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
Oh, wow! Very insightful.
Brosnan Bond's cover was a banker, hence the nice car. A young single banker in London should be in something like an Aston today.
And they have CPO programs now. Not saying Bond would or should ever buy used, but he could! A fun short story could even be Bond buying a nice Bentley, discovers is fitted with gadgets already, and then has to investigate the previous owner to see why the car is fitted as such in a fun little nod to Bond himself.
I don't know if it's something that needs a backstory as such like we got in CR. I think it's something of a given Bond likes his cars, and I don't think the audience would question how he could afford it (at least not when watching the film). Ultimately though it depends on whether the film needs to see Bond use his own personal car.
I suppose Skyfall does sort of establish that his family has a bit of money and that'll do for me.
Yeah, didn't the updated Valhalla have more black around the bottom? I think that's the Hot Wheels model we got.
The swapping one car for another on film is impressive. I remember seeing that demo video of the technology and it didn't look like CGI at all.
Here you go: there's a comparison between the two here:
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-9790685/Aston-Martin-unveils-700-000-217mph-hybrid-Valhalla-supercar.html
Yes, the CG in NTTD is pretty amazing and not really noticeable at all. Although I do remember, when the trailer came out, the shot of the Land Rover flipping in the forest is something I said felt like there was CG about and everyone on here told me I was wrong, and reading that article I see they did indeed replace it with a CG car as it slides along the ground. Vindication at last! :D
This video is kind of fascinating when you see how much work they did on the Norway chase:
Here's a photo of it on set in Scotland for NTTD:
Picture a young man as Bond sitting in his Aston Martin. The camera focuses on the side window before he launches the car forward. Compare this imagery to, say, Idris Elba in the same scene.
It is quite likely that the next Bond will be a similar age to Connery in the first films
That's a lot to ask a person of that age. Without sounding too ageist, they don't have the gravitas. But, you never know who will come along.
Yes, I think John Gardner mentioned that in an interview around the time of Role of Honour (1984). It seems that Bentley were not as open as Saab to having their precious car modified or toyed around with. So Gardner and Glidrose had to go along with it to be able to use the Bentley Mulsanne Turbo in their Bond novels.
Connery 2.0 is basically Craig, and Moore 2.0 is Brosnan.
Yeah, I can see that. 40 is the new 30 and all that. But, who knows, some young man out there might display the maturity needed.
I'd say Brosnan's more of a Connaltoore shake.
They might have to try to force a round peg into a square hole. Maturity isn't as common as it was in the past.
It depends on the actor. I can imagine some potentials as young as 28 being able to play a convincing Bond though.
A real, young Bond.
CR showed us with Bond in his first mission, and Craig was great. But it could be fun to see a Bond at a younger age. Some life experience but not fully mature.
Over the course of said actors tenure they could literally mature into the role.
We’ve always seen the experienced James Bond. Maybe the new era could show us a Bond who isn’t so mature.
Maybe
I did notice quite a bit of the CGI in NTTD and I must admit it did bother me. The ice lake in the PTS being a good example. I just got the sense there'd been a lot of digital enhancements, and coupled with the incredibly saturated colour grading, it gave the film a bit of an unreal feeling that I haven't really felt with any other Bond film apart from DAD.
That's the intent, yeah. Everything with the Norway house is to be of another world. Something of a nightmare (Safin) or dream (Bond) for Madeleine.
Well that's not the only example of what I'm talking about. The sinking trawler, the glider, and a lot of the exteriors of Safin's island have that same unreal feel to me. The final shot of Bond standing on top of the base I was particularly disappointed by. And like I said, I suspect a lot of digital enhancements were made in post production.
Yeah, there was extensive digital effect works in the film? Like every tentpole (every film?) made in the last ~25 years? Nothing to suspect about it. The team was nominated for an Academy Award for their work in the film.
Nothing is inherently better or worse with the tools used today, just like nothing was inherently better or worse with the tools available decades ago.
Rear projection was an amazing technology for its time. A few filmmakers have found clever use for it in the era of green/blue screen ("Eyes Wide Shut" comes to mind), but by and large it has been retired for modern tools — just as Volume/LED Projection/StageCraft is pushing on greenscreen work.
I'm well aware CGI is nothing new to Bond, or blockbuster cinema in general. Nor am I arguing that technology and techniques are worse than what they used to be, or that digital effects have no place in the Bond series. I just found it particularly noticeable in ways I haven't since DAD, and it affected by immersion in the world of the film. A couple of times it looked like almost everything on screen was made in a computer.