No Time to Die production thread

15695705725745751208

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2020 Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    It was a particularly deep end of the Venice canals. :)
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Minion wrote: »
    It was a particularly deep end of the Venice canals. :)

    And Bond knew that. He thought it through! ;)
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Not sure why some members are making their own version of the "Loose Change" documentary in this thread, but can we please get back on topic?
  • Posts: 1,490
    Minion wrote: »
    It was a particularly deep end of the Venice canals. :)

    And who the hell cares how bloody deep the Venice canals are? Get Real, people. It's called suspension of disbelief. And CR is superb. End of story.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    It was a particularly deep end of the Venice canals. :)

    And who the hell cares how bloody deep the Venice canals are? Get Real, people. It's called suspension of disbelief. And CR is superb. End of story.

    This is all that matters, in the end. :)
    jake24 wrote: »
    Not sure why some members are making their own version of the "Loose Change" documentary in this thread, but can we please get back on topic?

    :))
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,373
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited January 2020 Posts: 8,216
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    You're absolutely right, again. As always! :)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    giphy.gif
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,373
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    Minion wrote: »
    It was a particularly deep end of the Venice canals. :)

    And who the hell cares how bloody deep the Venice canals are? Get Real, people. It's called suspension of disbelief. And CR is superb. End of story.
    No one! :) Some folks don’t quite get jokes, unfortunately...
  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2020 Posts: 10,512
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    edited January 2020 Posts: 3,022




    Via1mXE.jpg
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,785
    I'd like to see similar thrilling action set pieces in NTTD.

    tenor.gif?itemid=7923098
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    I'd like to see similar thrilling action set pieces in NTTD.

    tenor.gif?itemid=7923098

    But would it collapse or sink? 😏
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.
  • ContrabandContraband Sweden
    Posts: 3,022
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Very cool, nonetheless.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,373

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.
  • Posts: 3,164
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,373
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 3,164
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:




  • RC7RC7
    edited January 2020 Posts: 10,512
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,373
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    edited January 2020 Posts: 2,541
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:





    This is true, had a discussion with one of the artists in the comments section when it was announced. He even said that " it's unfair that they won't even give credit to the artists and there is no guarantee that they will even return the one's which won't be used or win".
    They are not wrong to be honest.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)

    I was thinking more of your comparison photo of a building collapsing. Truly hilarious stuff.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,373
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:





    This is true, had a discussion with one of the artists in the comments section when it was announced. He even said that " it's unfair that they won't even give credit to the artists and there is no guarantee that they will even return the one's which won't be used or win".
    They are not wrong to be honest.

    Oh is there no credit to be given? That seems odd. Maybe they just can't guarantee they'll give the name every time? If you don't credit the artist it actually makes it seem less like a competition in the tweets or whatever which makes Eon look bad- I'd be surprised if they don't.
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)

    I was thinking more of your comparison photo of a building collapsing. Truly hilarious stuff.

    It is quite funny that some folks need pictures to understand simple concepts, I agree. How long are you intending to make these sour grapes last for? No-one's interested.

    NTTD.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:





    This is true, had a discussion with one of the artists in the comments section when it was announced. He even said that " it's unfair that they won't even give credit to the artists and there is no guarantee that they will even return the one's which won't be used or win".
    They are not wrong to be honest.

    Oh is there no credit to be given? That seems odd. Maybe they just can't guarantee they'll give the name every time? If you don't credit the artist it actually makes it seem less like a competition in the tweets or whatever which makes Eon look bad- I'd be surprised if they don't.
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)

    I was thinking more of your comparison photo of a building collapsing. Truly hilarious stuff.

    It is quite funny that some folks need pictures to understand simple concepts, I agree. How long are you intending to make these sour grapes last for? No-one's interested.

    Well, given that you don’t seem to understand the phrase ‘sour grapes’, perhaps we should leave it there. I’ll leave the lecturing to you, sir.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2020 Posts: 16,373
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:





    This is true, had a discussion with one of the artists in the comments section when it was announced. He even said that " it's unfair that they won't even give credit to the artists and there is no guarantee that they will even return the one's which won't be used or win".
    They are not wrong to be honest.

    Oh is there no credit to be given? That seems odd. Maybe they just can't guarantee they'll give the name every time? If you don't credit the artist it actually makes it seem less like a competition in the tweets or whatever which makes Eon look bad- I'd be surprised if they don't.
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)

    I was thinking more of your comparison photo of a building collapsing. Truly hilarious stuff.

    It is quite funny that some folks need pictures to understand simple concepts, I agree. How long are you intending to make these sour grapes last for? No-one's interested.

    Well, given that you don’t seem to understand the phrase ‘sour grapes’, perhaps we should leave it there. I’ll leave the lecturing to you, sir.

    Good grief, you're even arguing about that. "Sour grapes is the action of making something seem less important after finding out they can't have it." You weren't right, you misunderstood and looked silly, so you're trying to belittle me for explaining it to you. That's exactly the meaning.

