SPECTRE Trailer/TV Spot Thread - NEW TV Spots Page 117 - Final Trailer Page 106

1106107109111112119

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I should not have overreacted ...everyone is entitled to opinion and comment.

    Just got to me. Sorry :(
  • JCRendle wrote: »
    Maybe I need to get new glasses. The last trailer is great and I don't see how anyone can say the effects work in the collapsing building is poor.

    What does this reviewer see that I don't???



    I couldn't listen to much of that review. Very annoying. Desperation? I don't see it as desperation at all, it's been handled very well - slowly showing us more and more.


    I agree. That review of the trailer is just annoying. She did though really like the 2nd trailer. I still don't understand how she can say the effects look unfinished.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    JCRendle wrote: »
    Maybe I need to get new glasses. The last trailer is great and I don't see how anyone can say the effects work in the collapsing building is poor.

    What does this reviewer see that I don't???



    I couldn't listen to much of that review. Very annoying. Desperation? I don't see it as desperation at all, it's been handled very well - slowly showing us more and more.


    I agree. That review of the trailer is just annoying. She did though really like the 2nd trailer. I still don't understand how she can say the effects look unfinished.

    For attention I believe. I know Bond will be third most likely in the battle among SW HG and Bond... but that's ok. Bond has enough fans to keep going.

    Those two others appeal to a much broader audience. A 50+ year old franchise with 23 films under its belt who else can boast that

  • Posts: 5,989
    What I'm waiting for is someone with more technical know-how than I have doing a mix and match ful trailer featuring everything we've seen so far. For all I know, maybe it's in the works. Anyone ? Ferris ? Anyone ?
  • Posts: 2,081
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    JCRendle wrote: »
    Maybe I need to get new glasses. The last trailer is great and I don't see how anyone can say the effects work in the collapsing building is poor.

    What does this reviewer see that I don't???



    I couldn't listen to much of that review. Very annoying. Desperation? I don't see it as desperation at all, it's been handled very well - slowly showing us more and more.


    I agree. That review of the trailer is just annoying. She did though really like the 2nd trailer. I still don't understand how she can say the effects look unfinished.

    For attention I believe. I know Bond will be third most likely in the battle among SW HG and Bond... but that's ok. Bond has enough fans to keep going.

    Those two others appeal to a much broader audience.
    A 50+ year old franchise with 23 films under its belt who else can boast that

    Do they really? Ok, that's news to me. I've always been under the impression that Bond appeals to a very broad and varied audience across the globe, male and female, young (starting with kids) and old and in between.

    I haven't seen any HG movies and don't know what the appeal is. I don't personally know people who have seen any, either. I watched SW teaser trailers and they were like last week's dinner warmed up in the, eh, science oven, in other words not particularly appealing, and at least as of now I have no interest whatsoever in going to see that one, either. It's unclear to me what the broad appeal would be - I understand boys and huge fans of the originals, but other than that...?

    I have a very long list of movies coming up this year or next year or still in the works that I'm very much looking forward to, and neither of those is on that list. Spectre obviously is. I even have friends who will see that - and probably not the other two.
  • Based on all these trailers for SP. SP will outperform Hunger Games in the international market.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Based on all these trailers for SP. SP will outperform Hunger Games in the international market.

    This. Overall it'll be closer because of Hunger Games having 3D outside the US. In the US Hunger Games is beating Bond for sure, the inverse for outside the US.
  • Posts: 15,106
    I am late on the news because I was traveling and I am jet-lagged, but what an amazing trailer! I loved it.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    GE had sub par effects ..nothing like DF but not to standard.

    But then the GE PTS was OTT and the effects added to that fantasy.

    Again the stunt is fine. If we didn't have it then everyone would be complaining the action wasn't creative.

    If it bothers you that much go see HG with that reviewer.

    You know, let's talk about special effects on the whole, regardless if they are CGI enhanced or solely practical effects.

    Let's have a look at some of the most disturbing, fake screenshots in the history of the Bond franchise. Some that still irritate me the first time I saw a particular Bond film:

    "GoldenEye":
    Goldeneye-0114.jpg
    Goldeneye-0117.jpg
    This 'revolving' screen at the back...is just insanely fake. It never worked for me, and it does make the PTS for "GoldenEye" a bit of a disappointing affair for me. Is it CGI? No. But it's definately bad. These were the 90's I guess....

