I've never noticed that before...

1104105107109110170

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    It does. Robert Rietti (aka Rietty) did a bunch of voices in Bond movies (and others). Almost as many as Nikki van der Zyl did for the female characters.

    All Rietty, then.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Just noticed / considered for the first time while whatching YOLT tonight . When Bond drops into Tanaka's office chair Tiger's cackle, laugh, voice and general faceless demeanour was a deliberate attempt to fool the audience of the time that this was Blofeld.
    The pre publicity had a heavy slant on Bond coming face to face with Blofeld for the first time so this scene set up was maybe a little attempt to wrong foot the audience. What does anyone else think?

    A very cool thought, @cwl007. I never really thought about this. I guess it's hard to, considering that I've long forgotten what my initial experience with YOLT was like, or if I was initially under the impression that Bond was meeting an enemy or even Blofeld himself. That being said, I think that just how early that moment happens in the film (almost minutes into Bond's time that we see in Japan) would pretty much disqualify him meeting Blofeld so soon, so I think most viewers would be led to believe that Bond isn't meeting the big bad just yet. The moment would assuredly make you at first doubt the nature of Tanaka, and if he's working on Bond's side, especially when Aki's behavior with Bond (running away and trapping him) could be seen as enemy actions and not those of a future ally.

    That part of the film at the very least does a nice job of making Bond feel like a fish out of water, surrounded by people he can't trust right off.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    oni%2Bni%2Bkanabo.jpg

    Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond. (Satanaka)
  • Posts: 1,917
    On the subject of the chute scene to Tiger's office, does anybody else think the back projection matched with Connery's surprised face as he's sliding down is goofy? It's quick, but amusing in a bad way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BT3366 wrote: »
    On the subject of the chute scene to Tiger's office, does anybody else think the back projection matched with Connery's surprised face as he's sliding down is goofy? It's quick, but amusing in a bad way.
    True, but I've always liked it. The almost 'flashing strobe' approach is somewhat trippy in a distinctly 50/60's way. Sort of Vertigo'ish
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    slightly off topic, but I never noticed how much present-day Sam Worthington looks like a younger Pierce Brosnan. I'm watching the series Manhunt: Unabomber. Uncanny-- same type of skin tone, there's something about expressions/expressiveness with the eyes and mouth... I don't notice it so much in stills from the series, but when I'm watching it, it's like a hard slap to my face every few scenes!
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Sounds good. Is that on Netflix?
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 19,339
    peter wrote: »
    slightly off topic, but I never noticed how much present-day Sam Worthington looks like a younger Pierce Brosnan. I'm watching the series Manhunt: Unabomber. Uncanny-- same type of skin tone, there's something about expressions/expressiveness with the eyes and mouth... I don't notice it so much in stills from the series, but when I'm watching it, it's like a hard slap to my face every few scenes!

    peter wrote: »
    slightly off topic, but I never noticed how much present-day Sam Worthington looks like a younger Pierce Brosnan. I'm watching the series Manhunt: Unabomber. Uncanny-- same type of skin tone, there's something about expressions/expressiveness with the eyes and mouth... I don't notice it so much in stills from the series, but when I'm watching it, it's like a hard slap to my face every few scenes!


    I cant stand that guy ,terrible actor.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    barryt007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    slightly off topic, but I never noticed how much present-day Sam Worthington looks like a younger Pierce Brosnan. I'm watching the series Manhunt: Unabomber. Uncanny-- same type of skin tone, there's something about expressions/expressiveness with the eyes and mouth... I don't notice it so much in stills from the series, but when I'm watching it, it's like a hard slap to my face every few scenes!

    peter wrote: »
    slightly off topic, but I never noticed how much present-day Sam Worthington looks like a younger Pierce Brosnan. I'm watching the series Manhunt: Unabomber. Uncanny-- same type of skin tone, there's something about expressions/expressiveness with the eyes and mouth... I don't notice it so much in stills from the series, but when I'm watching it, it's like a hard slap to my face every few scenes!


    I cant stand that guy ,terrible actor.

