's coloring style that was vibrant and glorious to the eye.

    It's funny, but I've always felt that SF, a bloody gorgeous film to be sure, had a cold aesthetic. Even the scene on Silva's island, which takes place in the sun, seem to have some of the rich warmth of the sunlight filtered out.

    But then again, when talking about visuals like this, it's so subjective that it's hard to actively agree or disagree with opinions. It comes down to what the palette makes you feel.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I sometimes think that, because of Roger Deakins and his A.S.C. Award and Oscar nomination, we started to look different at the Bond films. Before Deakins most of us in here never gave a rat's arse about cinematography. And now....
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    I think consciously or not, visuals are always very important to us as consumers of entertainment. The same is true with the Bond films, which have always had a unique visual style and template from the very start. However, while I think we can appreciate visuals and care about them immensely (who wants to see a poorly shot film, after all?), I think those like Deakins have indeed given our love of visuals a face in the current era of films. Cinematographers now more than ever are also become big draws for all movies, so much so that people are going out to see films just because talents like Deakins and Hoyte were involved in it. Back in the day we could appreciate the visual craftsmanship of a DP on any number of Bond films, but now we do that and a whole lot more, attaching a visual style to a definitive name like Deakins.

    I do not know if we do that because it's much easier in this technological landscape to attach to a DP like this, or simply because Deakins has a more visible style than other Bond DPs of old.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Just speaking for myself, I'm not bothered if a 'name' cinematographer does the work or not. What concerns me is that the final product impresses me and has some visual and colour flair.

    As an example, I was terribly unimpressed with the cinematography during the entire Brosnan years, and some of the Glen years as well. The shots lacked some of the wide perspective that I preferred from the early Bond films up to MR (excepting some of the Hamilton entries which were more bare bones).

    It's only with CR that I saw a return to form, with robust, vivid colours and wide angle action shots. QoS was beautiful as well. I have no idea who the cinematographer was in either of these films. Deakins did a superb job on SF, but I think his work really stood out more in the night scenes, which were wonderfully crisp. With Van Hoytema, as I said earlier, his shot framing is almost perfect post-card like, but the monotone colour spoiled the experience for me, because vivid colours are something I associate with the Bond experience.

    So whoever is selected next, I won't mind, as long as they give us that vibrant, vivid experience, where all the colours are natural, distinguishable, and pop.
  • Posts: 92
    The yellow tinting makes me sad.
    It seems such a bad idea to take out vibrant colours.
    :(
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,557
    Someone edit the thing :D
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    I sometimes think that, because of Roger Deakins and his A.S.C. Award and Oscar nomination, we started to look different at the Bond films. Before Deakins most of us in here never gave a rat's arse about cinematography. And now....

    You can choose to believe me or not if you like, but that's actually not true in my case. I've always held TSWLM, OHMSS and CR in extremely high regard for their cinematography (among other things as well). I've also always very much admired the look of TLD.

    All that being said, in fairness I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that I was in the minority as someone that paid close attention to that kind of stuff before the arrival of Deakins for SF.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,416
    eddychaput wrote: »
    I sometimes think that, because of Roger Deakins and his A.S.C. Award and Oscar nomination, we started to look different at the Bond films. Before Deakins most of us in here never gave a rat's arse about cinematography. And now....

    You can choose to believe me or not if you like, but that's actually not true in my case. I've always held TSWLM, OHMSS and CR in extremely high regard for their cinematography (among other things as well). I've also always very much admired the look of TLD.

    All that being said, in fairness I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that I was in the minority as someone that paid close attention to that kind of stuff before the arrival of Deakins for SF.

    Nor mine. It's usually one of the first things that gets evaluated along with music and performances. Being a camera savvy person myself, cinematography is top of the list.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    Same here, since film is a visual medium where information is shared through images cinematography is among the most important aspects of critically evaluating a film. Same goes with editing that is at it's most basic what makes the medium unique.
    Luckily, the franchise has had real talent in both those departments through the years.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,258
    Agreed, watching Moonraker last night and visually it's stunning. Even the
    Lighting is just perfect.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 3,747
    Repeat:
    I wil give opening of movie and Holiday in Marocco a more warm feel. I whant to see more swet on Bond and the two girls. A bit of Casino Royale Madagascar. Spectre be a bit in middle. But a lot of Spectre overall is middle.
    Opening van de film en vakantie in Marokko wat meer warme uitstraling. Wat meer sweet zien bij Bond en de twee Bond girls. Beetje van de Madagascar feel uit Casino Royale. Spectre hangt er tussen in, maar hele film hangt vaak tussen in.