    "Quantum Of Solace":
    Quantum-of-Solace-1524.jpg
    Quantum-of-Solace-1520.jpg
    Now this is a mixture of real-life effects with CGI. They used a skydiving machine for this, but the overall result is simply.......bad. So far, from all the 3/4 Bond films of the Craig-era, I think this easily stands out as the worst:
    inskydiv.jpg

    "Thunderball":
    Thunderball-026.jpg
    Thunderball-023.jpg
    An example of backlit-screen that didn't work for me. Ask today's teenagers, and for them this movie hasn't aged well. They probably would say: "Man, that CGI looks fake!". The thing is however, Bond films in those days were new. They did show us things that many audiences didn't see before. Obviously, those audiences didn't mind these flawed special effects. It says something of today's society really, and how over-critical we have become. I would have loved to live in the 1960's :-).

    "The Man With The Golden Gun":
    The-Man-With-the-Golden-Gun-778.jpg
    This must be one of the fakest clouds I ever saw in a Bond film. The 'practical special effect' here? Take a piece of wood. Saw out a cloud from it. Paint it. Lit it. Some smoke, and that's it. Man it looks fake.

    "Live And Let Die":
    live_and_let_die_yaphet_kotto_death.jpg
    And man, are we Bond fans still amused by this image. It gives the film perhaps a bit of 'evergreen'-status. But...if we're so damn critical about today's Bond films, shouldn't we condemn this special effect in hindsight?? A person on set should have literally screamed "Noooo!"

    "Die Another Day"
    Die-Another-Day-Colonel-Moon-Will-Yun-Lee.png
    1420058083691
    Obviously, I could have posted the screenshots from that parasailing scene on that ice-tsunami. But, above examples are perhaps as bad. And note the color grading on "Die Another Day" as well. They used a lit of color filters on that film that made it look grey-ish, cold and bland really.

    My point really: Criticism is OK. But there's a time and place for criticism. And that is, at least form me, after November 6th, when I saw "SPECTRE". On top of that, I do believe that we need to see some perspective on these discussions; discussions related to all these technical elements of filmmaking. There are a lot of fans in here who are not experts on filmmaking, but who enjoyed ever Bond film so far in cinema. By reading all this criticism-in-advance of the film, it seriously makes the fun go away a bit. You start paying attention to these details when you actually see the film the 1st time in cinema.

    Sometimes, I would have liked to be a kid from the 1960's. A 10-year old kid whose first Bond film in cinema was "From Russia With Love" instead of a way newer Bond film :-)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    This trailer will have me live through several sleepless nights in early November.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    This trailer will have me live through several sleepless nights in early November.

    Dat geldt ook voor mij ;-). Ik ben diep onder de indruk van alle promo tot dusver van "SPECTRE". Je zou b.v. even deze hele lijst terug kunnen kijken ;-):

    12.04.2014: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #1: Teaser #1 / Title Treatment:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsTLoq6jdg

    02.11.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#1 "Austria Shooting / Ice Chase":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYKB75aIHWE

    02.26.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#2 "Pinewood Shooting / UK Shooting":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ez7ZYceOs

    03.27.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #2: Teaser #2:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvQJbF2CXLQ

    04.30.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#3 "Rome Shooting / Car Chase":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BhuxLVMj4U

    06.10.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #3: TV Trailer no#1:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WJ8WxCA-fA

    06.15.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#4 "Mexico Preparations 'Day Of The Dead' ":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lUusnn7puQ

    07.22.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #4: Full Theatrical Trailer #1:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujmoYyEyDP8

    08.13.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#5 "The Bond-Girls Of SPECTRE":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-4YYgbZtI

    09.10.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #5: TV Trailer no#2:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU2xwrwWaQQ

    09.23.2015: "SPECTRE" Videoblog no#6 "The Action Of SPECTRE":
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej9kDTw6RgA

    09.24.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #6: TV Trailer no#3:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB-qpkEABr4

    02.10.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #7: TV Trailer no#4:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEKtbGYFowQ

    02.10.2015: "SPECTRE" Official Trailer #8: Full Theatrical (IMAX) Trailer no#2:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4UDNzXD3qA
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ok @GG ... and I don't know about Kanaga. Cajun food has the same affect on me :P
  • Posts: 12,526
    /\ That LALD photo of Kanaga is hilarious!!!! :))
  • Posts: 2,081
    And man, are we Bond fans still amused by this image. It gives the film perhaps a bit of 'evergreen'-status. But...if we're so damn critical about today's Bond films, shouldn't we condemn this special effect in hindsight?? A person on set should have literally screamed "Noooo!"

