AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Skyfall
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skyfall - Page 2

post #31 of 426
11/25/12 at 8:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

re Skyfall:
I was absolutely amazed at the beauty of Roger Deakins cinematography. Such gorgeous lighting and composition from one frame to the next. I constantly felt I was watching a master crafstman at the top of his game. I really enjoyed almost all aspects of the movie (I agree the pacing started to sag in the last 3rd of the movie) but it would have tremendous re-play value in my home theater even just on the cinematography.

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on? This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything. I thought most of it was quite ugly.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 426
11/25/12 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on?
I don't know if you're just blind or tasteless. Haven't you seen "No Country For Old Man", "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" or "True Grit"? Gosh, even "In Time" has great cinematography, better than this movie deserved.
Quote:
This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything.
From Roger Deakins:

The final grading of 'Skyfall' was no different than for any other film, other than it was done very very quickly! I usually spend 3 weeks in total to time a film such as 'True Grit' or 'In Time'. 'Skyfall' was rather more complex and certainly has far more cuts but we completed the work in 3 weeks. That included the IMAX pass as well.
As I have said elsewhere, I create the 'look' of a film in camera. I use only one LUT and the set timing for each scene follows the metadata to the DI suite. The DI process then is, for me, all about matching from shot to shot within a scene and less about adjusting individual scenes. The colours and the contrast you see in the final film are just what they were on set. Naturally, when the film is run as a whole each scene will inevitably require a little adjusting in terms of density, saturation and contrast but that is generally a minor overall correction that we make once each scene is balanced within itself.
Quote:
I thought most of it was quite ugly.
Definitely tasteless wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 426
11/25/12 at 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on? This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything. I thought most of it was quite ugly.
Sickly cast? Drained of color? Methinks you saw a poor presentation of this film.

There were some absolutely spectacular scenes with riotous color in Skyfall. There's a reason people keep referencing the intro shot to Shanghai and the fight with the assassin in the tower.
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 426
11/25/12 at 1:57pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on? This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything. I thought most of it was quite ugly.

Drain colour? one sequence was nothing but colour






Edited by dvdmike007 - 11/25/12 at 2:09pm
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 426
11/25/12 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on? This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything. I thought most of it was quite ugly.

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this post.
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 426
11/25/12 at 5:01pm
I liked the photography, but I was not a huge fan of the look, if that makes any sense. Any time it wasn't bold colors and high contrast, it had that sort of bland color rendition and tonality I associate with digital cinematography. The whole opening sequence had that look and I'm not a fan.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 426
11/25/12 at 5:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strevlac View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this. Why does everyone go gaga over anything Deakins puts his hands on? This film looks pretty much like any other action thriller from the last 10 years. Digitally graded to drain color from most of the image...sickly cast over everything. I thought most of it was quite ugly.

I don't know any cinematographers by name except for Wally Pfister, and that's only because Christopher Nolan brings him up in interviews time and time again since he works on all of his films (Batman films, Inception, etc.). I like a lot of his work with Nolan's vision, but there are better cinematographers out there.

I'm not one of those people who is listening to what others say about this film, nor do I see a name and automatically make the claim that his work is golden. I saw this film, and my jaw dropped at some shots and work with Mendes. It was beyond phenomenal and beautiful. Will be a great Blu-ray for sure.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 426
11/26/12 at 9:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

How was the camera work in Skyfall? I tried to watch QoS but ejected after several minutes. I very much dislike rapid cuts and jerky, shaky handheld camera work!!
I have Casino Royale and several other James Bond movies (Goldfinger to Casino Royale).

After QoS I was prepared to give up the Bond films. The opening action sequence was edited into incomprehension, and the rest of the movie was not able to recover. A big disappointment after Casino Royale.

Skyfall, on the other hand, is one of the best 007s ever. Superb action that made me gasp at times. Clever scenes with witty dialog that does not underestimate the audience. Top notch performances. Beautifully photographed. The only downside for me is that it is about 15 minutes too long - and the final sequence in Scotland may be the weakest.

Yes, I liked it.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 426
11/26/12 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I absolutely, 100% do not understand this post.
Agreed.

Whatever quibbles I had with the movie, the look certainly wasn't one of them,
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 426
11/26/12 at 3:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3193 View Post

Skyfall, on the other hand, is one of the best 007s ever. Superb action that made me gasp at times.

The Bond franchise has been one of my favorites for many years (except for the few duds that were made). I rarely do blind buys but this most likely will be an exception based upon reports like yours. Thanks again for posting, it is appreciated.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 426
11/26/12 at 3:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland View Post

The Bond franchise has been one of my favorites for many years (except for the few duds that were made). I rarely do blind buys but this most likely will be an exception based upon reports like yours. Thanks again for posting, it is appreciated.