    Please can we talk about No Time To Die? I'm not replying to you any more about this as you seem determined to have an argument about nothing.
  • edited January 2020 Posts: 3,164
    Yeah, there's no guarantee. And the crux is - is exposure a suitable substitute for payment.

    If someone like that guy did a Bond poster just for the fun of it and not for a competition organised/promoted by EON/MGM, then resharing/retweeting etc 'for exposure' without any sort of compensation is totally fair enough. But here EON/MGM actually put a call out to essentially crowdsource marketing materials under the guise of a competition - and all entries have the potential to be used regardless of if they win or not (and the artists lose the rights, which again, for original illustrations like this is a killer because they can't really use it in portfolios either...).

    Talenthouse's rival agency PosterSpy actually does these sorts of competitions/briefs with distributors a lot better because they ensure that the artists still retain as much of the rights as they can and generally get a fair deal out of all this. There's a fine line to all this...


    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:





    This is true, had a discussion with one of the artists in the comments section when it was announced. He even said that " it's unfair that they won't even give credit to the artists and there is no guarantee that they will even return the one's which won't be used or win".
    They are not wrong to be honest.

    Oh is there no credit to be given? That seems odd. Maybe they just can't guarantee they'll give the name every time? If you don't credit the artist it actually makes it seem less like a competition in the tweets or whatever which makes Eon look bad- I'd be surprised if they don't.
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke and Craig was wrong; just accept it graciously without the sour grapes and let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    I really enjoyed the lecture about the validity of the sinking house - you should submit it to Viz.

    Well Craig wrote it, not me: it's not mine to submit ;) I liked the bit about "The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - .... etc. etc."
    Very funny, I agree ;) Enjoy those grapes.

    Some of us actually want to talk about NTTD rather than each other, however, so...


    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »

    'Two Popes to No Time To Die' sounds like an awesome movie I want to see :)
    RC7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I'll continue on the terms set out in my original comment, if that's good with you - which was a general physics response to a general physics observation ("not a realistic sequence", "a house couldn't possibly sink in Venice " etc). Not really in reference to anything shown in the film, but if you insist upon that I'd say that there was more than a bit of plaster shown to be falling down.

    The walls of your average building in Venice aren't the thickest things in the world. So when the floatation devices become null and void as supports for the structure of the building and the weight of said building becomes a full load on the wooden stilts that almost all of Venice is built on, the walls will - at least partially - collapse in on themselves and increase the rate at which the structure will come down. The building obviously doesn't come down as one piece. The roof being intact means little to what has happened underneath it.

    It does come down as one piece though: I just watched it again- none of the exterior walls collapse. Some external chimneys fall, some plaster tumbles, some internal floors give way. But the whole thing comes down as a straight and rigid box. I know you think general physics mean it should collapse, and in the real world it certainly would, but I may return to my original point if that's okay with you: not a single storey or wall of the building is shown to collapse in the film.
    I think you're confusing what should happen with what the film shows as happening. Watch it again: screengrab the bit where the structure collapses if you can.

    You're absolutely correct.

    Back to NTTD.

    That wasn’t hard, was it? :)
    Let’s think about these things first without these silly knee jerk “you’re wrong!’ reactions all the time. It’s tiring.

    The only one who seems to incessantly lecture around here is you, wind it in. No one cares about the legitimacy of the sinking house. It’s great, period.

    Mate, you didn't understand the joke; just let it go. Folks are bored.
    Contraband wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Via1mXE.jpg

    If that's official, then it is the best poster in some time.

    Fan-made...

    Yeah I reckon someone's let their submission to the competition out early! :) It is a lovely bit of work though- love the palette.

    The guy who made and posted it said he won't be submitting it to the competition...

    Oh I wonder why? It's great. Maybe he's got a better one! :)

    There's been a lot of backlash towards the competition from more professionally-aimed illustrators and designers, centred around MGM/EON grabbing the rights to all entries and being able to use them in the campaign, not just the ones selected to win and getting the prize money. (which, given the fact it has been confirmed they aren't allowing the use of any actual stills/framegrabs from the films, only original illustrations, is especially egregious IMO)

    He is one of the artists on the Poster Posse roster - a group of designers that studios like Disney regularly formally approach (and pay!) to do alternate official designs:

    Cool I will check them out: looks like lovely stuff. I don't want to get into the ins and outs of that competition too much- I don't think it sounds that bad to me. Most competitions seem to work like that to me and the designers will get the benefit of the exposure of Eon's publicity- most 007 fan posters wouldn't get a retweet otherwise. It's not like they'll be selling prints of all the submissions or anything! :)

    I was thinking more of your comparison photo of a building collapsing. Truly hilarious stuff.

    It is quite funny that some folks need pictures to understand simple concepts, I agree. How long are you intending to make these sour grapes last for? No-one's interested.

Sign In or Register to comment.