    Still? I never was, even when I was young.

    And I agree, it would be nicer to read detailed criticism of technical aspects and whatnot after having seen the movie rather than in advance, but I guess it's my own fault not having left the forum. I don't expect any of that will harm the movie-watching experience, or at least I hope it won't.

  • I’d just like to add my two cents to the conversation about the colour-grading.

    You'd have to suspect that the thinking behind muting the lovely reds/pinks/greens we saw in the Day of the Dead on-set footage is the wish to lend grit or realism, to dial down the fantastical side of Bond. In my very humble opinion, it shows insecurity in the same way that QoS’s modish editing betrayed insecurity (the superfast edits are gonna make us look cutting-edge, ‘tough’, not silly etc – a choice which now looks not only bad but dated.) I also think that understanding the relationship between James Bond and a vivid, intensely technicolor colour palette is very important to locating that elusive Bond feel.

    Apologies in advance for a long post: I’m thinking aloud, really. To me, what Martin Campbell and Phil Meheux (and EON, too, I guess) did on Casino Royale was daring and gutsy and artistically spot on. The Bahamas, Lake Como and, especially, the casino are jewel-bright and stuffed with overlush primary colours: it’s unapologetically ‘glamorous’ and it works because it’s a deliberate update of the Technicolor 60’s colour photography that’s absolutely part of James Bond’s lifeblood. It took balls to shoot the film like that; to recall, at the height Bourne-mania, North by Northwest, Charade (remember that?), some of the Connery Bonds, even a touch of Gordon Willis.

    But it was also the right choice, IMO. Maybe the key visual idea of Bond is the Pulp Fiction-y one of a (deadly) character in sharp black and white moving through a world of vivid colour. (This whole thing started with Sylvia Trench sitting at a swathe of green baize in a bright red gown and emerald brooch opposite, when we finally see him, a man in a somehow incredibly, deeply black tuxedo.) The classic Bond contrast between the bright colours and pastels of exotic outdoor locations (the world of your ideal luxury holiday, so to speak, or of Mr White’s villa – I love the geraniums in that scene) and the greys and silvers of the villain’s lair, guns, machinery etc (the world underneath it) is the same basic idea. Bond films deal with sumptuous but sickening opulence, corrupt luxury etc and the intense, oversaturated colours are a part of that feel – James Bond’s real problem, which the dinner scene with Dr No perfectly stages, is to enjoy life to the full but not to excess; the villain is the person who always overdoes it, tips over into decadence. Bond’s world is full of bright glamorous colours; the villain’s world is where that tendency becomes garish, vulgar, overdone, nauseating - even if it’s minimalistic. That’s the opposition at the very heart of Bond, which Casino Royale understood and expressed beautifully through its cinematography (the relaxed, natural sky blues of Bond living it up with Vesper versus the oppressive intensity of the casino colours.)

    Of course it’s only one aspect of the look of Bond, and absolutely something that often has to be dialled down. But the attitude behind the look of a Bond movie should always be: be bold, and steer as close as you can to the possibility of being called ludicrous – because that’s where the magic happens. Deakins and Mendes nailed Shanghai. The whole Patrice sequence, especially the ‘neon jellyfish’ fight is quite, quite brilliant mainly because, visually, it’s by far the most unabashed and fxxx-it-let’s-do-it beautiful moment in SF and, for me, the best thing in the whole movie. And the scene with Severine in the skyscraper works so brilliantly because you know that Bond (the man who is constantly making aesthetic judgements about the design of cars, clothes, architecture, everything, who appreciates beauty in general, and in fact knows who the villains are simply by noting that their taste is a bit off) is taking a millisecond to be awed by the beauty of the tableau – the girl, the painting, the wind in the drapes, the neon jellyfish. It would be a different, lesser, scene with Jason Bourne. No other spy or action hero has this aspect – I’d argue that it’s the one thing that makes Bond special and unique. That Ken Adam emphasis on design and aesthetics, and how much it says about character.

