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
For dream sequences in Inception, Nolan used little computer-generated imagery, preferring practical effects whenever possible. Nolan said, "It's always very important to me to do as much as possible in-camera, and then, if necessary, computer graphics are very useful to build on or enhance what you have achieved physically." To this end, visual effects supervisor Paul Franklin built a miniature of the mountain fortress set and then blew it up for the film. For the fight scene that takes place in zero gravity, he used CG-based effects to "subtly bend elements like physics, space and time."
The most challenging effect was the "limbo" city level at the end of the film because it continually developed during production. Franklin had artists build concepts while Nolan gave his ideal vision: "Something glacial, with clear modernist architecture, but with chunks of it breaking off into the sea like icebergs". Franklin and his team ended up with "something that looked like an iceberg version of Gotham City with water running through it." They created a basic model of a glacier and then designers created a program that added elements like roads, intersections and ravines until they had a complex, yet organic-looking, cityscape. For the Paris-folding sequence, Franklin had artists producing concept sketches and then they created rough computer animations to give them an idea of what the sequence looked like while in motion. Later during principal photography, Nolan was able to direct Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page based on this rough computer animation Franklin had created. Inception had close to 500 visual effects shots (in comparison, Batman Begins had approximately 620) which is considered minor in comparison to contemporary visual effects epics that can have around 1,500 or 2,000 special effects images.
I guess it is the unrealistic feeling the director tries to create is what it makes look CGI. Kudos for him trying to do the real thing and putting the appr. 160.000.000 on the screen. It is this general feel of artificialness that puts me of. But each his own.
In terms of CGI, Nolan did some really excellent work on the film.
Well, it appears that we all manage to agree on the thought that Cobb is in reality at the end of the movie, so I'll be picking a new film soon.
2.) The Thing (1982)
So, the ending: who is who? Is Childs or Macready a Thing? If so, how and when? Could Childs be considered a human, based on the test given in the prequel to the film, 2011's 'The Thing'? Was Macready ever infected? Are the final words they exchange deeply sinister (such as Macready handing Childs the bottle, then laughing after he drinks it), or do you think the men just honestly don't care what happens? Do you leave the ending as interesting and ambiguous, or have you created your own off of the explanation given by the video game, or the plot idea given by Carpenter back in the 80's? What was Nauls' fate?
Do you have any questions about the film? I may be able to answer them, I've seen it countless times and constantly read up on it. Debate away.
Have you seen the prequel? Would you think it's safe to definitely say that Childs isn't a Thing, because of the earring he is wearing in the last few seconds of the film?
I certainly like the stuff they introduced in the prequel. TBH, I love this prequel. It was made by people who clearly respect the Carpenter film and who wouldn't dare to alter details or pretend it doesn't exist. It brought the same vibes, adding new ones, without alienating us from the original. I really thing it's a competently made film with some surprising bits and for sure it meticulously reproduced certain settings and even moments from the Carpenter film. I give the film HUGE props for that.
The ear ring bit is a good call but to be fair, it wasn't on their mind when they made the Carpenter film. Applying this logic to the '82 film (not 84!) now feels a bit like a creative retcon. What do you reckon?
Yeah, I'm sure it wasn't on their mind at the time, and I, too, loved the prequel - it did have some surprising bits, and while I wasn't really crazy about all of the CGI, some of the Thing manifestations looked very, very cool. But, I wonder, when the prequel decided to make it's own 'Who is human and who is a Thing?' test, did they go off of the fact that Childs had an earring on in the end of the original, and they wanted to spark more debate for both films? Or did they just randomly come up with the 'metals in/on your body' theory. Either way, it was very good. I haven't seen it since it was in theaters, so I'll have to give it a watch soon.
Edit: and The Usual Suspects
Alien or Aliens? Which was the better film?
EDIT: Ok it's only endings. How about Total Recall? Was it all real or was he really still in Recall?
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, that's a great choice. What questions would you like me to post about to focus on?
The stuff I wonder still after the credits are:
*What happens to Mills?
*Will Mills ever recover?
*What is the meaning of Somerset's last quote?
Stuff like that.
Well then I renominate my Alien/Aliens debate.
I know I've stated a few times that this thread will contain spoilers, but I'll still use spoiler tags for the time being.
I am still left with some questions that I can't wait to discuss. Though Mills wanted revenge, in killing John did he also want to ensure that nothing like this happened to anyone else? That a bullet through John's head was justice enough? And what about the underlying theme of the film? What is it trying to tell us, really? That all men sin, from good men like Mills to sadistic killers like John? That sometimes to stop sinners we must sin ourselves?
Those are my thoughts for now.
Why do you think so?
He was near retirement from the start of the film and I don't think Mills going mental would change his mind, he said he'll be around, but he can still help him without being on the force.
I have an idea for the Alien/Aliens debate if anybody is intrested.
That said I fell in love with JS Bach:"Air" G on Strings in the Escena Biblioteca is sheer movie and music magic
Go ahead and tell me the idea. I'll update the thread and we'll run it. I thought this would be a great idea, but sadly, this thread idea never really kicked off.