Second best film of the year
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 426
11/26/12 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Second best film of the year
No.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 426
11/26/12 at 3:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual_Chaos View Post

No.



Reply
Reply
post #44 of 426
11/26/12 at 3:56pm
I was surprised that I enjoyed Skyfall, considering how awful I thought the last few have been. Craig is still the biggest liability, but at least he smiled a few times and managed to get a couple of laughs from the audience. Best Bond since The Living Daylights.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 426
11/27/12 at 8:17am
I've found that when it comes to the Bond franchise, many people tend to get rather protective of "their Bond" and tend to get closed off to other actors, styles, what have you. I've also noticed that among the comments, most of the detractors have little to say about the story/plot itself. It's their dislike of Craig, or the villain wasn't to their liking or the cinematography. Connery had that 60's swagger. Moore had that 70's casualness. Dalton brought a modern look along with an action persona and Brosnan had that pretty boy charm thing going. And each generation brought it's own type of chaos be it cold war concerns to world domination in some form or fashion. I consider myself to be a Bond fan from Connery to Craig. Sure there are a few in there that are lesser enjoyed but overall I'm a Bond fan.

Having said all of that, here's my two cents on Skyfall. I thought it was a great film. And it just so happened to be a Bond film at that. I say it that way because, as I've mentioned in another thread, Skyfall almost had a reboot feel to it. It was completely different in feel than any other Bond movie including Craig's first two offerings. First off let me say this, if you don't like Craig as Bond then you won't like this. If you didn't like The Dark Knight then you probably won't like this as this was very much a psychological action drama Bond though not quite as deep as TDK. And if you like your Bond to be action intensive and/or even "gimmicky" with toys then you probably won't like this Bond.

I mention all of this because I went in with a certain expectation, which was something of a hybrid between Royale and Solace and it was pretty much unlike either IMO. The pace was slower, the mood was heavier and this was a personal Bond. Very script oriented, background focused and I believe that "reboot" to set the stage for future installments. Skyfall gave you a bigger view of the Bond/MI6 post 9/11 world, which is exactly why I think Craig makes an excellent casting. The action was certainly there and very good IMO but again, because of the tone of the movie I didn't leave feeling connected to the action sequences but rather the story. Much like The Dark Knight, I left processing the movie, not reliving it. This is something I personally enjoy and will make the next viewing (and repeat viewings) that much better.

For those who gave up after QoS, remember that there were many production problems with that film starting with the writers. So it's not fair to write off the whole franchise for it. Skyfall, IMO, makes up for it in spades but I for one am not going to compare it to Casino Royale because it was just that different to me yet still very much Bond.

Day one purchase for me, no question.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 426
11/28/12 at 7:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I've found that when it comes to the Bond franchise, many people tend to get rather protective of "their Bond" and tend to get closed off to other actors, styles, what have you. I've also noticed that among the comments, most of the detractors have little to say about the story/plot itself. It's their dislike of Craig, or the villain wasn't to their liking or the cinematography. Connery had that 60's swagger. Moore had that 70's casualness. Dalton brought a modern look along with an action persona and Brosnan had that pretty boy charm thing going. And each generation brought it's own type of chaos be it cold war concerns to world domination in some form or fashion. I consider myself to be a Bond fan from Connery to Craig. Sure there are a few in there that are lesser enjoyed but overall I'm a Bond fan.
Having said all of that, here's my two cents on Skyfall. I thought it was a great film. And it just so happened to be a Bond film at that. I say it that way because, as I've mentioned in another thread, Skyfall almost had a reboot feel to it. It was completely different in feel than any other Bond movie including Craig's first two offerings. First off let me say this, if you don't like Craig as Bond then you won't like this. If you didn't like The Dark Knight then you probably won't like this as this was very much a psychological action drama Bond though not quite as deep as TDK. And if you like your Bond to be action intensive and/or even "gimmicky" with toys then you probably won't like this Bond.
I mention all of this because I went in with a certain expectation, which was something of a hybrid between Royale and Solace and it was pretty much unlike either IMO. The pace was slower, the mood was heavier and this was a personal Bond. Very script oriented, background focused and I believe that "reboot" to set the stage for future installments. Skyfall gave you a bigger view of the Bond/MI6 post 9/11 world, which is exactly why I think Craig makes an excellent casting. The action was certainly there and very good IMO but again, because of the tone of the movie I didn't leave feeling connected to the action sequences but rather the story. Much like The Dark Knight, I left processing the movie, not reliving it. This is something I personally enjoy and will make the next viewing (and repeat viewings) that much better.
For those who gave up after QoS, remember that there were many production problems with that film starting with the writers. So it's not fair to write off the whole franchise for it. Skyfall, IMO, makes up for it in spades but I for one am not going to compare it to Casino Royale because it was just that different to me yet still very much Bond.
Day one purchase for me, no question.