    Of course this based on first view in cinema, we will see how it look like over 2 years with the Dutch tv premiere.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Agreed, watching Moonraker last night and visually it's stunning. Even the
    Lighting is just perfect.
    MR was one of the last greats cinematography-wise until Craig's run began imho.
  • Posts: 11,119
    eddychaput wrote: »
    I sometimes think that, because of Roger Deakins and his A.S.C. Award and Oscar nomination, we started to look different at the Bond films. Before Deakins most of us in here never gave a rat's arse about cinematography. And now....

    You can choose to believe me or not if you like, but that's actually not true in my case. I've always held TSWLM, OHMSS and CR in extremely high regard for their cinematography (among other things as well). I've also always very much admired the look of TLD.

    All that being said, in fairness I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that I was in the minority as someone that paid close attention to that kind of stuff before the arrival of Deakins for SF.

    Oooowh come on, if "SPECTRE" had a truly good story, without plotholes, but with a lot of "FRWL"-esque, "CR"-esque intrige and espionage, then you would not have bothered at all about the cinematography. On the contrary, perhaps then people would have said that this orange hue was a masterstroke of a DP.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    bondjames wrote: »
    As an example, I was terribly unimpressed with the cinematography during the entire Brosnan years, and some of the Glen years as well. The shots lacked some of the wide perspective that I preferred from the early Bond films up to MR (excepting some of the Hamilton entries which were more bare bones).

    It's only with CR that I saw a return to form, with robust, vivid colours and wide angle action shots. QoS was beautiful as well. I have no idea who the cinematographer was in either of these films. Deakins did a superb job on SF, but I think his work really stood out more in the night scenes, which were wonderfully crisp. With Van Hoytema, as I said earlier, his shot framing is almost perfect post-card like, but the monotone colour spoiled the experience for me, because vivid colours are something I associate with the Bond experience.

    So whoever is selected next, I won't mind, as long as they give us that vibrant, vivid experience, where all the colours are natural, distinguishable, and pop.

    Ironically Meheux lensed both GE and CR for Campbell. It goes to show that it's not always the cinematographer, it's the choices they make along with the director. I happen to like the cinematography in GE, but CR is superior and some of the best in the series.

    What I'm struggling to understand is some peoples refusal to accept that these choices are very carefully considered. SP is coloured in the way it is to enhance the feel and to support the narrative. The whole picture has a haunted feel to it, it's almost nightmarish and at time feels hazy, or muggy. Removing or adjusting the grade as this article suggest http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre is a ridiculous suggestion, because unlike with a film such as 'Man of Steel', this isn't a purely stylistic choice. There is no thematic reasoning for why that film is unreasonably saturated. None whatsoever. With SP it's unquestionable that the the colour balance is specifically tweaked to evoke a 'spectral' feel. So when that articles states - 'the colours of certain scenes appear unnatural' that's the whole point Sherlock!

    Combined with the sparse populating of scenes, the allusions to death and ghosts of the past, it all combines beautifully for me. This is coming from someone who was one of the first to complain at the lack of vibrancy is the Mexico trailer scenes. In context it's superb and very idiosyncratic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    As an example, I was terribly unimpressed with the cinematography during the entire Brosnan years, and some of the Glen years as well. The shots lacked some of the wide perspective that I preferred from the early Bond films up to MR (excepting some of the Hamilton entries which were more bare bones).

    It's only with CR that I saw a return to form, with robust, vivid colours and wide angle action shots. QoS was beautiful as well. I have no idea who the cinematographer was in either of these films. Deakins did a superb job on SF, but I think his work really stood out more in the night scenes, which were wonderfully crisp. With Van Hoytema, as I said earlier, his shot framing is almost perfect post-card like, but the monotone colour spoiled the experience for me, because vivid colours are something I associate with the Bond experience.

    So whoever is selected next, I won't mind, as long as they give us that vibrant, vivid experience, where all the colours are natural, distinguishable, and pop.

    Ironically Meheux lensed both GE and CR for Campbell. It goes to show that it's not always the cinematographer, it's the choices they make along with the director. I happen to like the cinematography in GE, but CR is superior and some of the best in the series.

    What I'm struggling to understand is some peoples refusal to accept that these choices are very carefully considered. SP is coloured in the way it is to enhance the feel and to support the narrative. The whole picture has a haunted feel to it, it's almost nightmarish and at time feels hazy, or muggy. Removing or adjusting the grade as this article suggest http://www.thebondbulletin.com/true-colours-regrading-spectre is a ridiculous suggestion, because unlike with a film such as 'Man of Steel', this isn't a purely stylistic choice. There is no thematic reasoning for why that film is unreasonably saturated. None whatsoever. With SP it's unquestionable that the the colour balance is specifically tweaked to evoke a 'spectral' feel. So when that articles states - 'the colours of certain scenes appear unnatural' that's the whole point Sherlock!

