SPECTRE Production Timeline

1243244246248249870

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Okay folks I think we're all getting a little off topic here.
    I'm sure we can all agree we would like to see less CGI in Bond 24, and to utilise the locations as best as possible.
    So anyone got any news?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.

    That's what I mean. IF you PAUSE :-). Seriously a case of overanalysing. Have you ever checked the doubles for Roger Moore when you put it on pause?

    There's no overanalysing - it's just poor, the same as Roger's doubles. Both 'clearly visible'. Personally I'd take a double that is shot from the correct angle, over facial replacement, any day. It makes DC look like a video game character at points.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.

    That's what I mean. IF you PAUSE :-). Seriously a case of overanalysing. Have you ever checked the doubles for Roger Moore when you put it on pause?

    There's no overanalysing - it's just poor, the same as Roger's doubles. Both 'clearly visible'. Personally I'd take a double that is shot from the correct angle, over facial replacement, any day. It makes DC look like a video game character at points.

    I disagree. I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly. And mostly that will happen, as CGI is improving through the years.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Benny wrote: »
    Okay folks I think we're all getting a little off topic here.
    I'm sure we can all agree we would like to see less CGI in Bond 24, and to utilise the locations as best as possible.
    So anyone got any news?

    Well, I can also agree to disagree no @Benny :-)?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly.

    It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly.

    It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.

    Compare "Skyfall" with "Die Another Day" please. It has improved a lot.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly.

    It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.

    Compare "Skyfall" with "Die Another Day" please. It has improved a lot.

    I didn't say it hasn't improved - but it's a long way from perfection. It'll get better, but the fact is, unless they absolutely have to use it, they shouldn't fall back on it. Most compositing is almost unnoticeable these days, but stuff like facial replacement is much more complex.
  • Posts: 3,274
    "In addition, rumors have known that two aircraft will be brought to the film shoot to East Tyrol . " Officially, we have not yet received any request" says Andrea Moser from the airfield Doelsach"

    http://www.kleinezeitung.at/tirol/lienz/3751118/bond-film-flugzeug-nimmt-kurs-osttirol.story
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly.

    It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.

    Compare "Skyfall" with "Die Another Day" please. It has improved a lot.

    I didn't say it hasn't improved - but it's a long way from perfection. It'll get better, but the fact is, unless they absolutely have to use it, they shouldn't fall back on it. Most compositing is almost unnoticeable these days, but stuff like facial replacement is much more complex.

    Were you also bothered by Silva's mutilated jaw (also a CGI-job)? Personally it really didn't bother me. I found it so good, that the overall effect, being horrified by this face, worked for me.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Sorry Gustav but I don't consider stock footage of some skyscrapers in Shanghai as making me feel that Bond is actually there. The fluorescent skyscraper, his hotel room with its open balcony and the casino are all clearly sets and I never see anything that gives me the belief I am actually in the Far East.
    Contrast this with TMWTGG and TND where there are numerous shots of peasants washing in the canals, people on bicycles and the daily hustle and bustle of life in the Far East. I've never been to Shanghai but I've been to Hong Kong, Macau, Bangkok and Singapore and the thing that strikes you is that they are all teeming with people and feel alive. Shanghai as portrayed in SF is a sterile ghost town of a city. Mendes seems more interested in channelling Blade Runner than trying to make you think you're in China.And of course we can't shy away from Hashima island which is extremely lazy.
    CGI (and not particularly good CGI) and a blatant set. Not one single shot for real. Poor.

    When compared with MI:GP it's just not on - Cruise in Red Square, Cruise hanging onto the Burj Khalifa.

    I'll give you that the Istanbul and London locations were well done and probably cost a fair bit and maybe I'm doing the filmmakers a disservice as London doesn't really feel like a proper location when you live there. Maybe to foreigners they were happy to see London.

    I do have to agree with the Wiz here. As much as the Shanghai scenes worked in their own way, the realism was lost. The Blade Runner vibe was indeed present.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly.

    It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.

    Compare "Skyfall" with "Die Another Day" please. It has improved a lot.

    I didn't say it hasn't improved - but it's a long way from perfection. It'll get better, but the fact is, unless they absolutely have to use it, they shouldn't fall back on it. Most compositing is almost unnoticeable these days, but stuff like facial replacement is much more complex.

    Were you also bothered by Silva's mutilated jaw (also a CGI-job)? Personally it really didn't bother me. I found it so good, that the overall effect, being horrified by this face, worked for me.

    No, I thought they actually did a very good job with it. The bits that I'm not a fan of are the facial replacement shots in the PTS (I don't think it's been mastered in any film, not just SF) and the first shot of Hashima where they're being led to Silva. The choppers and Komodos are also pretty shoddy, as is Patrice's fall. These things are never going to effect my overall enjoyment of the film, but as we're talking B24, I'd like to see as much as possible being executed physically this time around.
  • Posts: 908
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.

    That's what I mean. IF you PAUSE :-). Seriously a case of overanalysing. Have you ever checked the doubles for Roger Moore when you put it on pause?