    I agree with you, I've never liked him in the past, ever. It was the trailer of the Unabomber that intrigued me. I was a teenager while this story was unraveling-- it scared the s*** out of me. So I gave the Netflix series a chance-- it's not bad. Worthington, in these early episodes, is also not bad (first time I'd say this).

    I don't know what it is, though-- the lighting, make-up-- but he does look like Brosnan in many scenes.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    BT3366 wrote: »
    On the subject of the chute scene to Tiger's office, does anybody else think the back projection matched with Connery's surprised face as he's sliding down is goofy? It's quick, but amusing in a bad way.

    About 90% of the back projection in the films looks goofy, so it's just something you accept. Which is why I'm often amused by how upset people get about CGI. Every era has an effect that is divisive, but I'll take computer effects any day.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Regarding this CGI vs. Back projection discussion, just to lend my two cents: I can forgive back projection quite readily in older films. I am not as forgiving of it in 80's films (AVTAK comes to mind). I've often wondered why & I think it's because when I view films I tend to do so in the context of when they are made. I guess I'm able to accept that in the 60's the technology wasn't quite there to make it seem as seamless and therefore can live with it (although it's far from ideal).

    With regards to CGI, I have no problem with it generally in superhero films, although even then I expect a certain degree of quality. As an example, I find the original Avengers film to be really well done, but Age of Ultron for some reason seemed not so good (it was noticeable on a back-to-back viewing). Something to do with the graininess. I'm not too keen on how it's done in the DC films. Still, it's a fantasy larger than life environment and so I can accept it.

    Where I have real problems is when this approach is taken with films which are supposed to be grounded in reality. For me it just jumps right out and bites me in the 'you know what'. In Bond films in particular I'd prefer not to notice it. If they can seamlessly incorporate it, then fine, otherwise I'd rather they take the old fashioned route. As an example, I know there must have been CGI used during the building collapse in CR (I didn't think they demolished a building for the film). For some reason it seemed real though. Not sure how they did it, but it was seamless to me. I can't say the same about the building collapse in SP however. It stood right out for me. Perhaps again it was the graininess that accompanied such scene. Not sure.

    In CR, I know they had a stuntman representing Craig up on the crane. It's noticeable in some shots. It's also noticeable in the staircase fight if one really looks. However, I have no problem with it. I can still believe it's Bond there fighting even though I've noticed the stuntman recently. It's like the older films.

    Ideally though, I'd just prefer if they lay off the CGI enhancements in grounded films and just keep it real to the extent that they can, even if that means less outlandish action sequences. Failing which, just use a stuntman and shoot it in a way that it's less noticeable (like in the old days & like in CR).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    BT3366 wrote: »
    On the subject of the chute scene to Tiger's office, does anybody else think the back projection matched with Connery's surprised face as he's sliding down is goofy? It's quick, but amusing in a bad way.

    About 90% of the back projection in the films looks goofy, so it's just something you accept. Which is why I'm often amused by how upset people get about CGI. Every era has an effect that is divisive, but I'll take computer effects any day.

    CGI isn't my base problem, it's an excessive use of poor CGI being injected into action sequences. I'll take back projection over that any day. I can forgive back projection from the 1960's/70's, it's understandable given the tech at the time, but bad CGI in 2018, I cannot. It's a time issue, and if they don't have a proper amount of time and manpower to make it look as realistic as they can, then they should be resorting to more practical measures, I say.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 2,918
    If memory serves, a model was also used in CR's house sinking. I'm not sure if models were used in the Bond films afterward, and they're one of the many ingenious types of special effects that are now in danger because too many filmmakers view CGI as an all-purpose special sauce. The Liparus and Atlantis in TSWLM were models and still look more real than CGI versions would. Even the Afghan bridge in TLD is a model, as is the landscape below Bond and Necros when they fight on the plane.

    CGI can be an excellent tool--as Brady notes, it's better to have green screen than back projection. But many action movies nowadays, especially superhero films (Nolan's were the exception, bless him), are now little more than CGI animation with occasional live action interludes. For me the appeal of action films is watching incredible things actually performed (or cunningly faked; no cunning is involved with CGI ) in front of the camera. I love wondering "how did they do that?!" when I watch a good stunt.

