Wow this would be incredibly disappointing. Still a ton of great minds involved in the production of Bond 24, but I absolutely adored the cinematography in Skyfall. Should have definitely been Deakins first long-overdue Oscar.
Hoping to hear differently like the Sam Mendes rumors.
Deakins did some great work on Skyfall and it is a pity if he isn't going to work on Skyfall. He certainly gave Skyfall a very classic, classy feel despite the fact that it was the first 'digital' Bond film. However, he isn't the only cinematographer in the sea and I'm sure whoever gets the job, they will be someone capable of doing a fine job. They will be hard-pressed to find someone of Deakins' calibre though. Of course, it might just be rumour so let's wait and see.
Deakins is one of the best, and I think his work on many of the Coen Brothers films is topnotch.
That said, he can be replaced for Bond 24. To me, the casino in SF was too dimly lit -- it looked dank rather than posh, and I suppose that, in part, was what they were after. In addition, in a lot of daylight shots, Daniel Craig is washed out -- the scene on the yacht, for instance, looks like his eyebrows have disappeared. The light is too bright for someone with his coloring. Yes, he is very fair-skinned and haired, and I've been saying for quite some time that they should have darkened his features. But compare how he appears under Deakins' cinematography compared to the daylight shots in CR. I doubt it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind if Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Navarro had a chance -- there are moments in that movie that look like a classic Bond film, especially From Russia with Love, such as the scenes with the Captain at night.
Deakins work on Big Lebowski is one of the many reasons that movie had so much charm and is beloved among the cult fans. Fargo, No Country and True Grit were outstandingly shot as well.
As you said though, if this is true, I'm sure EON will get someone else of the same caliber. I'm a fan of continuity in the Bond series as it is one of those family oriented businesses and I love how everything is connected.
The look of Skyfall was one of the best things about the movie. But I'll take a good Bond story over a pretty looking movie. It's not like any of the previous Bond movies looked horrible anyway.
Lot's of really good DP's out there. I'm sure Mendes and EON will get a good one on board. Phil Meheux did a nice job on CR IMO, maybe they will bring him back.
The script and the director can make or break a film, the DP doesn't have that same power (unless they're absolutely awful, of course!). Few people will watch a film and say, "Well, that story was pathetic, the acting was awful, but it looked gorgeous and is therefore one of my favourites."
Deakins is a master, verging on genius. He will be missed but largely only by real cinema aficionados, not by many members of the public.
The script and the director can make or break a film, the DP doesn't have that same power (unless they're absolutely awful, of course!). Few people will watch a film and say, "Well, that story was pathetic, the acting was awful, but it looked gorgeous and is therefore one of my favourites."
Deakins is a master, verging on genius. He will be missed but largely only by real cinema aficionados, not by many members of the public.
Most Bond films have had exceptional cinematography. Deakins did a fabulous job on "Skyfall" (should have won the Oscar). I don't believe that EON or Mendes will allow anyone other than a top notch DP near Bond 24. Lots of great names out there and a Bond film has to be a big draw for any good DP. It will be interesting however if Mendes has a strong preference now for working in digital or would be ok with going back to film....this would certainly effect who he would choose to work with.
The script and the director can make or break a film, the DP doesn't have that same power (unless they're absolutely awful, of course!). Few people will watch a film and say, "Well, that story was pathetic, the acting was awful, but it looked gorgeous and is therefore one of my favourites."
Deakins is a master, verging on genius. He will be missed but largely only by real cinema aficionados, not by many members of the public.
Well-said, and I agree.
I don't agree. While very few audience know the name and work of any single DoP, they do notice (conciously or sub-conciously) if a movie is perticularely well-shot.
Lot's of really good DP's out there. I'm sure Mendes and EON will get a good one on board. Phil Meheux did a nice job on CR IMO, maybe they will bring him back.
I'm sure EON and Mendes have somebody already lined up. Filming will begin in about eight months (eight months!) and the DOP has to be on board well in advance to coordinate with the director on pre-production.