    It would be completely insane to suggest that the colour-grading might ruin or spoil the movie. But I am saying that the yellow, or ochre, grade and its toning-down, washing-out effects bespeak an odd unconfidence to me. I don’t think it’s there to make the film look more beautiful but, defensively, to make it look more ‘grown-up’ and it seems a weirdly irrelevant thing to bother with – and makes me nervous about other, more important, decisions. For me it all looks a little Mendesish – dipping your toe in the waters of ‘classic’ Bond and then half-retreating, afraid to fully commit. I guess I’m saying that if you decide, “Let’s do it, Babs, let’s have Spectre, and Nehru jackets, and a lair in the desert!” you don’t simply balance out all that Bondian excess by sticking a post-it on the DoP’s lunchbox saying ‘Dear Hoyte, pls bleach out desert sky & sand & then grade it all ‘realistically’. We don’t want to look camp, love Sam.’ It makes you look uncertain. It’s like painting Jill Masterson gold and then worrying that the shot looks…a bit too gold.

    It’s only a colour-grade, I know! And I could be wrong. But I do absolutely love Madeleine Swann’s train dress.
  • Posts: 498
    I agree with your last para whole heartedly @BombeSurprise
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree wholeheartedly with your post @BombeSurprise. Well said.

    Especially regarding CR. What a bold approach indeed by Campbell & Co.
    Apologies in advance for a long post: I’m thinking aloud, really. To me, what Martin Campbell and Phil Meheux (and EON, too, I guess) did on Casino Royale was daring and gutsy and artistically spot on. The Bahamas, Lake Como and, especially, the casino are jewel-bright and stuffed with overlush primary colours: it’s unapologetically ‘glamorous’ and it works because it’s a deliberate update of the Technicolor 60’s colour photography that’s absolutely part of James Bond’s lifeblood. It took balls to shoot the film like that; to recall, at the height Bourne-mania, North by Northwest, Charade (remember that?), some of the Connery Bonds, even a touch of Gordon Willis.

    Once again, 100% agree with your statements below. SF Shanghai is the best part, cinematically, of that film for me. Very Bondish.
    But the attitude behind the look of a Bond movie should always be: be bold, and steer as close as you can to the possibility of being called ludicrous – because that’s where the magic happens. Deakins and Mendes nailed Shanghai. The whole Patrice sequence, especially the ‘neon jellyfish’ fight is quite, quite brilliant mainly because, visually, it’s by far the most unabashed and fxxx-it-let’s-do-it beautiful moment in SF and, for me, the best thing in the whole movie. And the scene with Severine in the skyscraper works so brilliantly because you know that Bond (the man who is constantly making aesthetic judgements about the design of cars, clothes, architecture, everything, who appreciates beauty in general, and in fact knows who the villains are simply by noting that their taste is a bit off) is taking a millisecond to be awed by the beauty of the tableau – the girl, the painting, the wind in the drapes, the neon jellyfish. It would be a different, lesser, scene with Jason Bourne. No other spy or action hero has this aspect – I’d argue that it’s the one thing that makes Bond special and unique. That Ken Adam emphasis on design and aesthetics, and how much it says about character.

    PS: I like Maddy's blue dress too.
  • Posts: 2,081
    An excellent post, @BombeSurprise, a joy to read.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    @Gustav_Graves: I noticed the car, too. I think you're right about the type of car it is. I had initially thought it was the Roll Royce Phantom III, similarly to the one Goldfinger drove:

    au045-rolls-royce-phantom-iii-stoke-park-goldfinger.jpg?itok=1PzeQX88

    As for the CGI: Let's not forget that GE is 20 years old and DAD is 13 years old. The technology keeps getting better.
  • Posts: 7,653
    TripAces wrote: »
    As for the CGI: Let's not forget that GE is 20 years old and DAD is 13 years old. The technology keeps getting better.

    How come that the SFX on Moonraker, a much older movie look so brilliant? It is all a matter of using sfx wisely and then if you must go to the best. NO bargain basement shite as has been the case in recent 007 movies. They make tom Cruise's MI series look brilliant by comparison.
  • Posts: 11,119
    TripAces wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves: I noticed the car, too. I think you're right about the type of car it is. I had initially thought it was the Roll Royce Phantom III, similarly to the one Goldfinger drove:

    au045-rolls-royce-phantom-iii-stoke-park-goldfinger.jpg?itok=1PzeQX88

    As for the CGI: Let's not forget that GE is 20 years old and DAD is 13 years old. The technology keeps getting better.

