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
shooting on film or digital doesn't matter when it comes to CGI... because chances are, even though the movie will be shot on film - when it comes time to edit and post, the footage will more than likely be converted over to digital files anyway.
Mad Max was a brilliant example of live stunt work, but articles about the filming also noted a use of CGI when necessary. I'm all for hitting EON and Mendes on stuff I don't agree with, but I don't think this is a fair criticism. I would only hope the CGI is not noticeable.
I also wouldn't put it past EON to have Blofeld's scaring adding in post to keep the endless London pap pictures from blowing what they are trying to keep a not so well kept secret.
Nah... I'm pretty sure they know exactly what it will look like on screen.
no doubt.... they more than likely have renderings already drawn up by the effects department
that depends.... normally (like 99.9% of the time), the focus on the camera is manually operated - so it shouldn't matter. As long as the subject your shooting is in focus, the camera shouldn't be bouncing the focus around between subject/rain/set.. where rain often times is hard to read in the camera, is when the scene is not properly lit.. stuff like rain and snow always needs to be back lit, as it shows up better (thats a little helpful tip from one indy filmmaker to others out there ;) )...
Ok. I earnt money working on this very topic, but you're the experts..
whoa, settle down.... i never claimed to be an expert, but on a production of this size and scale, i find it hard to believe that something as trivial as a facial scar or scaring was going to go undiscussed or thought about until after filming is wrapped - just because of the time factor between now and the release of the film..... i never said they had the finished product ready to be digitally fitted to Waltz' face, but work on it's design has to be underway on some capacity - even if it's just concept sketches to give the director an idea of what it will look like..
didn't mean whatever i said to be taken as a personal attack on your knowledge and experience... but loosen up a bit.. we're all family here - well, most of us ;) :)>-
Well, if you truly believe what you wrote, then I'm not surprised you don't earn your money "on this very topic" anymore...
Yes, they have a lead artist whose design has been validated, and they're now probably asking various VFX companies to show them (unpaid) tests to choose the cheapest one etc. But the *exact final* result on screen ? They'll discover it quite late in the process. With prothestics, what you see is what you get. Not with VFX. Believe me, no one on set will be sure what the performance of the villain in the final scenes will really look like. Do you really think Sam Mendes was 100% happy with the CG Bardem or the CG Patrice ?
PanchitoPistoles, click on my name to see my profile with your comment, as a reminder of who's most often wrong here :)
You can't realistically use that title unless you are going to revisit Kristatos, Columbo and the Countess.
I don't think that would interest Eon.
Garden of Death would work for B25 in that its derivative of YOLT, but I think Shatterhand might be the stronger title.
This is all rampant speculation mind you, but I do think its possible that B25 and B26 might be modern riffs on Flemings YOLT and TMWTGG, simply because SP seems to be riffing on OHMSS, and OHMSS set up the events of the final two Fleming novels.
Yes. CG Bardem was close to perfect and CG Patrice is completely unnoticeable, unless you watch the movie several times. What looked bad in Skyfall were Craig's face when he was riding the motorcycle in the PTS, and the helicopters arriving to Silva's island.
Yea that's what i'm watching!! Good people will believe me lol
the exact final look?.. of course not - like you said, thats something that wont be done until later.. they more than likely have the general idea, but the finished look? no - because tweaks and tweaks will may/will happen in post..
and in terms of Mendes being happy or not about the CG on Bardem and Patrice... I can't speak for him, so I wont pretend to know how he feels and pass it along as a fact.. he's obviously satisfied with it.. it may not be perfect.. but there is an old saying when it comes to filmmaking and video shooting, and thats "better done than perfect." .... i have never made a film on the size or scale that Mendes has, but the extremely small ones i have done - they aren't perfect, no film will ever be, but i've felt satisfied enough to consider them "done"... so, whether he was happy with it or not, only he can answer that, but he obviously felt it looked good enough..
on a personal level, i thought the CG was alright - was it noticeable? yes.. but most CGI is noticeable to begin with in films, so I am not going to hold that against the filmmakers.
That wasn't Bond.
About the trailer, notice the Bond theme, the "Bond James Bond", etc.. I wonder what all those who ask for movies without "old fashioned" Bond elements think about it.
And still only "November", and not the "6th of November", is it common in the US to have no date in the trailers ?
Money Penny was the worst part about SF I would of gotten a much more recognizable actress and not the creepy voodoo lady from pirates of the Caribean
other than that I will give her another chance and I can not wait for Spectre