The script and the director can make or break a film, the DP doesn't have that same power (unless they're absolutely awful, of course!). Few people will watch a film and say, "Well, that story was pathetic, the acting was awful, but it looked gorgeous and is therefore one of my favourites."
Deakins is a master, verging on genius. He will be missed but largely only by real cinema aficionados, not by many members of the public.
Well-said, and I agree.
I don't agree. While very few audience know the name and work of any single DoP, they do notice (conciously or sub-conciously) if a movie is perticularely well-shot.
I don't think the point is that an audience wouldn't notice a particularly well-shot movie. The point is that for most audiences the quality of the direction, the screenplay and the acting are far more important and noticeable unless the cinematography is really bad.
Lot's of really good DP's out there. I'm sure Mendes and EON will get a good one on board. Phil Meheux did a nice job on CR IMO, maybe they will bring him back.
I'm sure EON and Mendes have somebody already lined up. Filming will begin in about eight months (eight months!) and the DOP has to be on board well in advance to coordinate with the director on pre-production.
I got chills reading this
We still have 1 year and 8 months before the movie is released, but all the build up is part of the fun and that isn't too far off from starting up again! Crazy to think that Skyfall came out 1 year and 3+ months ago!
Regarding the importance of the DP, does anyone know how much that he/she has an influence on the editing? For instance, one of the biggest problems of QoS for me were the choppy action sequences which had no fluidity and were annoying to follow. Now obviously the shakycam was in part to Roberto Schaefer, but what kind of direction is coming from the director and how much does editing come in to play?
I don't agree. While very few audience know the name and work of any single DoP, they do notice (conciously or sub-conciously) if a movie is perticularely well-shot.
I don't think the point is that an audience wouldn't notice a particularly well-shot movie. The point is that for most audiences the quality of the direction, the screenplay and the acting are far more important and noticeable unless the cinematography is really bad.
The quality of the photography is a bit like the quality of wiggs, sets etc. People seldom leave the cinema commenting on the good wiggs or sets. But when the "details" are well made people subconciously feel the movie is "right".
I would believe that the shaky cam and jumpy editing that was used in QOS was a product of what the director of the film wanted.
I think DP's are generally chosen by producers and directors based upon their ability to bring the director's vision of what the film should look like to the screen. I'm sure how much would vary from director to director. As far as EON seems to be concerned, is that the film is composed for 2.40 to 1 scope presentation. Deakins appeared to be given a lot of autonomy with regards to how "Skyfall" was shot....from the use of Digital cameras to choosing to compose the film in duel aspect ratios (2.40 to 1 for regular projection and approx 2.0 to 1 for IMAX). Speaking of Digital cameras, I wonder if we will ever see another Bond film shot on film in anamorphic Panavsion? The last Bond film shot in anamorphic Panavision was DAF (CR and QOS were shot on film but in Super 35).
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I would believe that the shaky cam and jumpy editing that was used in QOS was a product of what the director of the film wanted.
I think DP's are generally chosen by producers and directors based upon their ability to bring the director's vision of what the film should look like to the screen. I'm sure how much would vary from director to director. As far as EON seems to be concerned, is that the film is composed for 2.40 to 1 scope presentation. Deakins appeared to be given a lot of autonomy with regards to how "Skyfall" was shot....from the use of Digital cameras to choosing to compose the film in duel aspect ratios (2.40 to 1 for regular projection and approx 2.0 to 1 for IMAX). Speaking of Digital cameras, I wonder if we will ever see another Bond film shot on film in anamorphic Panavsion? The last Bond film shot in anamorphic Panavision was DAF (CR and QOS were shot on film but in Super 35).
How were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME through to DIE ANOTHER DAY filmed? I thought they were all anamorphic Panavision. The 70s & 80s Bonds in particular were badly panned & scanned on TV & VHS before widescreen presentation became the norm. I'd be interested to know.
Deakins is one of the best, and I think his work on many of the Coen Brothers films is topnotch.