    Today's CGI is the practical effects of gone days. Indeed, the technology is getting better and better. But a scene like that from the "GoldenEye" PTS.....should not have been included with today's critical social media standards. But back in 1995 people couldn't care less and loved that bit of 'ridiculousness'.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    I posted this in the production timeline thread yesterday...
    I know nothing about cinematography, but to me this looks unlike any other Bond movie. The colours seem a bit yellowish and bright, especially in daylight scenes. Kinda similar to CSI: Miami and Swordfish (the film with John Travolta, Hugh Jackman and Halle Berry). Is this just for the trailer?

    ... and I was surprised nobody else had anything to say about it.

    Today I entered this thread for the first time, and read a thorough analysis of SPECTRE cinematography. B-)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited October 2015 Posts: 11,139
    Edit
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    I’d just like to add my two cents to the conversation about the colour-grading.

    You'd have to suspect that the thinking behind muting the lovely reds/pinks/greens we saw in the Day of the Dead on-set footage is the wish to lend grit or realism, to dial down the fantastical side of Bond. In my very humble opinion, it shows insecurity in the same way that QoS’s modish editing betrayed insecurity (the superfast edits are gonna make us look cutting-edge, ‘tough’, not silly etc – a choice which now looks not only bad but dated.) I also think that understanding the relationship between James Bond and a vivid, intensely technicolor colour palette is very important to locating that elusive Bond feel.

    Apologies in advance for a long post: I’m thinking aloud, really. To me, what Martin Campbell and Phil Meheux (and EON, too, I guess) did on Casino Royale was daring and gutsy and artistically spot on. The Bahamas, Lake Como and, especially, the casino are jewel-bright and stuffed with overlush primary colours: it’s unapologetically ‘glamorous’ and it works because it’s a deliberate update of the Technicolor 60’s colour photography that’s absolutely part of James Bond’s lifeblood. It took balls to shoot the film like that; to recall, at the height Bourne-mania, North by Northwest, Charade (remember that?), some of the Connery Bonds, even a touch of Gordon Willis.

    But it was also the right choice, IMO. Maybe the key visual idea of Bond is the Pulp Fiction-y one of a (deadly) character in sharp black and white moving through a world of vivid colour. (This whole thing started with Sylvia Trench sitting at a swathe of green baize in a bright red gown and emerald brooch opposite, when we finally see him, a man in a somehow incredibly, deeply black tuxedo.) The classic Bond contrast between the bright colours and pastels of exotic outdoor locations (the world of your ideal luxury holiday, so to speak, or of Mr White’s villa – I love the geraniums in that scene) and the greys and silvers of the villain’s lair, guns, machinery etc (the world underneath it) is the same basic idea. Bond films deal with sumptuous but sickening opulence, corrupt luxury etc and the intense, oversaturated colours are a part of that feel – James Bond’s real problem, which the dinner scene with Dr No perfectly stages, is to enjoy life to the full but not to excess; the villain is the person who always overdoes it, tips over into decadence. Bond’s world is full of bright glamorous colours; the villain’s world is where that tendency becomes garish, vulgar, overdone, nauseating - even if it’s minimalistic. That’s the opposition at the very heart of Bond, which Casino Royale understood and expressed beautifully through its cinematography (the relaxed, natural sky blues of Bond living it up with Vesper versus the oppressive intensity of the casino colours.)

    Of course it’s only one aspect of the look of Bond, and absolutely something that often has to be dialled down. But the attitude behind the look of a Bond movie should always be: be bold, and steer as close as you can to the possibility of being called ludicrous – because that’s where the magic happens. Deakins and Mendes nailed Shanghai. The whole Patrice sequence, especially the ‘neon jellyfish’ fight is quite, quite brilliant mainly because, visually, it’s by far the most unabashed and fxxx-it-let’s-do-it beautiful moment in SF and, for me, the best thing in the whole movie. And the scene with Severine in the skyscraper works so brilliantly because you know that Bond (the man who is constantly making aesthetic judgements about the design of cars, clothes, architecture, everything, who appreciates beauty in general, and in fact knows who the villains are simply by noting that their taste is a bit off) is taking a millisecond to be awed by the beauty of the tableau – the girl, the painting, the wind in the drapes, the neon jellyfish. It would be a different, lesser, scene with Jason Bourne. No other spy or action hero has this aspect – I’d argue that it’s the one thing that makes Bond special and unique. That Ken Adam emphasis on design and aesthetics, and how much it says about character.

