Great video! I really agree that Roger Deakins gave this new Bond wave a unique style. Cause of this video, I'm gonna watch skyfall again. Thank you so much!
Even though Deakins is insanely talented, I think Skyfall is the worst looking of all the Craig era films. Digital cameras weren't where they are now in 2012 and it shows.
@@AngusDaviesDP on his podcast he talks about the decision he took with Mendes on not shooting any coverage for this seen and keeping it on a long-ish lense. Big massive balls
That was a brilliant episode! Still can’t believe he took that route, I doubt there are many other DP’s that would have been allowed to do it that way.
Awesome video man. I'm shooting a high production feature film in Egypt in a few weeks, and I'm observing as many Roger Deakins films as closely as possible. Can't help but be frustrated yet fascinated by trying to understand how he lights each scene so that the light is softly spread across the actor's face, yet sharply defines the detail from highlights to shadows. It would be great if you gave us your insight on how he specifically achieves that trademark look :D
Thanks! He uses a multitude of techniques in order to have that even look, but it seems to be his ring light that allows for him to consistently have that look everywhere. I have a few videos lined up, but once I get those out of the way, I'll look into creating one surrounding his trademark look!
Glad you like them! I can't remember what I did for this exact video, but my process is usually, IMDb, then double checking on ShotDeck or Shotonwhat. And finally looking up articles interviewing the DP. It's a lot easier with video's surrounding Deakins though, as he has a website with multiple blogposts dedicated to the films he's shot.
Even though Deakins is insanely talented, I think Skyfall is the worst looking of all the Craig era films. Digital cameras weren't where they are now in 2012 and it shows.
Deakins is overrated. Shot it digitally and you can tell alot of night scenes were shot high iso with practicals. Lazy as F. Quantum of Solace was a better looking movie. No Time To Die was back to shooting on film. I think Deakins needs to be called out more for being overhyped.
I mostly agree with your take on Deakins. I've always found something a little strange about many people who celebrate Deakins. Deakins himself said: "people confuse 'pretty' with good cinematography". Yet, most people who celebrate Deakins celebrate the pretty pictures in Blade Runner 2049, Skyfall, etc. Don't get me wrong, he's good at his job and I do think he works hard, however he is not special. And his work in Skyfall is really not that special. It's pretty standard. Silhouette shots every 5 minutes does not make for remarkable cinematography. Also, every "trick" used for the blocking has been done for decades. Firstly, when you have a $200 million- of course it is going to have some neat visuals. Hell, all Skyfall can stand on is its pretty pictures, because writing wise... it's a pretentious, bitter and mean-spirited movie. It does not deserve the respect it gets. And is definitely one of the most overrated pieces of modern cinema (yeah, unpopular opinion). Secondly, in the past decade, there has been far more impressive cinematography from people who aren't Deakins. Rob Hardy- MI Fallout, John Seale- Mad Max Fury Road, Greig Fraser- Dune, George Richmond- Kingman... Even if you compare other spy movies from the 2010s, what MI- Fallout and Kingsman were able to accomplish with the camera is far more impressive than Skyfall. Additionally, those movies also actually had great writing... great character work, great stories, and themes that weren't pretentious. I agree with you that Deakins is overrated and overhyped. I used to love talking about movies, but in the past decade the industry has become more and more pretentious. Hollywood is the land of pretentious, condescending, mean-spirited hacks and more recently woke activists.