That said, he can be replaced for Bond 24. To me, the casino in SF was too dimly lit -- it looked dank rather than posh, and I suppose that, in part, was what they were after. In addition, in a lot of daylight shots, Daniel Craig is washed out -- the scene on the yacht, for instance, looks like his eyebrows have disappeared. The light is too bright for someone with his coloring. Yes, he is very fair-skinned and haired, and I've been saying for quite some time that they should have darkened his features. But compare how he appears under Deakins' cinematography compared to the daylight shots in CR. I doubt it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind if Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Navarro had a chance -- there are moments in that movie that look like a classic Bond film, especially From Russia with Love, such as the scenes with the Captain at night.
I think the murky look of the casino is supposed to represent Bond's descent to the underworld (his trip on the boat to the casino has a very River Styx feel to it).
"The descent to the underworld is a mytheme of comparative mythology found in a diverse number of religions from around the world, including Christianity. The hero or upper-world deity journeys to the underworld or to the land of the dead and returns, often with a quest-object or a loved one, or with heightened knowledge. The ability to enter the realm of the dead while still alive, and to return, is a proof of the classical hero's exceptional status as more than mortal."
Deakins is one of the best, and I think his work on many of the Coen Brothers films is topnotch.
That said, he can be replaced for Bond 24. To me, the casino in SF was too dimly lit -- it looked dank rather than posh, and I suppose that, in part, was what they were after. In addition, in a lot of daylight shots, Daniel Craig is washed out -- the scene on the yacht, for instance, looks like his eyebrows have disappeared. The light is too bright for someone with his coloring. Yes, he is very fair-skinned and haired, and I've been saying for quite some time that they should have darkened his features. But compare how he appears under Deakins' cinematography compared to the daylight shots in CR. I doubt it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind if Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Navarro had a chance -- there are moments in that movie that look like a classic Bond film, especially From Russia with Love, such as the scenes with the Captain at night.
I think the murky look of the casino is supposed to represent Bond's descent to the underworld (his trip on the boat to the casino has a very River Styx feel to it).
"The descent to the underworld is a mytheme of comparative mythology found in a diverse number of religions from around the world, including Christianity. The hero or upper-world deity journeys to the underworld or to the land of the dead and returns, often with a quest-object or a loved one, or with heightened knowledge. The ability to enter the realm of the dead while still alive, and to return, is a proof of the classical hero's exceptional status as more than mortal."
In this case the quest-object was Silva.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true -- good observation.
I would believe that the shaky cam and jumpy editing that was used in QOS was a product of what the director of the film wanted.
I think DP's are generally chosen by producers and directors based upon their ability to bring the director's vision of what the film should look like to the screen. I'm sure how much would vary from director to director. As far as EON seems to be concerned, is that the film is composed for 2.40 to 1 scope presentation. Deakins appeared to be given a lot of autonomy with regards to how "Skyfall" was shot....from the use of Digital cameras to choosing to compose the film in duel aspect ratios (2.40 to 1 for regular projection and approx 2.0 to 1 for IMAX). Speaking of Digital cameras, I wonder if we will ever see another Bond film shot on film in anamorphic Panavsion? The last Bond film shot in anamorphic Panavision was DAF (CR and QOS were shot on film but in Super 35).
How were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME through to DIE ANOTHER DAY filmed? I thought they were all anamorphic Panavision. The 70s & 80s Bonds in particular were badly panned & scanned on TV & VHS before widescreen presentation became the norm. I'd be interested to know.
DAD was the last Bond film to be shot in anamorphic Panavision. CR and QOS, were filmed in Super 35 (composed and projected in the 2.40 to 1 scope ratio); and of course Skyfall was shot Digitally by Deakins with the Arri Alexa using spherical lenses and extracting a 2.40 to 1 image from the 1.78 to 1 Digital aspect ratio (a taller 2.0 to 1 extraction was used for IMAX).
What an absolute shame! Deakins is a magician and he really created some gorgeous views in Skyfall, especially in Macau. His art in Skyfall, NCFOM and other films will never be forgotten, though.
I think it can be debated whether or not digital is aesthetically inferior to 35mm film. Of course bad projection will ruin anything. I actually was liking digital projection because it seemed that it was harder to mess up by the local multiplexes than film projection....but they are now finding ways to foul that up also.