    Over-reliance on CGI can blind filmmakers into forgetting a great truth: action is spectacular because of how it's filmed. In OHMSS the action consists mostly of fistfights, ski chases, and a bobsled chase--on paper none sound very spectacular. But the way they were filmed and edited resulted in some of the best action sequences to ever appear in a Bond film.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Then what about the US "double dipper" of DAF and LALD? I'm not aware how DAF did (but it should have been dismal), but LALD was as American as a Bond could come as well.

    America-set films were very much the favor of the month by 1970. Easy Rider and all.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    cwl007 wrote: »
    Just noticed / considered for the first time while whatching YOLT tonight . When Bond drops into Tanaka's office chair Tiger's cackle, laugh, voice and general faceless demeanour was a deliberate attempt to fool the audience of the time that this was Blofeld.
    The pre publicity had a heavy slant on Bond coming face to face with Blofeld for the first time so this scene set up was maybe a little attempt to wrong foot the audience. What does anyone else think?

    Yes. Also Gilbert's framing of the women's legs was copied by Eon for the FYEO poster. RIP Lewis Gilbert.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regarding this CGI vs. Back projection discussion, just to lend my two cents: I can forgive back projection quite readily in older films. I am not as forgiving of it in 80's films (AVTAK comes to mind). I've often wondered why & I think it's because when I view films I tend to do so in the context of when they are made. I guess I'm able to accept that in the 60's the technology wasn't quite there to make it seem as seamless and therefore can live with it (although it's far from ideal).

    With regards to CGI, I have no problem with it generally in superhero films, although even then I expect a certain degree of quality. As an example, I find the original Avengers film to be really well done, but Age of Ultron for some reason seemed not so good (it was noticeable on a back-to-back viewing). Something to do with the graininess. I'm not too keen on how it's done in the DC films. Still, it's a fantasy larger than life environment and so I can accept it.

    Where I have real problems is when this approach is taken with films which are supposed to be grounded in reality. For me it just jumps right out and bites me in the 'you know what'. In Bond films in particular I'd prefer not to notice it. If they can seamlessly incorporate it, then fine, otherwise I'd rather they take the old fashioned route. As an example, I know there must have been CGI used during the building collapse in CR (I didn't think they demolished a building for the film). For some reason it seemed real though. Not sure how they did it, but it was seamless to me. I can't say the same about the building collapse in SP however. It stood right out for me. Perhaps again it was the graininess that accompanied such scene. Not sure.

    In CR, I know they had a stuntman representing Craig up on the crane. It's noticeable in some shots. It's also noticeable in the staircase fight if one really looks. However, I have no problem with it. I can still believe it's Bond there fighting even though I've noticed the stuntman recently. It's like the older films.

    Ideally though, I'd just prefer if they lay off the CGI enhancements in grounded films and just keep it real to the extent that they can, even if that means less outlandish action sequences. Failing which, just use a stuntman and shoot it in a way that it's less noticeable (like in the old days & like in CR).

    I am with you on this @bondjames. It is my primary beef with TLD, which had the script and cast to be great film and seemed undone by silly art direction. (LTK, meanwhile, plagued by the same horrible set design and backlighting, seems intentionally campy--thus, it worked for me. )
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    I'm also more tolerant of the dodgy back projection when it comes to older films, but there are cases where I think that if they can't do a shot reasonably well, then just don't do the shot. Don't reach beyond your grasp.

    The worst shot in the series for me is everything regarding Helga jumping out of that plane in YOLT. It's looks breathtakingly bad, worse than the car stuff in Dr No, and they just didn't need to do it.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    edited March 2018 Posts: 308
    Regarding excellent back projection: the train sequence in OP. Really well done and went unnoticed by me for years.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,134
    I never noticed this painting of Bernard Lee before in TWINE...