    There's no overanalysing - it's just poor, the same as Roger's doubles. Both 'clearly visible'. Personally I'd take a double that is shot from the correct angle, over facial replacement, any day. It makes DC look like a video game character at points.

    I disagree. I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly. And mostly that will happen, as CGI is improving through the years.

    Your idea of "perfectly done" and mine are certainly as far apart as possible. Don't you sometimes think you are overdoing your fanboy mantra? This CGIed face of Craig is really a perfect example of this. There is almost no way of not seeing it (and I'm not particularly sensitive in this regard, since a films story and its development is my main interest) In my cinema people were laughing too ( just as in the parachuting scene in QoS, DADs surfing scene and when Bond jumped behind the plane in GE.) There is only so much one can take with a straight face!
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 4,622
    Just look at the new Planet-film, "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes". Man, that movie MUST win an Oscar for best special (computer generated) effects. In that movie CGI is actually a blessing.
    The CGI in the new apes is of course very well done....but I do much prefer the 1968 original. We all knew they were actors in ape costumes but the costumes were darn good and the actors did what actors do and convincingly managed to act ape-like within the costumes.
    Bottom line is that neither are real. Neither film involves actual apes and we know and can see it.
    The CGI apes worked, but I still prefer the 1968 take. Maurice Evans as Dr. Zeus and Roddy MacDowell as Cornelius, that was great stuff.

    And Bond had a CGI Craig face pasted on!!!! That should not be done. Craig on bike in front of green screen, yes would have been preferable.
    Now we are getting cartoony, but the komodo dragons were pure CGI too, were they not.
    Maybe its time to minimize the CGI and get back to Bond basics ie model work, green screens, stunt doubles and maximim location and/or back-lot shooting when circumstances require eg Fort Knox, St. Petersburg tank chase.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Really, is there someone who thinks "Skyfall" is NOT a camp and cheesy gorefest? I am curious if there are people who really didn't bother about the so called "Die Another Day-esque" CGI in SF? I think we are now nitpicking on elements of "Skyfall", like cinematography, locations (and it's use) and CGI. Bottomline for me, I think SF for me is as good as FOWL, OHMS and CR. You can call me a "blind stupid rat", but you know what Silva said about that last rat ;-).
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    doubleoego wrote: »
    And @Gustav, I think you need to get your eyes checked, mate because there were many obvious CG shots that were identifiable upon first viewing of SF.

    I think you are commenting this way because you are getting tired or irritated by me. It shows certain disrespect for my posts and arguments. As if I am blind. Kindly stop this kind of banter or simply say something like "I respect you, but I disagree wholeheartedly". Like I do. OK?

    I enjoyed "Skyfall" very very much. I still think it is, next to "Casino Royale", a masterpiece. So this joy clouded my judgement on first view? Such bullocks.

    Uh, @Gustav, I'm not tired or irritated by you. Believe me if I was then I wouldn't bother acknowledging your comments let alone responding to them. I'm not disrespecting you, I'm being frank and honest. How you couldn't notice the obvious cgi on first viewing is staggering and if that offends you, then tough. I appreciate you're a fan of SF and you need to appreciate we're all Bond fans here and as such it's out of a personal and genuine care and endearment that we scrutinise where apt and justifiable. No amount of attention invested with the excitement of seeing a Bond film for the first time will blind me personally and others it would seem from noticing glaring technical deficiencies.
  • Posts: 421
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.

    That's what I mean. IF you PAUSE :-). Seriously a case of overanalysing. Have you ever checked the doubles for Roger Moore when you put it on pause?

    There's no overanalysing - it's just poor, the same as Roger's doubles. Both 'clearly visible'. Personally I'd take a double that is shot from the correct angle, over facial replacement, any day. It makes DC look like a video game character at points.

    I disagree. I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly. And mostly that will happen, as CGI is improving through the years.

    Your idea of "perfectly done" and mine are certainly as far apart as possible. Don't you sometimes think you are overdoing your fanboy mantra? This CGIed face of Craig is really a perfect example of this. There is almost no way of not seeing it (and I'm not particularly sensitive in this regard, since a films story and its development is my main interest) In my cinema people were laughing too ( just as in the parachuting scene in QoS, DADs surfing scene and when Bond jumped behind the plane in GE.) There is only so much one can take with a straight face!

    That stuntman might as well have worn a Daniel Craig mask. That is how bad it was.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Zekidk wrote: »
    In all respect Gustav_Graves, but when referring to the CGI in SF with "NO one notices it", you kind of deserve that quote from 00ego.

    Craigs CGI-pasted face on a motorbike, made most of the audience in the theatre laugh, I remember.

    YES, I didn't notice it. It's as simple as that. Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI. Just like Silva's mutilated jaw. And THAT kind of CGI I don't mind. It makes the action more real, and it is way better than actually SEEING the double (which made many of Moore's movies very pastiche and cheesy)!

    If you are saying that the audience in the theatre was laughing about "that CGI-pasted face", then I feel very sceptical about that quote. Prove it. In my case, when the audience was laughing, I only heard laughter during the crane sequence on the train and when 007 jumped on the metro on the very last moment. I even heard Playboy-whistles when some girl silhouettes were showing up during the main title sequence. But not during the scene you mentioned.