How about you just throw us a bone and say who the DP of 24 is. According to MI6, Bond 24 will be shot on film.
I'm no expert ( on many things ) but I made a point of watching
" The dark knight rises " in the cinema on both film and digital. IMHO
The digital print looked better., now I'm not saying it is better, just to
my eyes it is. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
There are hundreds of variables that can affect what ends up in front of your eyeballs, half of those determined by a teenage cinema "manager" who is splitting attention between turning on the projectors and overseeing popcorn sales.
Film can look amazing, digital can look garbage, and vice versa. It's hard to imagine anyone arguing and believing that Skyfall wasn't the best looking Bond film in decades, though.
Deakins has stated that he knows for certain that Bond 24 will be shot on film as he works with the lab who've been contracted to handle it. So, we don't yet know who the DP is but we know it's not digital.
In the old days EON may have tried to save money on smaller supporting roles (especially when casting American actors) but they've always had only top notch DP's. I have no doubt that between EON and Mendes, the DP for Bond 24 will have a great rep.
HalfHitman HalfMonk is on the money with his observations. Proper presentation in the cinema used to be a job performed by highly trained skilled professionals who had pride in what they did in the old days. Now most things are automated and if something isn't right it never gets corrected. Too many times I have pointed out issues to multiplex staff and they don't even understand what I'm talking about much less being able to do anything about it. Things like "the film is out of focus", "the film is not entirely being projected on the screen", "the film is in Cinemascope....someone needs to open the masking" are a language most of these folks do not relate to.
A really sad story I read was some years ago a prisitine "dye transfer" Techicolor print of "Thunderball" was provided by MGM to a film festival. Instead of playing the print in a theater which had a dual projector, change over system, they loaded all the reels into a platter system and proceeded to literally destroy the print.
That's terrible
I have a couple of friends who were projectionist at the local Omniplex,
But as stated they were " let go " as everything is now automated.
Films come in on a memory stick and will soon simply be directly
downloaded to the projector.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Deakins has stated that he knows for certain that Bond 24 will be shot on film as he works with the lab who've been contracted to handle it. So, we don't yet know who the DP is but we know it's not digital.
Some random person on his message board said that, not Deakins.
Gala Brand
Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
Comments
Hoping to hear differently like the Sam Mendes rumors.
That said, he can be replaced for Bond 24. To me, the casino in SF was too dimly lit -- it looked dank rather than posh, and I suppose that, in part, was what they were after. In addition, in a lot of daylight shots, Daniel Craig is washed out -- the scene on the yacht, for instance, looks like his eyebrows have disappeared. The light is too bright for someone with his coloring. Yes, he is very fair-skinned and haired, and I've been saying for quite some time that they should have darkened his features. But compare how he appears under Deakins' cinematography compared to the daylight shots in CR. I doubt it will ever happen, but I wouldn't mind if Pan's Labyrinth's Guillermo Navarro had a chance -- there are moments in that movie that look like a classic Bond film, especially From Russia with Love, such as the scenes with the Captain at night.
As you said though, if this is true, I'm sure EON will get someone else of the same caliber. I'm a fan of continuity in the Bond series as it is one of those family oriented businesses and I love how everything is connected.
Robert Richardson has Hugo and other Scorses movies in his resyme, plus Inglorious Basterds and Platoon.
There are more world class DoP's, but I get the impression that many of them prefer working with one genious director.
Deakins is a master, verging on genius. He will be missed but largely only by real cinema aficionados, not by many members of the public.
Well-said, and I agree.
I don't agree. While very few audience know the name and work of any single DoP, they do notice (conciously or sub-conciously) if a movie is perticularely well-shot.
I'm sure EON and Mendes have somebody already lined up. Filming will begin in about eight months (eight months!) and the DOP has to be on board well in advance to coordinate with the director on pre-production.
I don't think the point is that an audience wouldn't notice a particularly well-shot movie. The point is that for most audiences the quality of the direction, the screenplay and the acting are far more important and noticeable unless the cinematography is really bad.