Unpopular opinion: Skyfall gets far too much than it deserves. It's one of the most overrated pieces of modern cinema. There is a lot of pretty visuals, however the cinematography really isn't that special or innovative. Other spy films from the 2010s, like Kingsman and Mission: Impossible (Fallout especially) have far more remarkable cinematography. Also, It’s a pretentious, bitter and mean-spirited film. A common trend in a lot of modern Hollywood franchise flicks, is deconstructing and sometimes disrespecting what came before, as well as making the Legacy character(s) dull, bitter, mostly incompetent a*holes. I used to think The Force Awakens was the first to do it, but it might have been Skyfall. Additionally, the film has an incredibly mean-spirited and tone-deaf character treatment. They introduce a character that was sex-trafficked as a child and enslaved for most of her life. Only to get a false sense of hope before getting tortured, brutalised and then brutally killed as the person who promised to save her just looks on disinterested. A lot of people say the film humanises Bond. I’m not sure how. I don’t think exploiting and placing false hope in someone who was enslaved and lived in fear for most of their life, only to let them down when it mattered the most and show disinterest in their death- humanises Bond. I also feel really bad for the actress- Berenice Marlohe. She was able to land the enormous honour of being a Bond girl without an agent, in a foreign country. That is not an ideal areas easy feat. In interviews and articles I’ve seen she took pride in her character. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn’t. They were looking for “new talent”- or an actress no one would care about to play a character they didn’t care about. And as a result, Skyfall has one of the, if not the, most mean-spirited and tone deaf character treatments in the franchise. Additionally, Bond is incompetent for most of the movie. He fails in the beginning, granted some of that was M’s fault. He fails Severine. He fails to protect M, the most imposing person in MI6 and British Security. And he learns nothing from his failures. Moreover, decisions in the film make no sense. Why would you send an agent poisoned with Uranium to track down and capture someone who’s already killed several MI6 agents and destroyed your main HQ? And why would you contain such a threat in a room where there’s an escape hatch like 10 feet away? Why would you defend the most important person in British security in an abandoned, isolated house that is barely armed? Why wouldn’t MI6 send backup? They made the trail for Silva to follow. Why didn’t Bond get the drop on Silva before he made his shot? He’s at a similar tactical position. Why doesn’t M trust Bond in the beginning of the film? Their arc in Quantum was her learning to trust him. Did the writers forget? Also, how Silva is able to execute his plan makes no sense. There are just so many contrivances, conveniences and inconsistencies. It’s a badly written film. I also don't think a lot of themes work. The "Old Ways are better". They get the most important person in British Security killed and they fail numerous times throughout the film, and as a result innocent people get killed. I've seen many say the film is about combining the old and new. We never see both working collectively and effectively. Death and Rebirth is another one thrown around. Again, Bond is mostly incompetent. If he "died" in the beginning, he's never as "reborn" as something effective. He fails most of his tasks. And well kill Silva, he was going to kill himself with M- so Bond really didn't do much. I guess Silva didn't get the satisfaction he craved, but again... couldn't protect the most important person in MI6. That's a loss of far greater value. Additionally, both Mendes and Bardem said they took major inspiration from The Dark Knight. Both do share a common theme in that they ask whether the main character is still need. Only The Dark Knight justifies its main characters existence. Batman is still effective at his job. Anyway... I am sorry for the long reply. If you did read all the way through- Thank you. You and many other people like, even love this movie. Unfortunately, I don't share the same sentiment. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. To each their own.
Just took the time to tell you nobody is reading all of of this BS, put it on a blog. Also, your examples of films that exceed this in cinematography are laughable, especially since fallout took a ton of cues from this. I’m sure it hurts to realize a film 10 years old is still visually superior to your modern favorites, but life must go on. 🤣
@@kingchaos6050 Silhouette shots are very innovative. Skyfall is using the same techniques used nearly a century ago. Also, I don’t remember you’re pretentious movie strapping IMAX cameras to helicopters, a Two Camera Ops performing a Halo jump or pretty high octane fight scenes. I’m not bashing Skyfall’s cinematography, but to pretend it’s something special when hundreds of movies achieve the same thing is a little dishonest. Also, you read all of my “BS” and it got to you. Hence, you wouldn’t of replied. So someone did read it.
@@StandTheOffensive I definitely didn’t read all that BS you wrote, and never will. Despite all of the technical advances of the films you mentioned, Skyfall still looks better than them all, despite being 10 years older. No time to die did a damn good job though, outside of the ridiculous at times color grading. Know when to bow down!
@@kingchaos6050 Take your own advise. There’s multiple movies that were able achieve far greater than Skyfall. And No Time To Die(dies at the end). Another Tom Cruise movie- Top Gun: Maverick completely outclasses Skyfall on both a writing and technical level. Same with Kingsman 1 and Fallout.
“What’s the point in moving the camera if it adds nothing to the story; all it does at that point is distract the audience” couldn’t agree more 👍🏼
Great video! I really agree that Roger Deakins gave this new Bond wave a unique style. Cause of this video, I'm gonna watch skyfall again. Thank you so much!
Thanks! I didn't properly see it that way until I watched the previous Bond films, but he really did change it for the better. Enjoy it!
Even though Deakins is insanely talented, I think Skyfall is the worst looking of all the Craig era films. Digital cameras weren't where they are now in 2012 and it shows.
Couldn't agree more, and a poor movie
That fight scene in Shanghai is probably the reason why I got into cinematography and a DoP
It's such a mesmerising scene!
@@AngusDaviesDP on his podcast he talks about the decision he took with Mendes on not shooting any coverage for this seen and keeping it on a long-ish lense. Big massive balls
That was a brilliant episode!
Still can’t believe he took that route, I doubt there are many other DP’s that would have been allowed to do it that way.
Nice analysis man! Keep up the good work
Thanks, will do!
I'm really happy to find this channel, just love your content, I really appreciate!
Glad you are liking the content!
Awesome video man.
