It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yep, exactly. Using an old photograph would look rubbish; it's far easier and more controllable to shoot new footage.
Combined with the fact that it's a different face :D
Read the quote. He said that for whatever reason the picture of Craig in tandem with the way the crack was placed didn't give a proper sense that it was Craig. This is what he felt at least. He says he had to 'widen' the image to make it fit.
Just imagine Craig's head in the final image has had two large fingers placed on his temples and they have squeezed ever so slightly. I think this is is essentially what's happened during this process. By comparison the first image is closer (or at least pushed in to make the face fill the crack more fully/look closer) so the features seem wider by comparison.
It is interesting that people can see different things, isn't it? Honestly, I can't see anyone other than Craig in these two images. I certainly can't see a 9 year old...
Then it might be an unused promo shot for CR or QOS. Or test footage. Or any number of things that would have required such a shot to be taken. Like I said, Kleinman would have had access to that, not just the final films. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
It's definitely softened to my eye. Regardless of who it is. You can see from the skin. The last image of Craig also looks higher resolution and the eyes are much sharper even with the motion blur. That's why I'm inclined to believe the second image was shot with a more modern camera than the first one.
It wouldn't blow the budget, but it'd be an unnecessary expense for something so small. These things aren't cheap. Again, it's not just the kid, it's the handler, the crew, the space needed. Like I said, going from Kleinman's interviews it seems even the stuff he did with Craig was after a days work, probably when they were in London. He even frames it less as 'this was something he needed to do' more than it seemed to be a favour almost. Like they were using spaces and equipment/costumes already there.
It's also worth saying that reusing footage from previous films and repurposing them is seen throughout the Craig era. Look at how many times Vesper, Le Chiffre, Silva etc all pop up in photographs in SP. All are from bits of footage in the previous films or from promo material. They've just been photo edited to suit whatever they're trying to do. Because y'know, it'd be expensive and pointless bringing the actors back in.
Surely the idea that Kleinman is used to working under deadlines and being resourceful would support the idea that he'd have been able to find a previous image of Craig and have fitted his work around it?
The BTS issue is another thing. I don't think people realise the logistics it takes organising all this, the amount of time to even get relatively simple images for these things. Even before his day shoot with Craig Kleinman would have had to have prepared and have made sure he knew what he wanted in order to work with the material. It would have been great BTS material at least, and certainly an interesting bit of trivia. I doubt BTS footage/photographs would have missed such a thing, or at least not have been made publicly available nor have been even mentioned 10 years after this film came out.
I don't think we're going to get to a conclusion without a definitive answer, ideally from someone in the know. I know the titles for SF was completed at Framestore's London office. I used to work at a Post-Production house in Soho as an assistant (I'm not a VFX artist to make clear, and again I have no definitive insight into what was done with this particular work) and do know some people who still work in that industry around London. I'm not sure if anyone with two degrees of separation from me works for Framestore, and even if they do likely not 10 years ago, but I can ask around. Not sure if this would open up any leads to anyone else if Kleimnan's company doesn't bite.
:)) Yes, it does feel like that doesn't it?
BTS wouldn't have been there because, as you say, Framestore/RattlingStick was working on this, so they didn't have a constant BTS team like you'd probably have at a Pinewood set etc.
I do agree... it's weird it's never mentioned, Craig or stranger either way. I also just emailed some Framestore folks. Told them I'm working on a 60th Anniversary story and this topic came up. Not untrue.
I doubt it'd be an intern's job. It's not hard per say, but you don't want to mess it up. Also there are lots of other things that'd need considering like assistants for the lighting, the space needed etc.
I suspect if anything the image of the 'older' Craig was done to match the first. Which could have come from previous footage or an old picture of Craig or whatever. Again, nothing about the shadows, contrast etc. looks like it couldn't have been accomplished through post-production.
Possibly, but it seems like something they'd be keen on getting snaps of, especially f they were in London. And also keep in mind, Kleinman has done interviews about his process on this piece. He's pretty open about what he did, what thought he put into all this etc. Not once does he mention a child model, and it's a pretty glaring omission. It's far more likely he'd have neglected to mention using an old image of Craig for the first 'priest hole' motif rather than completely missed the fact that a child was brought in.
I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?
For whatever reason, it just wasn't a big deal, or they didn't want it to be a big deal. It would totally change that kids life to throw him into stardom and call out his tiny role. His family may have opted not to do that, who knows. I think they brought in someone who looked right and took a photo for three seconds of film, and that was that.
I hope we find out.
Though, the "woman holding a gun" in the TS is credited, but this Bond person is not. It's very strange. FWIW, the Amazon trivia overlay for the movie shows the scene starring Craig when it's on the boy's frame.
I'm going to play my Joker card. I think it's @DewiWynBond ... He's been applying for the main role in B26 and fooled us all along. He was already in a Bond movie.
Is there a thread for this on the Skyfall board? Just thinking we could move the discussion there / make a thread for it and get back to castings here as this might rumble on for a while :).
Things can change subject to casting although it makes sense to go with a relatively younger actor.
At this point there are definitely a few picks that would be disappointing, but anything is workable. I predict it will still be at least a year.
I think it might be a mistake for Smith to take on another another career shadowing role. Over the last 9 years, he has shaken off The Doctor, and has been carving out a good career for himself.
It's funny, at the time, I wanted David Morrisey as The Doctor. But now I can't imagine anyone other than Matt Smith taking over at that time.
Who played Bond in, say, the GoldenEye credits? It’s not Brosnan. These things don’t really become common knowledge.
Anyway, from one bizarre conspiracy theory to another: I was at the Sound of 007 concert tonight and who did I spot… but Aaron Taylor Johnson… ;)
According to 'Art Of The Title' it's Eddie Kidd. Full credits list can be found here:
https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/goldeneye/
Eddie Kidd?! How bizarre! Just the year before his terrible injury. I guess I can kind of see it being him. Maybe they’ll get around to listing who’s young Bond in SF at some point.
Actually I didn't realise until now who he was/the fact that he was also a stunt double in GE. Makes sense actually.
The people in those two photos are definitely not the same.
I cannot believe this is still going on.
Yes. cgi-tweaked.