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
...until Sam Smith began to sing. 😏
The middle section looks different (I noted the lack of clock). Is that a different side of the building?
I think it's digital trickery to make it appear to be Rome...
Those CG artists are definitely not qualified to do so but that’s fine.
BTW its always nice to come to this NTTD thread with 20+ new messages and find the same old trite stuff - repeated for the 10.000 time no one cares about anymore - about Hoytema’s (masterful) work on SP. Again with the cinematography? Really? Make a thread just for complaining/criticizing (since an appreciation thread already exists) the most underrated film in the franchise by the MI6 Community and that’s it.
I always forget Brosnan’s Bond went to Cuba twice... without actually visiting it! :)
I don’t really see the problem with that..? It looks like a modern skyscraper.
SPECTRE:
MI5: Rogue Nation:
[/quote]
Great CG on the Spectre one for Italianifying the architecture too.
Strange thing to say? They definitely are.
Clearly u don’t have too much knowledge of Roman architecture but that’s again fine.
It’s funny because I was there for some of the filming. Where M is talking about self righteous prigs, this was a bizarre museum location in real life (http://www.strahovskyklaster.cz/) doubling as a Whitehall space. I thought Prague did a sterling job.
I’d say clearly you don’t and you’re just trying to sound dismissive as some way to sound superior, but it’s not terribly convincing.
They’re clearly very qualified to make imperceptible changes to visuals.
Yeah I thought it did too. I can’t think of many occasions where a Bond film’s doubling of location has let it down badly. DAD probably has most of the worst all in one film, with its very British coastal-looking ‘Korean’ love shack, or the forests of Korea looking exceptionally like Kent or somewhere (even so, not too bad).
Cuba probably has some of the oddest doubling up: the half-hearted palm trees covering some show ground in Surrey or somewhere in Octopussy have to be amongst the least convincing! Are there worse examples I’m missing?
I thought Rome doubling for Tangier in Spectre was rather brilliant to be honest, and I loved the bare-faced cheek of having bits of London pretend to be St Petersburg in GoldenEye without it really noticing- they even had the courtyard of Somerset House pretend to be a road junction despite there being no actual exits! :)
To be honest unless one lives in the stand-in/in-film location I don't think it will bother most people. Unless they have a shot of say, the Eiffel tower when it's supposed to be Spain...
I live only a mile or two from Epsom racecourse and I must admit I didn’t spot it being St Petersburg airport in GE at all! :)
Not Spain but could work for Blackpool XD
Clearly? Don’t make me laugh. Based on the final result, they know nothing about Roman architecture. They’re qualified to do the job - what an obvious thing to say, they work for Hollywood’s bests - but in this particular case they are not qualified to do a good job. For an obvious reason: because they clearly don’t know how to make such a building look Roman. That’s my point, an obvious notion really. If that building looks kind of Roman to you I wonder in which architecture academy you studied history of architecture. None, I suppose. I did and now back on topic please because I’m sick of this nonsense. Okay?
You have all three parts of your RIBA qualification then? Where did you study?
Care to give us some technical explanation as to their errors? Columns not Tuscan enough?
I think you didn’t quite understand that this building shot is only glimpsed for a few seconds, and needs to give an impression: not to pass a strict vetting by architecture historians. It does so perfectly well. Real professional designers learn a sense of perspective and know when something has to be done to a perfect degree and when it doesn’t. Anyone trying to draw attention to themselves will complain that it always does, and expose themselves in the process.
No; I think the doubling of locations is interesting! :)
I feel pretty confident Bond will be in Norway as Norway: it’s an interesting and exciting destination.
And 99.9999 of the viewers didn’t have a clue and found it convincing.
Special visual effects are a passion of mine. From that standpoint, the quality of the work here is very high.
Now, you may have a specialized knowledge of Roman architecture that makes how you see this different from most others, but for most of audiences, it’s totally convincing and they had no clue that it was a visual effect.
May I ask, where did you study Roman architecture? Do you have a degree?
Possibly if you presented your point of view in a less pompous, condescending manner , those with a different view would not respond as strongly.
The Bond films are no different. It's easy for us mega fans to re-watch these films over and over, dissecting each scene. But for the most part, people aren't doing that. On my initial viewing of SF, I didn't for one moment think, that's not China, or this is Pinewood. I went along with the story, and was taken to the places I was seeing. I didn't dwell on them not using the real locations, because the visuals and story satisfied me enough.
If you cant watch a film and be taken out of your reality for a moment, then I feel sorry for you. Part of the enjoyment of watching movies for me, is be taken somewhere else for a while. Caught up in the story, the make believe.
I don't think films are supposed to be this complicated. We should be enjoying ourselves surely.
Agreed, surely it's no different to us knowing that the interiors aren't in real buildings (unless they are which of course can happen) but a film set. But you don't sit there thinking behind that wall is studio space, neither do you ponder about the boom operator who's just out of shot, or the many people on set. It's a narrative, you follow the narrative, we know it's not real , we know the actors are acting but we let the filmmakers take us on the journey of the story.
I studied in Milan and Rome.
Look, I perfectly know that. I also know I become super pedantic regarding this particular choice they made in the film, but based on my knowledge I cannot describe this romanization positively, especially since the aerial shot is even more bizarre in the context of a city like Rome. Clearly, it works from a general moviemaking perspective and that's what really matters in the end, that's for sure.
Just on a side note: originally they planned to shot those scenes at the Reggia of Caserta (that's why the interiors are perfectly modeled upon the Reggia ones) but due to budget and logistic they opted for the Blenheim. Reggia would have been a more fitting choice, architecturally speaking, for obvious reasons.
Yes, no reason to doubt that. BTW did I sound pompous? Wasn't my intention. Probably it seems just too obvious to me... Ah I'm a fully qualified arch. In Politecnico of Milan there are 3 courses of History of Architecture. Plus I studied Archeology and Valorization of Architectural Heritage in Rome so I can't see those things like 99.9999 of the viewers. :D
Having said that, I know places doubling for other places are a fact of life, and I'm perfectly fine with that (except one, but you already know). Just like I deeply respect all those CG wizards, because they are simply amazingly talented.
Haha, sorry this is the last, but if they'd make the Russian Atlantic Road you'll know how I felt. :D
Ah, Well that explains a great deal. I can understand being frustrated seeing something of which one has great knowledge being presented with loose authenticity in a film , even if only briefly.
I’m a Firefighter, and while I enjoy the movie, “Backdraft” , It is painful to watch how the present actual firefighting. Lol.
I'd say some knowledge. :) But you know, beside the studies etc. also living makes you more accustomed to a certain architectural imagery.
PS that's funny. Clearly more painful than just a couple seconds of a bloody building. :D
Indeed, it can be really interesting to see how they utilise locations as someplace else (spotting where in a scene/sequence they've done it can be fun). However, when for a very rare occasion a big international production like Bond go through the trouble of shooting over here (if only parts of a couple sequences), it would be a nice change if it wasn't only a stand-in location. This isn't a criticism of locations being used as stand-ins for other places, of course.
Sort of like when one of our most popular tourist attractions was a stand-in for India in MI: Fallout, I guess!
For what it's worth, I definitely had a "wait a moment…" reaction to seeing Blenheim Palace in SP. Maybe less because of the architecture, and probably more because I've seen Blenheim Palace in films and TV series before.
Barry Lyndon, the most prominent one, to me.