RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Jensen Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 i liked it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/index.php?sid=d98bc3985b3d278b863fcfc44ef6509c Good luck. Gregg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Norton Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Elder Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I agree Sean . I dont think this person saw the same film as me ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted December 4, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 How bout we all just agree that the film was hell of a lot more interesting than this thread ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 ... 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted December 4, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted December 4, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted December 4, 2012 Premium Member Share Posted December 4, 2012 Darrell, are you new here? By new I mean I guess you werent around in the 2007-2009 days when we had the "film is dead" revolution come on here and declare 200x as the "year film died." And even DVXuser now has more sensibility regarding different formats than the other xxxUser site. Whether you like it or not, Deakins is a polarizing figure in cinematography now. I personally am already biased against him for his blasting of the medium that made him (and all other veterans now) great. Have you watched Keanu Reeves documentary? It is quite frankly amazing to see so many great men of light fall to seeking out the latest and greatest gadgets at the expense of art and the future of their craft. I have no respect at all for Deakins as a person or a cinematographer. To consider a new tool in the toolbox is one thing but to outright insult the girl who took you to the prom is another. Say what you like but this is all very relevant to cinematography and I think these issues are at the core of where we are and where we are headed. Hint: It aint good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Darrell, are you new here? ....I guess you werent around in the 2007-2009 days when we had the "film is dead" revolution come on ...... Whether you like it or not, Deakins is a polarizing figure .......I have no respect at all for Deakins as a person or a cinematographer.......say what you like but this is all very relevant to cinematography a....... I think these issues are at the core of where we are and where we are headed. Hint: It aint good. Of course, I agree with Darrell. I never spotted any "film is dead" dogma on Deakins site. I did see him often give really practical tips on lighting. He likes redheads and doesn't like LED's so I thought he might be one of the good guys. If he is in fact a significant figuire in the sea change to digital then this is an interesting and maybe important thing to discuss. But, discussing shouldn't be about taking reactive, emotive and over-personalized positions. And Raj shooting his mouth off is almost completely non usefull as a start point (oh crap, now there's another two metaphors I'll have to explain). Intense discussion and even violent dissagreement is OK in my honest opinion. Provided people don't degrade into the ugly personalized stuff. Do you know Deakins as a friend, collegue or adversary well enough to declare that you have no respect for him as a person? That's a rhetorical question. In case you are wondering whether I am an ally or an enemy, I wrote at length some of my thoughts on the differences between the film and the electronic motion picture image here http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58360&hl= Page 1, scroll to the bottom. I needed more space but thought I was using more than my share. I should have put that as a start point to a new thread. May still do that. Here's to objectivity as a method or backstop. But genuine subjectivity is always OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Matt, I am new here, I discovered this site a few months ago as I wasn't learning anything else from people on any of the ---User boards. I have to say, having David Mullen or any of the other ASC shooters answer my personal questions is totally impressive. I'm not sorry I missed the film is dead era on here and I'm sure it was a mess. Transitioning to cinematography from a long standing interest in photo, i am familiar with the conversation. I am sure Deakins made a few people grumble when he switched to the Alexa. But to be fair at least he didn't go on and on like Hurlbut about the 5D or some other consumer camera. His (hurlbut's) opinions on that really turned me off to him as a credible person for some time. That whole think with Christian Bale didn't help either, though my opinion of him has changed with his great lighting articles on his site... To be fair I think that it's a bit cold to go so far as to blast Deakin's as an artist just because he insulted the girl he took to prom. His middle aged and sometimes men devorce their wife's for a 20 something. If you catch my drift. Besides the Alexa is hotter than any of the other girls her age. These are just tools, his work looks good and he is a fabulous collaborator. As far as cinema going in a direction that isn't good, I have to disagree. I don't think digital has killed the quality of photography or it's abundance as an art, so I can't see how it would do the same for cinema. The magic is gone for photo, and so people have a hard time making a living at it but cinematography, and for that matter cinema, is a much harder thing to create. You can take a pretty photo and wow anyone, if you try that with cinema, you fail. The moving parts in this medium deictate that it will be around, and exclusive to the people who care to do it well, for a long time. Again, it will change but I doubt it will fall away into the abyss or drop in quality, as long as it cost millions to make they're not going to give the gun to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 I dont get I mean my opinion on skyfall is one in a million.if people don't have something nice to say why cant they just ignore these topic.I just personally feel that bond movies were so much good with the 90s goldeneye,tommorow never dies..even casino royale was a good bond movie.. but I feel skyfall is a good movie but not a good bond movie...maybe the writers are running out of ideas and locations.. I might have a opinion on the movie but that doesnt mean arrogant people like gregg get to use bad language and talk about me.they are the ones inflaaming the issue. digital is good,film is great. both have there purposes..but If digital fanboys think that they can kick out film out of this world forever are dead wrong.. thats what religion fundamentalist do they think THERES is always superior.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAJENDRA BISWAS Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 by the way ARGO was a better movie..and a real tribute to cinema, it shoots digital,35mm,16mm and even 8mm blown up on screen with grain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now