    It would be completely insane to suggest that the colour-grading might ruin or spoil the movie. But I am saying that the yellow, or ochre, grade and its toning-down, washing-out effects bespeak an odd unconfidence to me. I don’t think it’s there to make the film look more beautiful but, defensively, to make it look more ‘grown-up’ and it seems a weirdly irrelevant thing to bother with – and makes me nervous about other, more important, decisions. For me it all looks a little Mendesish – dipping your toe in the waters of ‘classic’ Bond and then half-retreating, afraid to fully commit. I guess I’m saying that if you decide, “Let’s do it, Babs, let’s have Spectre, and Nehru jackets, and a lair in the desert!” you don’t simply balance out all that Bondian excess by sticking a post-it on the DoP’s lunchbox saying ‘Dear Hoyte, pls bleach out desert sky & sand & then grade it all ‘realistically’. We don’t want to look camp, love Sam.’ It makes you look uncertain. It’s like painting Jill Masterson gold and then worrying that the shot looks…a bit too gold.

    It’s only a colour-grade, I know! And I could be wrong. But I do absolutely love Madeleine Swann’s train dress.

    Great post. Agree with every word.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I should not have overreacted ...everyone is entitled to opinion and comment.

    Just got to me. Sorry :(

    No worries! I can't help but to go for the jugular when GE is brought up in a bad light. ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Fantastic post @BombeSurprise thanks for taking the time to write it. I fully agree with your outlook.
    Today's CGI is the practical effects of gone days.

    No it isn't. Practical effects are the practical effects of today. CGI is the optical/visual effects of today. That's why there are two distinct areas; visual effects and special effects. Bond has always been at the forefront of special effects and should continue to be, with Chris Corbould leading the vanguard. It looks like they've done some great work in SP (namely firing the plane through the lodge) and I'm really glad to see they did the helicopter stunts for real, it shows.

    On the other side of the coin - the visual effects in Bond should be used to compliment the work of the special effects team. When the balance leans too far towards visual effects the whole charade is blown. The modern examples you offered up, GE plane dive, the Jinx dive and the QoS skydive are guilty of this. This building scene falls into the same category. There's a lot of great complimentary CGI in Bond, even in the Brosnan era (a lot people wouldn't even notice) but once we start getting completely CG elements that are front and centre it starts to move away from the inherent realism Bond has to have.

    This might sound like nitpicking, but it's just an observation. It's not going to ruin the film and, hell, it might even look seamless to me when I see it, but judged on the trailer it strikes me as leaning too far into CGI territory for my liking.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 3,164
    Personally, I think that the un-natural grading, in SPECTRE's case, is meant to give the film a more elegant, larger than life quality, achieving that same goal @BombeSurprise described differently than 'turning up Technicolor to the max'. This isn't about being rough or tough or grown up or unconfident, in fact that's not the feeling I'm getting from the footage. It's not even a "realistic" grade, this is going in an opposite direction towards the same more fantastical larger than life goal. What I'm feeling (and this is even more evident in the fact that almost everywhere outside Bond-dedicated forums, I see nothing but praise for the cinematography) is that Bond fans would much prefer the Technicolor look as opposed to something more stylistic and experimental here. Sure it may not be a "Bond" thing to do and people here would much prefer they do it the "classic" Technicolor way. And sure, other movies also desaturate footage in the grading to some extent, but the way that's done here, instead of it being all cold/lifeless like Fincher but giving it a dominant colour feel for a particular setting, I like that approach, I don't think I've seen other films do this at all. In fact, wouldn't it be more interesting to ponder "what if Bond looked like that" than just wanting to make sure things stay as they are?

    That balance between taking risks/straying from the Bondian norm and binging back familiar elements is something I very much look forward to in this film. I think people don't give enough credit to Mendes and co for that.
  • Posts: 2,081
    Good points as well, @antovolk.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Yes, those are also good points @antovolk.

    I'm not sure if I'm necessarily going to like this 'experimental' approach as much (I can definitely sense/feel different dominant & uniform 'hues' in different settings from the trailer).

    Having said that, they should be commended for trying something different, and only once we see the entire film on the big screen a couple of times can we fully appreciate what they are trying to achieve here. It is novel for Bond certainly.
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    I should not have overreacted ...everyone is entitled to opinion and comment.

    Just got to me. Sorry :(

    One question : once you're out of the theater, do you think that as far as the PTS is concerned, you will be talking more about the Avengers CG jump on the rooftop, or the helicopter 360° with stuntmen hanging out of it, done for real ?

Sign In or Register to comment.