Skyfall - Page 4

I thought that because of his twisted love/hate feelings toward her, Silva allowed himself to be captured because he wanted to see M face to face once more before killing her. He got to confront her in captivity, then broke out to kill her--just arriving at the hearing to kill her would have robbed him of the chance to shave a final conversation with her. M did have to watch some of the agents on the list die, so she did suffer from it. I found the whole point of the list to be Silva's opportunity to discredit M as a part of his larger plan to punish her. Once she had been discredited, the list wasn't really important anymore as it had done its job. She had been made to see some of her agents die and was taking the blame publicly, losing her job and her reputation before her murder--all of which happened pretty much according to plan. This is the first Bond film where Bond fails and the villain's plan is totally successful. And in the end, that motivates Bond to get back to work and do better next time.

Well it definitely wasnt imax, or even the premium ultravx screen here. Just a regular digital screen.
I would consider not seeing the same amount of information as a regular theatre disappointing. I could live without seeing an imax aspect ratio since thats too much pillarboxing for my tastes but we need a home release for this.

Regardless of how much visual information was captured by the cameras, the movie's photography was composed for 2.40:1. That is its correct aspect ratio. Any excess information at the top or bottom of the screen is extraneous and not meant to be seen.

Jesus, you'd think by this time that folks would understand what theatrical original aspect ratio (OAR) is all about. The time to bitch is when we DON'T get the OAR, not the other way around!

Mark

no it wasnt

if you saw it in imax and regular you'll see that shots looked much better framed in the 1.90

This isnt clicking 'zoom' on your remote dudes, the studio formatted it themselves. Making this 2.4:1 is just overkill.
I suppose youre gonna tell me the cinematographer didnt purposely try to get bond and the car in one shot.

Wow. Actually thought the gold-medal match was real and the Wimbledon final was the rigged one. How else would Andy lose to Roger Federer anymore?

http://www.moviepicturedb.com/movie/1074638/Skyfall.html

publicity stills/promo shots/etc have nothing to do with "OAR". These are often taken on set, they're not "frame captures"...

Does anyone else think we need anamorphic Bluray releases plus players that can crop and zoom according to hints on the disc, to get around these aspect ratio issues and give the consumer some flexibility?

It sure would be nice to have the option of IMAX or widescreen on the disc, at the consumers choice.

IIRC, DVD was originally imagined to have flexible P&S features to display widescreen movies as 4:3 and so avoid having two separate disc releases, but they only ended up with a fixed centre-cut option.

Sorry, I'm totally against steroids.

So....Ian Fleming is Murray's father?!

I like Bond in general but after watching this Skyfall, I was dumbstruck. The story line was stupid, execution was lame. However, they spent tons of money to make the movie more than it should with all the scenery. Since when Bond film was about personal vendetta? Hee traveled to Shanghai, then watched a lame assasination? In all, I rather watching him fight against a Chinese triad or Chinese spy then this lame personal vendetta.

Did you miss the last two Bond movies?

I saw it both ways. I do not agree with you.

That's not a frame from the movie. It's a publicity photo. The actual image in the film has more picture on the sides.

from the Cinematographer himself (he s the best one alive imho)
http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2130&sid=fadb2daffffa5cafad4894c620d4a2cb

I for one felt the concept of Skyfall makes sense and is right on target. Earlier Bond films centered around world domination, power, control and/or monetary gain depending on the decade. Today's post-911 world is different in terms of Bond adventures are concerned. In large part, you don't have countries posing threats (real or imagined) like back in the cold war days. Today it's more about small regimes, or individuals who seek to make a point even if it costs them their own lives. And the notion of giving all for your country only to have your country turn its back on you to deny certain events plays into today's world and the vendetta theme IMO. But I also feel that Skyfall was more than just that theme. It was further securing the backstory while setting the stage for future installments the should be even more gripping and engaging. For me it was all part of a deeper theme for the franchise.