I'm shooting a high production feature film in Egypt in a few weeks, and I'm observing as many Roger Deakins films as closely as possible. Can't help but be frustrated yet fascinated by trying to understand how he lights each scene so that the light is softly spread across the actor's face, yet sharply defines the detail from highlights to shadows. It would be great if you gave us your insight on how he specifically achieves that trademark look :D
Thanks!
He uses a multitude of techniques in order to have that even look, but it seems to be his ring light that allows for him to consistently have that look everywhere.
I have a few videos lined up, but once I get those out of the way, I'll look into creating one surrounding his trademark look!
Probably cove lighting , u can watch about it on u tube. I think this technique makes him different.
Great work/ excellent insight. Diggin' your channel man.
Thanks! So glad you like it!
Love these videos man! Keep it up. You'll get the subscribers.
Thanks!
I don't plan on stopping anytime soon.
We need deakins to do the next bond movie
That would be a great way to introduce the next Bond!
@@AngusDaviesDP and I wonder who its gonna be but we’ll just have to wait and see
Hey thank you for your videos ! Just by curiosity, how did you find what equipement Deakins used and what types of projectors etc ? Thks
Glad you like them!
I can't remember what I did for this exact video, but my process is usually, IMDb, then double checking on ShotDeck or Shotonwhat. And finally looking up articles interviewing the DP. It's a lot easier with video's surrounding Deakins though, as he has a website with multiple blogposts dedicated to the films he's shot.
I just re-watched all five films in 4K Blu-ray. Maybe it’s just me, but I can tell it was shot on a digital camera and I really dislike how it looks.
Bond standing in the light with focus on just his eyes is how Daniel craig was first introduced as Bond in Casino Royale
What an incredible shot!
@@AngusDaviesDP yes!!💯💯
Please explain casino roayle's cinematography.
Great idea! I’ll need to rewatch it first but hopefully I can get it out in the next few weeks.
@@AngusDaviesDP take your time I am waiting.
commenting is mixed with the B roll， makes it uneasy to listen and comprehend
Can you talk about cinematography from Kingsman: The Secret Service or The Golden Circle?
100%
Love those films, so that's a brilliant suggestion.
I might do them both in the same video as well...
@@AngusDaviesDP thank you! I really love the cinematography from these movies.
Even though Deakins is insanely talented, I think Skyfall is the worst looking of all the Craig era films. Digital cameras weren't where they are now in 2012 and it shows.
100%%%
Deakins is overrated. Shot it digitally and you can tell alot of night scenes were shot high iso with practicals. Lazy as F. Quantum of Solace was a better looking movie. No Time To Die was back to shooting on film. I think Deakins needs to be called out more for being overhyped.
Blade Runner 2049 alone justifies his status
I was on set with Deakins while he was working - shooting interiors and exteriors - and I can assure you: he' is not 'lazy as F.'
I mostly agree with your take on Deakins.
I've always found something a little strange about many people who celebrate Deakins.
Deakins himself said: "people confuse 'pretty' with good cinematography". Yet, most people who celebrate Deakins celebrate the pretty pictures in Blade Runner 2049, Skyfall, etc.
Don't get me wrong, he's good at his job and I do think he works hard, however he is not special. And his work in Skyfall is really not that special. It's pretty standard. Silhouette shots every 5 minutes does not make for remarkable cinematography. Also, every "trick" used for the blocking has been done for decades.
Firstly, when you have a $200 million- of course it is going to have some neat visuals. Hell, all Skyfall can stand on is its pretty pictures, because writing wise... it's a pretentious, bitter and mean-spirited movie. It does not deserve the respect it gets. And is definitely one of the most overrated pieces of modern cinema (yeah, unpopular opinion).
Secondly, in the past decade, there has been far more impressive cinematography from people who aren't Deakins. Rob Hardy- MI Fallout, John Seale- Mad Max Fury Road, Greig Fraser- Dune, George Richmond- Kingman...
Even if you compare other spy movies from the 2010s, what MI- Fallout and Kingsman were able to accomplish with the camera is far more impressive than Skyfall. Additionally, those movies also actually had great writing... great character work, great stories, and themes that weren't pretentious.
I agree with you that Deakins is overrated and overhyped.
I used to love talking about movies, but in the past decade the industry has become more and more pretentious. Hollywood is the land of pretentious, condescending, mean-spirited hacks and more recently woke activists.
You’re a below novice troll.
@@StandTheOffensive You probably love Nolan shitty movies 🤣🤣
Unpopular opinion: Skyfall gets far too much than it deserves. It's one of the most overrated pieces of modern cinema.
