I think a good example of that is the
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
The bridge scene does feel like Abrams took the day off and Paramount got Bay in to direct.
I don't think so. the style in that sequence is altogether different in design from the action throughout most of Star Trek 1 or 2 or TFA. The bridge has that Bay-style montage where half the scene is made of zooming tilting shots of military hardware and explosions and sorta-slo-mo. Sure, it has some of Abams' hallmarks (he's uncomfortable with wide shots), but ultimately it reveal his Bay roots more than any other scene he's done. helicopter scene is a close second though. (I don't love either scene)ArmandFancypants wrote: ↑August 14th, 2018, 12:27 am...but it bears all the hallmarks of Abrams' approach to action...
-Vader
But it also spends few moments with the characters and show the environment, like Star Trek.
In action scenes, Bay's characters are just talking about whatever they're doing, if not straight up barking orders and teleporting around.
In action scenes, Bay's characters are just talking about whatever they're doing, if not straight up barking orders and teleporting around.
Posts: 55632
Joined:
May 2010
M:I III is in-your-face action because M:I is all about closeups in general, McQ talked about it extensively during Empire podcast recently, whoever comes in to shoot the mission needs to adapt to its style, not the other way round. It's just so happens to mash together well with Abrams' style of directing in general. 🕷
Domestically so far it has been ahead of the past three installments in a similar timeframe.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns ... 018&p=.htm
Internationally it has opened up higher than Rogue Nation in pretty much all the big markets. It now all depends on China. Rogue did about 135M there. If Taiwan and Hong Kong are any indications, this should do better.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?p ... id=mi5.htm
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?p ... ible6.htm
£
I was fine with the end of it. The Jules factor was huge for me. I didn't like the "punching the heart to wake him up" thing, but I was fine with the rest.
Also, the opening credits don't spoil other highlight moments in the rest of the film lol. I personally know better than to leave my eyes open the first time watching the films, but other people don't and they get certain beats no longer come as a surprise to them if they see them and retain those images.
Well, as the choice of DOP suggests I think it (and the film in general) owes more to Tony Scott than Bay. Bay tries for (and fails, IMO) for something a bit more balletic, Scott is more... well, what people accuse Paul Greengrass of being. But moreso.Vader182 wrote: ↑August 14th, 2018, 12:55 amI don't think so. the style in that sequence is altogether different in design from the action throughout most of Star Trek 1 or 2 or TFA. The bridge has that Bay-style montage where half the scene is made of zooming tilting shots of military hardware and explosions and sorta-slo-mo. Sure, it has some of Abams' hallmarks (he's uncomfortable with wide shots), but ultimately it reveal his Bay roots more than any other scene he's done. helicopter scene is a close second though. (I don't love either scene)
-Vader
I think the premise of the scene might be the Bay thing but the way it's shot, with its artificial zooms, whip-pans, and dollies on objects (only once in that sequence but still) is pretty much still how Abrams rolls. Yes there's the classic Bay explosions in background, but...