I don't think many gave up after QOS. Skyfall is doing amazing business, $221 million in the US and $800 million worldwide. It will come close to $1 billion worldwide. They're saying when it's all said and done it will gross about $270M in the US. I think it will end up in the $300M-$320M range in the US.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 426
11/28/12 at 7:51am
Horrible script, horrible director.

Why people are swooning over this film is a big surprise and puzzle, but then again people swooned over Prometheus.

I own all of the Bond films on Blu-ray, as a completist I'll be adding this to the collection, even though I consider Skyfall to be a big disappointment.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 426
11/28/12 at 8:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Why people are swooning over this film is a big surprise and puzzle

Or, in light of your apparent minority in this opinion, we could call the big surprise and puzzle the fact that you are not.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 426
11/28/12 at 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Horrible script, horrible director.

Why?

Which James Bond movies are better and in which way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Why people are swooning over this film is a big surprise and puzzle,

Hint: excellent director, excellent script, deep acting pool, top rate work from one of the finest cinematographers, some amazing action sequences,
nice character development (more than most Bond movies) etc. You know...the kind of things that make for a good movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

but then again people swooned over Prometheus.

Not nearly as many. Prometheus didn't do near the business of Skyfall, didn't garner such uniform high critical and audience approval ratings, and Prometheus became the notorious target of much internet ridicule: nothing
close to this has happened with Skyfall.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 426
11/29/12 at 7:25am
Gentlemen, I'm not going to get into an argument on why you like it and I don't. That's just the way I feel - hugely disappointed.

For more astute comments on why Skyfall fails - go to IMDB.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 426
11/29/12 at 8:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

For more astute comments on why Skyfall fails - go to IMDB.

You're citing IMDb user reviews for "astute" critical analysis? Hilarious. If I want to know what a 13-year-old with ADD thinks of the movie, I'll be sure to ask my nephew.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 426
11/29/12 at 8:23am
Et tu, Brute? I am sure if you sift through all of the critical reviews you will find more than one from a 13 year old.

I'm done commenting in this thread.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 426
11/29/12 at 9:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

Gentlemen, I'm not going to get into an argument on why you like it and I don't. That's just the way I feel - hugely disappointed.
For more astute comments on why Skyfall fails - go to IMDB.

Ok, but it's not so much about "arguing" as it is that it is more interesting to see someone actually support his claim, or opinion. To just come in and declare it awful, and claim the director and script were "horrible" isn't terribly
enlightening. It's more interesting to know what actual problems you had with the movie. Makes it a less spam/troll-like experience reading such comments....
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 426
11/29/12 at 4:00pm
The whole part of Silva getting captured just to break out felt written without a thought on logic or a thought on what is actually being written. That plot sort of worked in TDK with The Joker due to him being a big mystery that work out of logic. But here... yuck. And where did the McGuffin/plot of the ripped of NOC-list from M:I go in the film

A bad script with a lousy climax. I think that Brosnans Bond had more personality and wasn't as dull as Craigs so I'm not a huge fan of these three films to begin with. But I feel that QoS straight and linear storyline worked better and that film actually was better - even with all of it's editing flaws.

Casino Royale felt weird with having that fourth act that you didn't know if you should invest in or getting ready for credits and leave. It dragged.

But this is how they should have plotted Skyfall:

Have the beginning as it is but have Rapaces character give Moneypenny a thumbs up just before dissapears into the tunnel.
Introduce Silva and his cool little abandonment island.
Let Rapaces character survive the ShangHai fightscene and establish him more as Silvas henchmen equal to Bond in strength etc.

But instead of that badly written and complicated plot of Silva being captured just to kill M - have a big action set-piece in London with him and his gang kidnapping M and Bond and Mi6 is trying to stop it and at the same time trying to receive the list of undercoveragents.

Have the climax of the film set on Silvas island with him releasing the whole list to the public and having M watch CNN as agent after agent is getting killed. Bond and other 00's (M's family so to speak, or her children) get to the island to rescue her and there Bond has to fight Rapaces character again - now having met him 3 times duting the film - and in the end kill Silva and watch M getting killed.

After that the same ending and The end.
Edited by Spiritual_Chaos - 11/29/12 at 4:45pm
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 426
11/29/12 at 4:15pm
It was a very good looking film, so I don't get the person who said it was muddy, etc, but I have to agree with those who think it's a bad movie. I have it as a bottom 5 Bond film. It was all downhill after killing the sniper (though his assassination shot just before that also makes no sense) and I felt completely insulted by the whole laptop business.