There is a lot of pretty visuals, however the cinematography really isn't that special or innovative. Other spy films from the 2010s, like Kingsman and Mission: Impossible (Fallout especially) have far more remarkable cinematography.
Also, It’s a pretentious, bitter and mean-spirited film.
A common trend in a lot of modern Hollywood franchise flicks, is deconstructing and sometimes disrespecting what came before, as well as making the Legacy character(s) dull, bitter, mostly incompetent a*holes. I used to think The Force Awakens was the first to do it, but it might have been Skyfall.
Additionally, the film has an incredibly mean-spirited and tone-deaf character treatment. They introduce a character that was sex-trafficked as a child and enslaved for most of her life. Only to get a false sense of hope before getting tortured, brutalised and then brutally killed as the person who promised to save her just looks on disinterested. A lot of people say the film humanises Bond. I’m not sure how. I don’t think exploiting and placing false hope in someone who was enslaved and lived in fear for most of their life, only to let them down when it mattered the most and show disinterest in their death- humanises Bond.
I also feel really bad for the actress- Berenice Marlohe. She was able to land the enormous honour of being a Bond girl without an agent, in a foreign country. That is not an ideal areas easy feat. In interviews and articles I’ve seen she took pride in her character. Unfortunately, the filmmakers didn’t. They were looking for “new talent”- or an actress no one would care about to play a character they didn’t care about. And as a result, Skyfall has one of the, if not the, most mean-spirited and tone deaf character treatments in the franchise.
Additionally, Bond is incompetent for most of the movie. He fails in the beginning, granted some of that was M’s fault. He fails Severine. He fails to protect M, the most imposing person in MI6 and British Security. And he learns nothing from his failures.
Moreover, decisions in the film make no sense. Why would you send an agent poisoned with Uranium to track down and capture someone who’s already killed several MI6 agents and destroyed your main HQ? And why would you contain such a threat in a room where there’s an escape hatch like 10 feet away? Why would you defend the most important person in British security in an abandoned, isolated house that is barely armed? Why wouldn’t MI6 send backup? They made the trail for Silva to follow. Why didn’t Bond get the drop on Silva before he made his shot? He’s at a similar tactical position. Why doesn’t M trust Bond in the beginning of the film? Their arc in Quantum was her learning to trust him. Did the writers forget?
Also, how Silva is able to execute his plan makes no sense.
There are just so many contrivances, conveniences and inconsistencies. It’s a badly written film.
I also don't think a lot of themes work. The "Old Ways are better". They get the most important person in British Security killed and they fail numerous times throughout the film, and as a result innocent people get killed. I've seen many say the film is about combining the old and new. We never see both working collectively and effectively. Death and Rebirth is another one thrown around. Again, Bond is mostly incompetent. If he "died" in the beginning, he's never as "reborn" as something effective. He fails most of his tasks. And well kill Silva, he was going to kill himself with M- so Bond really didn't do much. I guess Silva didn't get the satisfaction he craved, but again... couldn't protect the most important person in MI6. That's a loss of far greater value.
Additionally, both Mendes and Bardem said they took major inspiration from The Dark Knight. Both do share a common theme in that they ask whether the main character is still need. Only The Dark Knight justifies its main characters existence. Batman is still effective at his job.
Anyway... I am sorry for the long reply. If you did read all the way through- Thank you. You and many other people like, even love this movie. Unfortunately, I don't share the same sentiment. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. To each their own.
Just took the time to tell you nobody is reading all of of this BS, put it on a blog.
Also, your examples of films that exceed this in cinematography are laughable, especially since fallout took a ton of cues from this. I’m sure it hurts to realize a film 10 years old is still visually superior to your modern favorites, but life must go on. 🤣
@@kingchaos6050 Silhouette shots are very innovative. Skyfall is using the same techniques used nearly a century ago.
Also, I don’t remember you’re pretentious movie strapping IMAX cameras to helicopters, a Two Camera Ops performing a Halo jump or pretty high octane fight scenes.
I’m not bashing Skyfall’s cinematography, but to pretend it’s something special when hundreds of movies achieve the same thing is a little dishonest.
Also, you read all of my “BS” and it got to you. Hence, you wouldn’t of replied. So someone did read it.
@@StandTheOffensive I definitely didn’t read all that BS you wrote, and never will. Despite all of the technical advances of the films you mentioned, Skyfall still looks better than them all, despite being 10 years older. No time to die did a damn good job though, outside of the ridiculous at times color grading. Know when to bow down!
@@kingchaos6050 Take your own advise. There’s multiple movies that were able achieve far greater than Skyfall. And No Time To Die(dies at the end).
Another Tom Cruise movie- Top Gun: Maverick completely outclasses Skyfall on both a writing and technical level. Same with Kingsman 1 and Fallout.