Jump to content


Photo

James Bond 23


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Jackson

Phil Jackson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Director

Posted 12 February 2010 - 04:11 PM

So IMDB has Sam Mendes listed as the director of the next Bond film. Wonder if this means he'll be bringing Roger Deakins on board? Definitely a change of pace from Meheux and Schafer.
  • 0

#2 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 22 April 2010 - 04:34 PM

That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan.

I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt.
  • 0

#3 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:46 AM

That franchise is desperately in need of bringing on a top-tier director with a lot of talent. Same thing the Batman franchise did with Nolan.

I read a headline somewhere yesterday, though, which said that the new Bond flick was on hold, due to MGM being nearly bankrupt.

I read the same thing.
  • 0

#4 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 23 April 2010 - 01:01 PM

I'm sorry, am I missing something here? I agree that Mendes (or any top director) will be good for the franchise.

The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is.
  • 0

#5 Daniel Porto

Daniel Porto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • Student

Posted 24 April 2010 - 01:51 AM

The two most recent pictures were okay (better than the farce of the last couple Brosnan flicks), but the new Bonds lack the humor, panache, gadgets -- basically the fun -- that makes Bond what he is.


I think a lot of that has to do with Daniel Craig as he has taken the character in a more 'bad-ass' direction for the past two. Do I think this is bad? No, I loved Goldeneye (which was a lot of fun) the same as which I loved Casino Royale. I think that Bond's character will obviously change depending on the actor that plays it.
  • 0

#6 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 24 April 2010 - 12:38 PM

Well, badass is fine, but there also needs to be some humor, fun and gadgets. Also, how many decades are we going to have to wait until we get a badguy with an awesome headquarters?
  • 0

#7 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 24 April 2010 - 12:54 PM

Not that I am agreeing with this, I'm interested by the new films as they are just different, but these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no?


I'm not surprised you are interested in more gagets, Tom :P
  • 0

#8 Trevor Swaim

Trevor Swaim
  • Guests

Posted 24 April 2010 - 05:18 PM

these latest incarnations are more in lines with the original novels, no?


Yes, very much so. The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books.
  • 0

#9 DJ Joofa

DJ Joofa
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 April 2010 - 12:27 AM

The old bond was fun but it was not at all true to the books.


With the possible exception of Timothy Dalton as is considered by many to be the closest of all on-screen Bonds to the character in the novels. His movie "The living daylights" is one of my favorites among Bond movies, and I severely dislike Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies.
  • 0

#10 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 April 2010 - 01:37 PM

I have liked all of the actors who've played Bond. The issue for me is not the actors, but the scripts. To me, For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me were kind of the sweet spot. Amazing locales, tons of gadgets, amazing babes, bad guys with amazing lairs.... but above all that, Bond actually had to do some "spy" work back then, instead of just muscling his way through everything with machine guns. Imagine that: a spy movie that involves actual spying and doing some detective work.

The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another.
  • 0

#11 Josh White

Josh White

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Kent, UK

Posted 06 May 2011 - 02:28 PM

Don't know if anyone has seen this yet but Deakins is confirmed.

Deakins to Shoot Bond 23 ...Digitally?
  • 0

#12 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 09 May 2011 - 04:15 AM

Yes with Alexa and he says hopeful of Optical Viewfinder .
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:27 AM

Possibly anamorphic?
  • 0

#14 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:48 AM

I would doubt that Roger Deakins isnt a great fan of anamorphic lenses.
  • 0

#15 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 May 2011 - 09:19 AM

John, I had to read that double-negative about five times before I was completely clear on what you were saying! ;-)
  • 0

#16 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 09 May 2011 - 12:20 PM

Mitch yes terrible , must slow down and think and read before pressing "send".
  • 0

#17 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Student

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:41 PM

He's not a big fan of anamorphic lenses, preferring cropped super35 for the ease of use, speed, and lack of artifacts. I believe...
  • 0

#18 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 11 May 2011 - 08:42 PM

The franchise hit its absolute lowest point with the Brosnan film where he drives an invisible car and partakes in one ludicrous CGI scene after another.

That was hardly Brosnan's fault, it's not like he wrote the scripts. AS Bond, he was passable, not the greatest which is reserved for Connery and not the worst which is reserved for Rodger Moore. As I said, to me Connery WAS the one and only James Bond but oddly enough, the most interesting Bond was George Lazenby. B)
  • 0

#19 Darrell Ayer

Darrell Ayer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 02 August 2011 - 02:20 PM

After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character.

With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that?
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 02 August 2011 - 04:50 PM

After watching Casino Royale I went back and read the books, they're pretty addictive in an action pulp comic kind of way. I would hope that the movies continue in that direction. Royale did a good job reintroducing the character from the books, which was really closely envisioned by Connery in Dr. No and then moved ever slowly to camp. I find Daniel Craig to be one of the best actors to play the character.

With that out of the way I can't wait for the next one, and I'm really pleased with the Alexas footage online, I'll wait to see how it looks in a theater. My only question is that I thought the Alexa was an anamorphic adapted system built to deal with anamorphic lenses. What's the truth in that?


The current Alexa has a 16x9 sensor. The older ARRI D21 has a 4x3 sensor so is well-suited to using 2X anamorphic lenses. ARRI is releasing a 4x3 sensor version of the Alexa with an optical viewdfinder, and I'm sure Roger Deakins is first in line to get one, but I don't know if enough would be available to shoot the next Bond film in anamorphic. Not to mention, Deakins is not a fan of anamorphic lenses anyway so I suspect the next Bond film will be shot with spherical lenses like the last two were.
  • 0


CineTape

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Opal

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineLab

Visual Products

Willys Widgets