Bond 22

[Max Jacoby]

and what?

 

I'd rather see a little creativity used to solve problems instead of throwing money at it. I'd rather see people shoot a scene a certain way because it makes artistic sense instead of just doing so because they can afford to. But that's just me.

[Ruairi Robinson]

and what?

 

I'd rather see a little creativity used to solve problems instead of throwing money at it. I'd rather see people shoot a scene a certain way because it makes artistic sense instead of just doing so because they can afford to. But that's just me.

 

Umm... are you disagreeing with me?

 

personally I think creativity should NEVER be used, and the more money you spend, the better the movie will - every time. Also I think people shoot actively REFUSE to shoot a scene in a way that makes artistic sense, and only ever shoot based on what they can afford, but that's just me.

 

No, wait a cotton pickin' minute here....

 

It *sounds* like you are disagreeing with me, which is strange, because it also looks like you've just reiterated what I said in different words, but added your own special condescending touch.

 

Nicely done, sir.

 

R.

[Max Jacoby]

You're welcome.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think you're just seeing an old-fashioned disagreement over the artistic value of a particular scene in a movie. If you liked how the sequence was done, dramatically, then you're more likely to praise the technique. If it didn't particularly move you, you are more likely to call it an expensive gimmick.

 

Personally, I was impressed with the two scenes with the extended takes for a number of reasons, both as simply a bravura piece of directing, the sensual pleasure of seeing something difficult pulled-off with a certain amount of grace (the aesthetic pleasures of moviewatching -- the fun -- are not to be discredited) and because I actually felt it worked dramatically to increase tension, suspense, and the immersive qualities that draw the viewer into the plight of the characters.

 

Sure, maybe the same suspense could have been created more conventionally, and for less money, but what's wrong with experimenting with newer filmmaking styles made possible by digital technologies, if you have the money? I'd rather give those millions of dollars to a Cuaron movie rather than a Brett Ratner movie.

 

It's not like all movies are either works of serious art or mindless entertainment -- they exist on a continuous line or overlapping lines. "Children of Men" is somewhere in the middle, what I guess some would call middlebrow entertainment with artistic overtones. What's wrong with movies like that? Are we only to have Michael Bay movies on the one hand and Michael Haneke movies on the other???

[Max Jacoby]

I'd rather give those millions of dollars to a Cuaron movie rather than a Brett Ratner movie.

Looks like today everyone is taking it out on poor Brett Ratner again, myself included!

[David Mullen ASC]

Looks like today everyone is taking it out on poor Brett Ratner again, myself included!

 

And I actually liked "Red Dragon"...

[Max Jacoby]

That's probably the only film of his that I have ever seen and I only went to see it after reading in the AC that it was shot anamorphic and Dante Spinotti pushed the filmstock. I do like 'Manhunter' better, sure it has aged a bit (colors and music) but it feels more real.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Children of Men was a film that split audiences and critics alike, I think its brilliant but i have plenty of friends who walked out the cinema unimpressed or were unmoved.

 

The great thing about Curan is also his biggest weakness (in the eyes of some) in that he expresses his views and thoughts through very some very commercial pills, he often does it so subtely and so burried in the tapestry of the stories, that it easily goes unnoticed.

 

Of course really I think when you want to genuinly criticise someone you have to watch and sit through their films with an open mind, then somehow be able to explain what you felt worked or what disatisfied you about it. I think I remember writing an 8 paragraph post about how I didn't rate Paul Thomas Anderson as a director, of course it still pissed someone off - with them simply replying 'your wrong, your wrong.!'

 

I guess thats the problem with criticism, nobody likes it if it conflicts with their own.

[Ruairi Robinson]

Of course really I think when you want to genuinly criticise someone you have to watch and sit through their films with an open mind, then somehow be able to explain what you felt worked or what disatisfied you about it. I think I remember writing an 8 paragraph post about how I didn't rate Paul Thomas Anderson as a director, of course it still pissed someone off - with them simply replying 'your wrong, your wrong.!'

 

I guess thats the problem with criticism, nobody likes it if it conflicts with their own.

 

But you WERE wrong - Your subjective personal opinion is objectively incorrect :)

[Max Jacoby]

I think I remember writing an 8 paragraph post about how I didn't rate Paul Thomas Anderson as a director, of course it still pissed someone off -

Indeed it did and you can expect a visit from my Russian Import/Export friends very soon...

[Phil Rhodes]

> So he shouldn't BOTHER doing stuff in the way he thinks is best to tell the story

 

But that's exactly it. I question whether he's doing it the way he thinks is best to tell the story; I think he's just playing around for his own amusement.

 

> Or do you mean he should explain his choices? Again, why should he?

 

Because I'm questioning them and I paid to see it. Because it's intellectually bankrupt to take the "I'm not telling you" approach, and suggests there was no forethought in any case. And finally, why? Because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money, is why.

 

Phil

[Ruairi Robinson]

> So he shouldn't BOTHER doing stuff in the way he thinks is best to tell the story

 

But that's exactly it. I question whether he's doing it the way he thinks is best to tell the story; I think he's just playing around for his own amusement.

 

> Or do you mean he should explain his choices? Again, why should he?

 

Because I'm questioning them and I paid to see it. Because it's intellectually bankrupt to take the "I'm not telling you" approach, and suggests there was no forethought in any case. And finally, why? Because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's money, is why.