    Combined with the sparse populating of scenes, the allusions to death and ghosts of the past, it all combines beautifully for me. This is coming from someone who was one of the first to complain at the lack of vibrancy is the Mexico trailer scenes. In context it's superb and very idiosyncratic.
    GE certainly felt much fresher to me than some of the later Glen entries. There was certainly an energy to Monaco (but how can there not be - it's Monaco after all) and the finale.

    I agree with you that there was definitely a creative choice made on SP. How could there not be, since it's so obvious. I just didn't like it personally, nor did I like the sparsely populated scenes. The yellow grade didn't evoke a 'SPECTRE' feel for me. Why choose yellow for a haunted impression?

    I think that effect, if desired, was done best in the trailer and in the film when Bond is on the boat going to see White, and also in the cabin - that to me was haunting, but the yellow just seems Marvel or DC. Superman as you say is a good example of over graded approach, as is some of the later Hunger Games, Avengers-Ultron and many others. Its uniqueness is lost on me because it seems so contemporary and 'of the moment'.
  • Posts: 2,465
    eddychaput wrote: »
    I sometimes think that, because of Roger Deakins and his A.S.C. Award and Oscar nomination, we started to look different at the Bond films. Before Deakins most of us in here never gave a rat's arse about cinematography. And now....

    You can choose to believe me or not if you like, but that's actually not true in my case. I've always held TSWLM, OHMSS and CR in extremely high regard for their cinematography (among other things as well). I've also always very much admired the look of TLD.

    All that being said, in fairness I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that I was in the minority as someone that paid close attention to that kind of stuff before the arrival of Deakins for SF.

    Oooowh come on, if "SPECTRE" had a truly good story, without plotholes, but with a lot of "FRWL"-esque, "CR"-esque intrige and espionage, then you would not have bothered at all about the cinematography. On the contrary, perhaps then people would have said that this orange hue was a masterstroke of a DP.

    I agree with this mostly.

    I hate how boring movies with no dialogue or character development get good reviews cause of "camera movement" or stuff like that..
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It's true. Cinematography cannot make a film in my view, but it can definitely enhance or detract from the experience. Characterizations and story is still #1. I've learnt last year how important it is for me to be drawn to the characters and relate to their motivation and behaviour. It has to feel 'real' for me now, more so than before. Otherwise it just feels like I'm viewing a nicely conceived painting.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 856
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2016 Posts: 10,432
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 856
    RC7 wrote: »
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.

    I meant the film as a whole.

    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.
  • Posts: 300
    I love the artistic approach to these films. I don't find Skyfall or Spectre depressing. Gloomy, yes, but not saturated in it. Bond on the other hand is portrayed in a more human light by Craig in a grounded world. So, naturally, it is going to be a grittier and darker universe for him.
  • Posts: 11,119
    This is the kind of cinematography that everyone likes ;-). Crude, but effective. Lensed by the late Lionel Lindon this is one of my favourite action films. "Grand Prix", directed by the great John Frankenheimer.

    IF Eon Productions decide to do something with Ian Fleming's "Murer On Wheels", then I want it to look like this:

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,432
    RC7 wrote: »
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.

    I meant the film as a whole.

    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.

    I'm a big Kubrick fan, but none of those you mention could've/would've made GF. Nor would they have made DN.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited January 2016 Posts: 30,664
    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.

    Of course, and I could add a good twenty more to the list, but Bond exists as something separate to me. The films/the franchise en masse is the art piece. As are it's missteps and flaws. It's much more personal and was ingrained in me simultaneously with my lifelong love of film (my first film was a Bond film). So I end up cutting these things a lot of slack.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.

    I meant the film as a whole.

    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.

    Oh God, a Bond by Bergman...
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited January 2016 Posts: 7,418
    RC7 wrote: »
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.

    I meant the film as a whole.

    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.

    Oh God, a Bond by Bergman...

    I reckon Bond could beat the Grim Reaper at chess
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,258
    Best of three ? :D
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,609
    NicNac wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Of course the colours on the screen are a conscious choice, I think it's foolish to suggest otherwise. The cinematography in SPECTRE is stunning, and the colour filters achieve the desired effect: foggy, gloomy, and a bit depressing. They perfectly fit the atmosphere of the film, so it's a job well done.

    What I don't understand is, why would anyone want a Bond film to feel foggy, gloomy and depressing. This is one of the problems I see with the 'auteur' approach. I mean, it's a Bond film, it's not Barry Lyndon. No matter how hard one tries, a Bond film is never going to be an artistic masterpiece.

    Several Bond films are artistic masterpieces. All of them were designed by Ken Adam.

    I meant the film as a whole.

    I love Bond films most of all, but none of them reaches the artistic quality of the films made by, for example, Kubrick, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini. IMO, of course.

    Oh God, a Bond by Bergman...

    I reckon Bond could beat the Grim Reaper at chess

    Or perhaps he could take him down with a little bit of supernatural magic.
Sign In or Register to comment.