I got chills reading this
We still have 1 year and 8 months before the movie is released, but all the build up is part of the fun and that isn't too far off from starting up again! Crazy to think that Skyfall came out 1 year and 3+ months ago!
Regarding the importance of the DP, does anyone know how much that he/she has an influence on the editing? For instance, one of the biggest problems of QoS for me were the choppy action sequences which had no fluidity and were annoying to follow. Now obviously the shakycam was in part to Roberto Schaefer, but what kind of direction is coming from the director and how much does editing come in to play?
The quality of the photography is a bit like the quality of wiggs, sets etc. People seldom leave the cinema commenting on the good wiggs or sets. But when the "details" are well made people subconciously feel the movie is "right".
I think DP's are generally chosen by producers and directors based upon their ability to bring the director's vision of what the film should look like to the screen. I'm sure how much would vary from director to director. As far as EON seems to be concerned, is that the film is composed for 2.40 to 1 scope presentation. Deakins appeared to be given a lot of autonomy with regards to how "Skyfall" was shot....from the use of Digital cameras to choosing to compose the film in duel aspect ratios (2.40 to 1 for regular projection and approx 2.0 to 1 for IMAX). Speaking of Digital cameras, I wonder if we will ever see another Bond film shot on film in anamorphic Panavsion? The last Bond film shot in anamorphic Panavision was DAF (CR and QOS were shot on film but in Super 35).
How were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME through to DIE ANOTHER DAY filmed? I thought they were all anamorphic Panavision. The 70s & 80s Bonds in particular were badly panned & scanned on TV & VHS before widescreen presentation became the norm. I'd be interested to know.
I think the murky look of the casino is supposed to represent Bond's descent to the underworld (his trip on the boat to the casino has a very River Styx feel to it).
"The descent to the underworld is a mytheme of comparative mythology found in a diverse number of religions from around the world, including Christianity. The hero or upper-world deity journeys to the underworld or to the land of the dead and returns, often with a quest-object or a loved one, or with heightened knowledge. The ability to enter the realm of the dead while still alive, and to return, is a proof of the classical hero's exceptional status as more than mortal."
In this case the quest-object was Silva.
DAD was the last Bond film to be shot in anamorphic Panavision. CR and QOS, were filmed in Super 35 (composed and projected in the 2.40 to 1 scope ratio); and of course Skyfall was shot Digitally by Deakins with the Arri Alexa using spherical lenses and extracting a 2.40 to 1 image from the 1.78 to 1 Digital aspect ratio (a taller 2.0 to 1 extraction was used for IMAX).
The new DOP is in place and I think fans will be pleased when he is officially announced.
How about you just throw us a bone and say who the DP of 24 is. According to MI6, Bond 24 will be shot on film.
" The dark knight rises " in the cinema on both film and digital. IMHO
The digital print looked better., now I'm not saying it is better, just to
my eyes it is.
Film can look amazing, digital can look garbage, and vice versa. It's hard to imagine anyone arguing and believing that Skyfall wasn't the best looking Bond film in decades, though.
HalfHitman HalfMonk is on the money with his observations. Proper presentation in the cinema used to be a job performed by highly trained skilled professionals who had pride in what they did in the old days. Now most things are automated and if something isn't right it never gets corrected. Too many times I have pointed out issues to multiplex staff and they don't even understand what I'm talking about much less being able to do anything about it. Things like "the film is out of focus", "the film is not entirely being projected on the screen", "the film is in Cinemascope....someone needs to open the masking" are a language most of these folks do not relate to.
A really sad story I read was some years ago a prisitine "dye transfer" Techicolor print of "Thunderball" was provided by MGM to a film festival. Instead of playing the print in a theater which had a dual projector, change over system, they loaded all the reels into a platter system and proceeded to literally destroy the print.
I have a couple of friends who were projectionist at the local Omniplex,
But as stated they were " let go " as everything is now automated.
Films come in on a memory stick and will soon simply be directly
downloaded to the projector.
Some random person on his message board said that, not Deakins.