Jump to content


Photo

skyfall was bad movie


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:16 PM

Maybe my opinion but sky fall fails to deliver the bond power..I just feel like going back in time and watch tommorow never dies in big screen.


skyfall cinematrography for a big budget movie is unattractive hideous.ALL thanks to arri alexa digital.

Bond girls were sloppy and ugly.and the villain girl who was preety died.

no gadgets

arrogant bond with no emotions.

javier bardem as villan was good.
  • 0

#2 Tom Jensen

Tom Jensen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1234 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Dallas, TX

Posted 26 November 2012 - 08:37 PM

i liked it
  • 1

#3 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 26 November 2012 - 10:33 PM

Maybe my opinion but sky fall fails to deliver the bond power..I just feel like going back in time and watch tommorow never dies in big screen.
skyfall cinematrography for a big budget movie is unattractive hideous.ALL thanks to arri alexa digital.
Bond girls were sloppy and ugly.and the villain girl who was preety died.
no gadgets
arrogant bond with no emotions.


Hey Raj,
Didn't you post about this before? If you're feeling brave go to Roger Deakins forum and tell him directly. The fans there will probably rip you a new rear end, as the Americans say, but it would be a good test of moral fortitude and quite educative.
http://www.rogerdeak...63fcfc44ef6509c

Good luck.
Gregg
  • 0

#4 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 November 2012 - 04:18 AM

:lol:
  • 0

#5 Neal Norton

Neal Norton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tampa, Florida

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:32 AM

Rajendra I would find it interesting to learn more about why and how you felt the Arri Alexa was entirely responsible for the "hideous" cinematography. The camera did not make the pictures all by itself. . . I think more than a few people were involved in the process. I would also find it interesting to learn more about what you DO like in a big studio feature film. Maybe you have an example of your own work that we and Mr. Deakins could study in order to improve our work?

I thought "Skyfall" was a little long and the day exteriors a little bright for my taste but I consider the camera work right about the level of fantastic.

"Sloppy" and "ugly" to describe the girls? Really?
  • 0

#6 Sean Elder

Sean Elder
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 76 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Houston, Texas

Posted 27 November 2012 - 10:44 AM

I'm not 100% on this, but I think that Rajendra is trolling, but I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, who I call the "Master of Vista" Roger Deakins did an incredible job with this film. Not really a fanboy of his work, but I respect what he and his team brought to the Bond series of films. As far as the acting goes (which has very little to do with Mr. Deakins) I felt that the cast did a great job even though I didn't buy the idea of James Bond being out numbered, out manned, and out gunned. I think another view of this movie from a more focused viewpoint would help you Raj, but if you just want to troll and say how bad something is just for the heck of it stick to facebook please! For the sake of us all!

My $0.02
  • 0

#7 John Holland

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

Posted 27 November 2012 - 01:21 PM

I agree Sean . I dont think this person saw the same film as me !
  • 0

#8 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:42 AM

Hey Raj,
Didn't you post about this before? If you're feeling brave go to Roger Deakins forum and tell him directly. The fans there will probably rip you a new rear end, as the Americans say, but it would be a good test of moral fortitude and quite educative.
http://www.rogerdeak...63fcfc44ef6509c

Good luck.
Gregg


Hi greeg mcpherson,why do you have to give americans a bad name with your stupid arrogance...i bet you would cry out loud if in reality ur rear end would be bitten by roger deakins bulldog....so dont talk too much
  • 0

#9 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:49 AM

I'm not 100% on this, but I think that Rajendra is trolling, but I could be wrong. As far as I can tell, who I call the "Master of Vista" Roger Deakins did an incredible job with this film. Not really a fanboy of his work, but I respect what he and his team brought to the Bond series of films. As far as the acting goes (which has very little to do with Mr. Deakins) I felt that the cast did a great job even though I didn't buy the idea of James Bond being out numbered, out manned, and out gunned. I think another view of this movie from a more focused viewpoint would help you Raj, but if you just want to troll and say how bad something is just for the heck of it stick to facebook please! For the sake of us all!

My $0.02


No i am not a troll! i certainly dont know what troll means....

James bond has always had good cinematrography especially the 90s brosnan bond films, Its just my opinion but I found sky fall nothing like a bond movie,casino royale and quantum of solace was still better in m opinion. arri alexa is a good camera and its meant for directors out there who know what they want,But I still think a big budget bond movie if it can have some scenes shot in film its not a bond movie...film is there for a reason and if Mr deakins thinks he can change the world of cinematography then he is wrong
  • 0

#10 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:08 PM

Hi greeg mcpherson,why do you have to give americans a bad name with your stupid arrogance...i bet you would cry out loud if in reality ur rear end would be bitten by roger deakins bulldog....so dont talk too much


Raj,
That saying about ripping someone a new (rear end) was a joke. Seeing (hearing) it on Entourage I assumed it had some currency as cool humour in America. So, I was not denegrating Americans, but honouring their sense of humour. Enjoying some humour was an option rather than taking your post too seriously. At least Chris Millar thought it was funny.

So did you go there, to Deakins forum? He seems a really open guy. If you disliked his work but were fully respectful about how you approached him there I see no harm. But there are fans there, you should keep your back to the wall.
  • 0

#11 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:24 PM

Gregg, while we all differ on opinion of what is good and bad cinematography in many cases, I detect a bit of fanboyism in your retorts with Raj. He is entitled to his opinion and I dont think he needs to prove his opinion by going into a pro-Roger Deakins thread and broadcasting it. Saying such things is akin to saying that having misgivings about that Magenta-hued camera company means you have to go on their forum and "tell them to their face." Its a bit childish and most people who are fanboys dont respect you for it anyway.