 

Phil

 

For his own amusement? Choosing to do something in the most difficult way possible, a way that if he can't pull it off will cost millions of dollars of other people's money, and earn him the scorn of his entire crew? (because as I understand it, there was a lot of doubt about whether or not he could pull it off, and indeed hope on the part of certain people that he would fail...)

 

He may have to explain his choices to the producer, or the actors, or the crew, but he is certainly under no obligation to explain them to you or me after the fact. Do you think Kubrick was intellectually bankrupt for refusing to explain 2001...?

 

When critic Joseph Gelmis asked Kubrick about the meaning of the film (2001), Kubrick replied [1]:

 

? They are the areas I prefer not to discuss, because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded.

 

Whatever the flaws of Children of men (and I had plenty of niggles), and whether or not the choices were the best choices, or the ones I might have made, I disagree that they were arbitrary, or there was no forethought put into them. Shooting with NO coverage is the most dangerous way to make a movie, and the way that requires the most deliberation and forethought possible.

 

And personally I have to admire anyone with the guts to work this way. I think it paid off anyway.

 

R.

[Phil Rhodes]

> Do you think Kubrick was intellectually bankrupt for refusing to explain 2001...?

 

Yes.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm reminded again of Donald Ritchie's story about Kurosawa:

 

"While he's quite ready to talk about lenses, or acting, or the best kind of camera-dolly, he is unwilling to discuss what a certain scene was really about. He smiled and said 'Well, if I could answer that, it wouldn't have been necessary for me to have filmed the scene, would it?' "

 

Besides, Kubrick has certainly talked an awful lot about the themes in "2001" without breaking down its symbolism point by point. To me, it's a great movie, the most expensive art film a studio has ever been tricked into financing. And it eventually was profitable!

[Max Jacoby]

Besides, Kubrick has certainly talked an awful lot about the themes in "2001" without breaking down its symbolism point by point.

Yep, all the relevant information is certainly out there.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Does anyone else wonder what director Marc Forster thinks about the whole anamorphic situation on Bond?

[A. Whitehouse]

Does anyone else wonder what director Marc Forster thinks about the whole anamorphic situation on Bond?

 

Its a pity Martin Campbell isn't directing this one. Both his Bonds are excellent and managed to brief new life into the series.

[Roberto Schaefer asc aic]

This is probably too late for anyone to be reading but here I go.

The answers are that the VFX would take longer to render out "good" in anamorphic as opposed to spherical. Time = money and we are seemingly short on both, especially time. We wrap principal mid-june and the film has worldwide release by nov 6, UK on oct 31!!

 

The answer to the question about 3-perf vs. 4-perf is that yes, for stuntwork but also 2nd and 3rd unit work, I like to have the option to reframe in the DI stage where possible. I don't concern myself so much on 1st unit since I am there and keep it within the realm of 1.78 which is still on the 3-perf negative.

R.Schaefer, asc

[Arni Heimir]

This is probably too late for anyone to be reading but here I go.

The answers are that the VFX would take longer to render out "good" in anamorphic as opposed to spherical. Time = money and we are seemingly short on both, especially time. We wrap principal mid-june and the film has worldwide release by nov 6, UK on oct 31!!

 

The answer to the question about 3-perf vs. 4-perf is that yes, for stuntwork but also 2nd and 3rd unit work, I like to have the option to reframe in the DI stage where possible. I don't concern myself so much on 1st unit since I am there and keep it within the realm of 1.78 which is still on the 3-perf negative.

R.Schaefer, asc

 

What stock is it being shot on?

[Evan Winter]

Good luck on the shoot Roberto. I know your work will be fabulous and I can't wait to see the film.

 

Evan W.

[Mitch Gross]

For all of you just tuning in...

 

Some internet conversation about the choice of shooting formats for the latest James Bond film has been contributed to by the cinematographer of the movie himself, and he did so while deep in the midst of the shoot. For all of the petty squabbling and static noise that can crop up on forums such as these, it's great to pose a question and get an answer from the man who was at the center of the decision.

 

Nice. Best of luck Roberto.

[Damien Bhatti]

But you WERE wrong - Your subjective personal opinion is objectively incorrect :)

 

This may be in jest? But I found it quite amusing. I don't think films or rather the "world" exist objectively. A subjective opinion is formed from a dependency of it's stimulus, of the film say - the two elements have to coexist. Capra puts it better; "This division is useful and necessary to cope with our everyday environment, but it is not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate ‘things’ and ‘events’ are realities of nature is an illusion."

Edited April 12, 2008 by Damien Bhatti

[Francesco Bonomo]

Just got back to Rome after spending an intense week on the Siena set for the film (following a month of prep), and I'm going back in three days to do some more prep work for the three days of shoot in mid-may. Meanwhile the second unit crew is on lake garda to do some more crazy things. :D

Cannot say a lot about what we did or even post pictures, but it's been a great week, too bad it's already over. Great crew, amazing stunts, incredible director, wonderful location and i'm so sure it will look mind-blowing on screen.

Cannot wait to go back, though I know I won't probably be part of something this big again in my life...

[Guest Tim Partridge]

Does anyone know who the second (and third) unit DP is?

 

Is it still true that there are no miniatures on this one?

 

I agree that it was real classy of Mr. Schaefer to take the time out to set the record straight on the technical front here.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Does anyone know who the second (and third) unit DP is?

 

Shaun O'Dell is the DP for the 2nd Unit, don't know anything about the 3rd Unit.