I've never walked out on a film, but this is one of the few that gave me the urge to.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 426
11/29/12 at 5:27pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual_Chaos View Post

The whole part of Silva getting captured just to break out felt written without a thought on logic or a thought on what is actually being written. That plot sort of worked in TDK with The Joker due to him being a big mystery that work out of logic. But here... yuck. And where did the McGuffin/plot of the ripped of NOC-list from M:I go in the film
A bad script with a lousy climax. I think that Brosnans Bond had more personality and wasn't as dull as Craigs so I'm not a huge fan of these three films to begin with. But I feel that QoS straight and linear storyline worked better and that film actually was better - even with all of it's editing flaws.
Casino Royale felt weird with having that fourth act that you didn't know if you should invest in or getting ready for credits and leave. It dragged.
But this is how they should have plotted Skyfall:
Have the beginning as it is but have Rapaces character give Moneypenny a thumbs up just before dissapears into the tunnel.
Introduce Silva and his cool little abandonment island.
Let Rapaces character survive the ShangHai fightscene and establish him more as Silvas henchmen equal to Bond in strength etc.
But instead of that badly written and complicated plot of Silva being captured just to kill M - have a big action set-piece in London with him and his gang kidnapping M and Bond and Mi6 is trying to stop it and at the same time trying to receive the list of undercoveragents.
Have the climax of the film set on Silvas island with him releasing the whole list to the public and having M watch CNN as agent after agent is getting killed. Bond and other 00's (M's family so to speak, or her children) get to the island to rescue her and there Bond has to fight Rapaces character again - now having met him 3 times duting the film - and in the end kill Silva and watch M getting killed.
After that the same ending and The end.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
How does the spoiler button work again?
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 426
11/29/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual_Chaos View Post

The whole part of Silva getting captured just to break out felt written without a thought on logic or a thought on what is actually being written.

Yeah, that did feel somewhat ridiculous.

But then, it seems odd to complain about such a thing in order to diss it vs the rest of the Bond cannon. I mean, ridiculous plots are if anything a signature of the whole movie series!
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 426
11/29/12 at 8:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiritual_Chaos View Post

But this is how they should have plotted Skyfall:

I fail to see how a single thing you've written would have made the movie better in any way, rather than just different.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 426
11/29/12 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

I've found that when it comes to the Bond franchise, many people tend to get rather protective of "their Bond" and tend to get closed off to other actors, styles, what have you. I've also noticed that among the comments, most of the detractors have little to say about the story/plot itself. It's their dislike of Craig, or the villain wasn't to their liking or the cinematography. Connery had that 60's swagger. Moore had that 70's casualness. Dalton brought a modern look along with an action persona and Brosnan had that pretty boy charm thing going. And each generation brought it's own type of chaos be it cold war concerns to world domination in some form or fashion. I consider myself to be a Bond fan from Connery to Craig. Sure there are a few in there that are lesser enjoyed but overall I'm a Bond fan.

Good observation. I started watching Bond films 2 years after their inception. (I wasn't quite old enough until then) tongue.gif Craig's portrayal, along with plots that now promise a bit more substance then suave, seem more faithful to the Bond that I was familiar with when I read Flemming's books.



Gerald, Ian Gerald cool.gif


biggrin.gif
Edited by mailiang - 11/29/12 at 9:48pm
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 426
11/30/12 at 2:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

I fail to see how a single thing you've written would have made the movie better in any way, rather than just different.
More streamlined plot without the mess that is Silvas trip to England. (which I bet most of you didn't think about while watching because you were too in awe of the cinematography)
Better use of the McGuffin (the list).
Better use of the motif of letting M suffer - by letting her watch all "the children she loved more than Silva" getting murdered one by one.
A Bond-esque climax in the most interesting setting of the film (the deserted island).
Giving Rapaces french assasin more of a presence in a film. I still don't understand why they underused the french assasin and didn't keep him till the fight on and under the ice in the end - instead they just swapped him for a new (swedish) actor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

Yeah, that did feel somewhat ridiculous.
But then, it seems odd to complain about such a thing in order to diss it vs the rest of the Bond cannon. I mean, ridiculous plots are if anything a signature of the whole movie series!
Well, something ridiculious like a plan to take over the world in ways X, Y or Z I buy in the Bond-universe - even in the Craigfilms (like the Quantum organization). But Silvas plan and that whole chain of events and his logic wasn't just ridiculious as in "over the top" - ity was just bad writing for the sake of being complicated or "smart".
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I mean, can anyone give an answer to why he went through all that trouble just to show up disguised as a cop to put a bullet in her during that hearing?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Skyfall