    Yeah saw SF three times and never heard the CGI laugh... still can't find on the blu ray... didn't come up in reviews?????? Not saying wrong or arguing ..just don't see it.
  • Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    In all respect Gustav_Graves, but when referring to the CGI in SF with "NO one notices it", you kind of deserve that quote from 00ego.

    Craigs CGI-pasted face on a motorbike, made most of the audience in the theatre laugh, I remember.

    YES, I didn't notice it. It's as simple as that. Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI. Just like Silva's mutilated jaw. And THAT kind of CGI I don't mind. It makes the action more real, and it is way better than actually SEEING the double (which made many of Moore's movies very pastiche and cheesy)!

    If you are saying that the audience in the theatre was laughing about "that CGI-pasted face", then I feel very sceptical about that quote. Prove it. In my case, when the audience was laughing, I only heard laughter during the crane sequence on the train and when 007 jumped on the metro on the very last moment. I even heard Playboy-whistles when some girl silhouettes were showing up during the main title sequence. But not during the scene you mentioned.

    Yeah saw SF three times and never heard the CGI laugh... still can't find on the blu ray... didn't come up in reviews?????? Not saying wrong or arguing ..just don't see it.

    I found an interesting article about CGI after I have seen the movie two times. The only CGI that struck me, and didn't even bother me, was Silva's mutilated jaw. One discover certain things after having seen the film in cinema first you know? Especially about Craig's face in the motorbike chase.
  • Posts: 11,119
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....
  • Posts: 5,745
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    For Skyfall they used two helicopters, one was Silvas attack chopper and the other was used for aerial filming at the Scotland set.

    However I can't imagine them using one plane to film the other; at those speeds I dont think its viable...
    If there is indeed a crash, perhaps one shoots or hits the other.

    Time will tell. They'll have to use a public airfield I'm sure..
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....

    Or it's a back up. Assuming they are going to physically rig the impact, they'll need some insurance in case it goes tits up. Or then again they may have one for impact and one for set dressing, post crash.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 5,745
    RC7 wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....

    Or it's a back up. Assuming they are going to physically rig the impact, they'll need some insurance in case it goes tits up. Or then again they may have one for impact and one for set dressing, post crash.

    I've read two articles and one mentioned they'd both be flying (so not just a set dressing). The one I linked on the OP mentioned something about needing an airfield for two aircraft.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....

    Or it's a back up. Assuming they are going to physically rig the impact, they'll need some insurance in case it goes tits up. Or then again they may have one for impact and one for set dressing, post crash.

    I've read two articles and one mentioned they'd both be flying (so not just a set dressing). The one I linked on the OP mentioned something about needing an airfield for two aircraft.

    Does it mention what kind of aircraft? I think I had it in my head that it would be a commercial airliner, but that may have just been a biproduct of reading all the speculation.
  • Posts: 5,745
    RC7 wrote: »
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    AgentJM7 wrote: »
    Bond 24, people?

    Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!

    Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....

    Or it's a back up. Assuming they are going to physically rig the impact, they'll need some insurance in case it goes tits up. Or then again they may have one for impact and one for set dressing, post crash.

    I've read two articles and one mentioned they'd both be flying (so not just a set dressing). The one I linked on the OP mentioned something about needing an airfield for two aircraft.

    Does it mention what kind of aircraft? I think I had it in my head that it would be a commercial airliner, but that may have just been a biproduct of reading all the speculation.

    That's what I'm picturing too, but there is no mention yet. Perhaps its more of a smaller, private jet. Having planes fly so low in close proximity to civilians will not go unnoticed. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.
  • Posts: 12,526
    Heard and read about a plane? Not heard about 2 planes?
  • Posts: 5,745
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Heard and read about a plane? Not heard aubout 2 planes?

    There are reports of 2 planes being used to film
    a crash sequence
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I am quite relieved to see a bit of news: two aircraft. That gives to good speculation!

    Can we please leave the CGI arguments for another thread? In fact, I suggest starting up an entire thread on that very subject. I don't think we have one. A CGI pro and con thread. Anybody up for starting that? I hope so. I think it would go 100 pages easily and I'd chip in a little. But I'm not up to starting it. Somebody else, please go for it. :D

    I am interested in the planes, yet don't want to know complete details re the plot. But I don't think we shall know that for a good while yet.
  • Maybe they need two planes in case one of their aircraft goes missing?

    By accident, of course. If they lost two, that would just be careless of them.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    I think it comes down to a matter of principle. I'm sorry but in a nice way, I don't care what anyone says, CR is the best Craig Bond movie on every level and the use of locations doubling or not was far better utilised than QoS and especially SF. As has been mentioned, there are so many other movies that shoot on location and do an impeccable job doing so. The last 2 mission impossible movies are examples of this. Hell even the Taken movies immerse you in the locations used to superior effect. Again, principle. This is the Bond series anything less than the best is unacceptable.

    ROYALE has the worst location work in the franchise. Madagascar looked exactly like Bahama. "Miami" looked like a back alley in the Czech Republic. Open up your mind and your eyes.
Sign In or Register to comment.