    1d13ee9fbaf23e05431b64d5901c8daa.jpg
    cameos42.jpg
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,134
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's part of what made me finally accept that Brosnan's Bond was the same guy that I had been following my whole life when I saw it in the theatre.

    I have watched the film numerous times, admittedly it's very low on my ranking, I may have seen the painting and it did not register previously. I often wonder if Robert Brown and Lee are the same M. Dench for me plays two different M's in two different Bond Universes.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited March 2018 Posts: 25,134
    True continuity is open to interpretation, certainly with recurring actors one could see it as in Browns case a job change from Admiral to head of MI6. I hate the notion of reboot though Eon brought attention to it with CR, as a fan I don't need over explanation about a Bond films place in the series and convolution like Ernst and James being half brothers, I just want a good Bond film without needless over exposition.
  • Posts: 17,756
    Had never noticed that painting at all. This is a part of the film where I tend to not pay that much attention for some reason, which might explain it. Interesting detail!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,134
    Had never noticed that painting at all. This is a part of the film where I tend to not pay that much attention for some reason, which might explain it. Interesting detail!

    Likewise I often zone out watching certain scenes in TWINE It's quite a drab/dull looking film.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's part of what made me finally accept that Brosnan's Bond was the same guy that I had been following my whole life when I saw it in the theatre.
    I can't make such a leap, but I envy those who can. It just makes no sense, if time in Bond's dimension is anything like our world, for the man who fought the Russians in the Cold War to still being an active field agent for the fall of the Soviet Union almost thirty years later. ;)
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,041
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's part of what made me finally accept that Brosnan's Bond was the same guy that I had been following my whole life when I saw it in the theatre.
    I can't make such a leap, but I envy those who can. It just makes no sense, if time in Bond's dimension is anything like our world, for the man who fought the Russians in the Cold War to still being an active field agent for the fall of the Soviet Union almost thirty years later. ;)

    Scrooge McDuck today is the same guy who participated in the Klondike Gold Rush, so why not?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It's part of what made me finally accept that Brosnan's Bond was the same guy that I had been following my whole life when I saw it in the theatre.
    I can't make such a leap, but I envy those who can. It just makes no sense, if time in Bond's dimension is anything like our world, for the man who fought the Russians in the Cold War to still being an active field agent for the fall of the Soviet Union almost thirty years later. ;)

    Scrooge McDuck today is the same guy who participated in the Klondike Gold Rush, so why not?
    Fine. But only if time machines are considered canon in Bond's universe too.
  • Posts: 2,918
    Fine. But only if time machines are considered canon in Bond's universe too.

    Didn't the late Stephen Hawking publish an article on how black hole radiation bends quantum gravity to the extent of allowing Bond to straddle the space-time continuum? Or am I on mescalin again?

  • Posts: 2,918
    Birdleson wrote: »
    You didn't tell me that you had mescaline.

    I make it a policy to only do drugs mentioned in the Bond novels. My medicine cabinet is full of Benzedrine, in case I ever need to make a midnight swim to the Isle of Surprise.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,041
    Fine. But only if time machines are considered canon in Bond's universe too.
    No need for time machines (I don't remember seeing one in Disney comics, either, to explain the characters' agelessness). But having a "floating timeline" is standard for long-lasting series or franchises of any kind, or you would have to turn everything into a strict period piece. But in that regard, I may be among those that you "envy" for being able to accept that concept. It doesn't bother me in the least because it's unavoidable. Brosnan and even Craig are the same James Bond that Connery was, or even the character from Fleming's first novel who was said to be born in 1920. The alternative would be the "James Bond is just a code name" nonsense.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I cannot grasp letting film to film discrepancies get in the way of the enjoyment of the product (aside from supposedly planned sagas, like STAR WARS), particularly with Bond, as it never really was adhered to more than vaguely. When they try (ala the Craig Era), they end up shooting themselves in the foot and losing sight of what is appealing about the franchise.

    None of it is real. Let it go and just accept that it's all Bond.

    +1.
    There's no way they can all be the same person.
    And there's no way that they can't all be the same person either.
Sign In or Register to comment.