I'm always intrigued when someone complains that a Bond movie had a "stupid" story or plot. As if a characteristic of Bond films has been believability. Just how many Bond films do you think did "not" have a "stupid" story line, out of curiosity?

Note: I am not taking the position that one ought to expect idiocy from big budget movies. I like to demand more. But here we are talking about the Bond cannon and hence the expectations it is reasonable to bring to a Bond movie.

As I've mentioned before, after having gone through most of the Bond movies (up until Brosnan, haven't watched those) on Blu-Ray, most have operated barely above an Austin Powers level of depth and believability if you ask me, even though I very much like some of the Connery movies. If the latest Bond movies were truly as cartoon-like as the old ones, I doubt I'd be making it to the theater to see them. The added gravity and maturing of the acting, characters, plots in Casino Royal and Skyfall are for me just what I need in order to maintain interest in the series at this time.

Great post Harkness!

Thanks for the link!

For those that are too lazy to click over and read Roger's comments:

Bold emphasis mine.

Some of you may have preferred IMAX but that's NOT the aspect ratio the movie was framed for. The OAR is 2.35:1. Period. End of story!

Mark

Thanks for that. I'll concede that 2.35 is the OAR. But he still had Imax 'in mind' and chose the 1.90 ratio himself(instead of going full Imax), and thats good enough for me. All Im saying is, if they release an imax edition 6 months after the blu ray release I wont be pleased. http://www.hollywood.com/news/Roger_Deakins_Skyfall_Cinematography_Interview_Action_Western_James_Bond/43958072 Read more at http://www.daveonfilm.com/how-the-imax-version-of-skyfall-was-created-10519.html#oh16m2HJsMqzqZWC.99
Edited by ssjLancer - 1/8/13 at 12:34pm

And a complete idiot when it comes to choosing camera for such a big franchise shooting with a low resolution camera when he could have shot it with a camera three times the resolution.
Particularly when he knew beforehand it would be converted to IMAX and even up-converted to regular 4K.
Some people complained of Pixelation on the IMAX screen.

Also never understood that so many people hail him as the best DP in the world. Never seen a film he has shoot that the cinematography made any special impression.

Let's see your C.V.

I got a pre-release copy of the film to try out in my reference theater... It's going to be an amazing Blu Ray.

(Sorry for the my photography skills buyt we had 15 in the theater and some standing up while I was shooting)!




Edited by thebland - 1/12/13 at 5:54am

Nice. The opening to Solice is still my reference audio scene when friends come over😃. I'm really looking forward to a great bluray here, fingers crossed.

@TheBland. I'm so jealous. I can't wait to get my grubby paws on my copy! I have watched Casino Royale and Solace a few times each since seeing Skyfall in the theatre. I really, really like Daniel Craig as bond and the way these movies have been filmed. I thought the cinematography in Skyfall was definitely the best. Scope all the way!

If it means anything, the only DP I know by name is Wally Pfister.

I don't venture into these movie threads pre-release or anything. I was just stunned by how the film looked. Not by pixel resolution or anything, but it was just so beautifully shot.

Then I find out that it's by a DP that apparently is well known. Well, let me tell you that I have no bias for Deakins whatsoever, so I'm not loving the cinematography because of his name. I am because the movie looked damn gorgeous.

Which one? He's been pretty outspoken that he doesn't like the Red cameras (or at least, likes them less than the Alexa). I imagine he knows more about how they work in practice than you do (though it's amusing that you feel qualified to tell a 10-time oscar nominee how to do his job and what camera he should have used). And he's hardly the only DP to embrace the Alexa, it seems to be the most popular digital cinema camera right now by an appreciable margin (indeed, despite the news a couple years back about how James Cameron bought 50 Red Epics for Avatar 2, the technical specs on IMDB have quiety changed to the Alexa).
Granted, I would've preferred he just shot film.
Edited by 42041 - 1/12/13 at 2:19pm