I personally think Deakins is a bit overrated and Id have no problem telling him to his face. I may not be able to "do better" but I vote with my pocketbook so I can say whatever in the hell I please.
  • 0

#12 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:54 PM

How bout we all just agree that the film was hell of a lot more interesting than this thread ?
  • 0

#13 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:55 PM

... I detect a bit of fanboyism in your retorts with Raj. ......


Hey Matthew,
It seems to be my lot to be misunderstood. I'm definately not one of the fanboys. I barely consciously knew his work untill I stumbled onto his forum a couple of weeks ago, suddenly realizing that he had shot No Country for Old Men and some others that I have enjoyed. Really open, generous and practical thing he's doing on that forum, but me reading there a few times and that reply to Raj does not make me a fan boy.

Raj's tone was quite aggressive. Rather than see him get ripped to shreds I thought some humour might help. Was that joke i lifted from Entourage too obscure, even for someone from Sacramento? The suggestion about Raj visiting Deacons forum may look like a "wind up", a "leg pull" or "piss take", meaning making makin fun of, but I don't see why he couldn't actually do it, assuming he was very respectfull about it. But the tone of his post makes it look like he would have great trouble with that (being respectfull).
  • 1

#14 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:04 PM

Well, I think we can agree that English is probably not Raj's first language and he might be using a translator. Therefore, we could be misjudging his intentions. Although this probably isnt the case and maybe he means to be inflammatory, I just wanted to counterbalance the anger getting directed his way. He is as entitled to express his feelings about a film he presumably paid for as any top notch critic. In fact, I for one get awful tired of consumer opinions being considered unimportant in this industry provided your peers like you. We need to remember who we make these films for...for critics/peers or fans? I hope we havent fell so far as to prefer making them for the former.
  • 0

#15 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:29 PM

Well, I think we can agree that English is probably not Raj's first language ...... I just wanted to counterbalance the anger getting directed his way. ....


Just remember, in the history of it, I was the one trying to crack jokes. You're right that there was a chance that Raj wouldn't get the joke, and that maybe Americans wouldn't get it either.

Separate thing. There was a thread posted, not sure on category, offering preview of a documentary about a group of Christian missionaries helping/converting a remote tribe in Africa. That thread may have just dissapeared. I wondered if you knew what happened to that thread. Had a hunch you might have been watching the forum and noticed something.

Here's to preserving ones sense of humour.
  • 0

#16 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 December 2012 - 08:51 PM

No Gregg, I didnt see the thread, although it sounds like one I wish I had. Then again I have 0 warning points under my name and would like to keep it that way. Here's to humor.
  • 0

#17 KH Martin

KH Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Other
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 03 December 2012 - 09:06 PM

How bout we all just agree that the film was hell of a lot more interesting than this thread ?


Not a chance. This is probably going to be the first Bond movie I NEVER rewatch.

I thought that was gonna be the case with VIEW TO A KILL, but I actually did rewatch most of that just to hear some of the music and for the model work. TOMORROW NEVER DIES I bought for three bucks just because it was cheaper than the CD and it let me access the music score, which was a ton better than the movie.

But there's not even ancillary interest on this one. My wife said she might rewatch it on video just to see if there was something worthwhile that she missed in the theatre, but I think I'll be in the other room rewatching a Dalton Bond film or FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.
  • 0

#18 RAJENDRA BISWAS

RAJENDRA BISWAS
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Other
  • india

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:52 AM

Hey Matthew,
It seems to be my lot to be misunderstood. I'm definately not one of the fanboys. I barely consciously knew his work untill I stumbled onto his forum a couple of weeks ago, suddenly realizing that he had shot No Country for Old Men and some others that I have enjoyed. Really open, generous and practical thing he's doing on that forum, but me reading there a few times and that reply to Raj does not make me a fan boy.

Raj's tone was quite aggressive. Rather than see him get ripped to shreds I thought some humour might help. Was that joke i lifted from Entourage too obscure, even for someone from Sacramento? The suggestion about Raj visiting Deacons forum may look like a "wind up", a "leg pull" or "piss take", meaning making makin fun of, but I don't see why he couldn't actually do it, assuming he was very respectfull about it. But the tone of his post makes it look like he would have great trouble with that (being respectfull).



my tone wasnt aggressive,but ripping of somebodys rearend is as insulting as a insult to humanity...even if its a joke...only a provocation can lead to anger
  • 0

#19 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1880 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:38 AM

my tone wasnt aggressive,but ripping of somebodys rearend is as insulting as a insult to humanity...even if its a joke...


So, you say the cinematography was "hideous", the "girls were sloppy and ugly" and Bond was "arrogant.....with no emotions".
Seemed like a quite agressive tone to me.
Regarding the joke(s). Humour is good. Try to culture some.
  • 0

#20 Darrell Ayer

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

Raj,
This entire thread was inflamitory, and I'm not sure why Gregg has to backpeddle his own statements. Raj, this is an educational forum and one decicated to art of cinematography for the purposes of lifing the art. Blasting one of the most recognized people in the field for using digital isn't really what most of us come here for, there are other forums for that. I could understand if you had something to say that was remotely constructive but it wasn't. With your attitude I think Gregg had the right idea to tell you to go to Deakin's own site and tell him what you think, I'm sure it'd make you reconsider your wording.

Matt Phillips, I don't understand your motivation in giving Gregg a hard time on this. He is making valid points. Even if he is being a bit glib, the tone of the intital post calls for the reaction. As far as the "freedom of speech" angle, this isn't a movie review sight. The on screen forum is a place to delare what you feel about a movie but this site demands a level of respectiblity and that should be enforced by it's members. I don't want to come on here and have the site reduced to some mess like DVXUser.

If this was a good thread we'd all be talking about issues with the pleathroa of crane moves in the opening or how undramatic the subway chase was, not eachother.
  • 1


rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Opal

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly