A worrying frame (might spoil)

Jimatay

There's something about this frame from the trailer that worries me. It flashes up very quickly on the trailer but it grabbed my attention. Is that CGI smoke or poor blue/green screen effects? It just doesn't look right. Also looking closely is that even Daniel Craig or a stunt man with a mask on? I'm dreading seeing bad effects in Spectre. It will ruin the film for me as there is no excuse for it.

HatThrowingHenchman

well, if that ruins the film for you...

welshboy78

Looks like DC has been overdoing the moisturising )

Just cancelling my tickets now!!

Jimatay

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

well, if that ruins the film for you...

Well obviously it won't ruin it to the extent that I wont watch it. But it'll be very disappointing. I want the memorable moments from the film to be positive, not "remember that crappy effect" ahem DAD.

HatThrowingHenchman

but in the still it looks like Léa though so maybe it's just the lighting

Stefan

There were images of the DC's stunt double, (who with the mask sorta reminds me of Marv, from the watchmen comic), on the Thames with Lea.

blame_thatcher

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

well, if that ruins the film for you...

Poor visual effects spoil the drama and excitement because they stick out like a sore thumb. People don't actively look for bad visual effects, the bad visual effects annouce themselves. The older Bond films we can make an excuse for, that should go without saying, but there's no excuse for it today.

welshboy78

Well I brought up a similar thing about Skyfall a while back and think I took a bit of a hammering for it if I remember correctly. I mentioned the Komodo Dragons looked a bit iffy in certain parts. I think somebody kept arguing that they can't use real ones but that was not my point at all, better CGI company etc

blame_thatcher

welshboy78 wrote:

Well I brought up a similar thing about Skyfall a while back and think I took a bit of a hammering for it if I remember correctly. I mentioned the Komodo Dragons looked a bit iffy in certain parts. I think somebody kept arguing that they can't use real ones but that was not my point at all, better CGI company etc

They used real crocodiles and alligators in 1973; they should have been able to use real komodo dragons in 2012.

Thunderpussy

) Sadly they couldn't perform the Crocodile stunt today. Not with
Stricter animal handling regulations.

welshboy78

Besides Sir Roger is getting on a bit

Ornithologist

Well it looks like they are driving...something. So it will likely be a fast action scene which leads me to hope that nobody is going to notice the exact look of his face if one hasn't been over-analyzing still pictures before the movie came out.

The more interesting question is: What are they driving? It looks like a mono-rail inside a volcano.... but that's impossible )

Youknowthename

According to Chris Corbould very little CGI was used. Barbara Broccoli insisted / agreed: this is Bond, we have the budget so we do it for real.

welshboy78

Well we have seen Lea and DC stunt doubles for this scene going up and down the Thames (think they even went back and did more reshoots) so guess like Skyfall always possibility some "face off" stuff going on here

Loeffelholz

Nothing here bothers me in the least; you really don't get much from a single frame taken out of context. This will be one of 24 frames that occur in the one second of this moment in the film.

HatThrowingHenchman

blame_thatcher wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

well, if that ruins the film for you...

Poor visual effects spoil the drama and excitement because they stick out like a sore thumb. People don't actively look for bad visual effects, the bad visual effects annouce themselves. The older Bond films we can make an excuse for, that should go without saying, but there's no excuse for it today.

not necessarily

CmdrAtticus

blame_thatcher wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Well I brought up a similar thing about Skyfall a while back and think I took a bit of a hammering for it if I remember correctly. I mentioned the Komodo Dragons looked a bit iffy in certain parts. I think somebody kept arguing that they can't use real ones but that was not my point at all, better CGI company etc

They used real crocodiles and alligators in 1973; they should have been able to use real komodo dragons in 2012.

The real ones aren't as big and are an endangered species.

bryno92

Which trailer was this one on? And are we sure that is even supposed to be Daniel Craig?

Stefan

Some images had L.S with a stuntman, some like the one below just had just the stuntman.


The mask makes it's appearance again, )

broadshoulder

blame_thatcher wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Well I brought up a similar thing about Skyfall a while back and think I took a bit of a hammering for it if I remember correctly. I mentioned the Komodo Dragons looked a bit iffy in certain parts. I think somebody kept arguing that they can't use real ones but that was not my point at all, better CGI company etc

They used real crocodiles and alligators in 1973; they should have been able to use real komodo dragons in 2012.

Who is going to run around and catch them? One bite and your dead. The crew would be kept in cages

blame_thatcher

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

not necessarily

Yes, necessarily.

Shatterfang

Nothing wrong with the smoke to me. Daniel's head is pretty shiny though

Robbo88

We'll know soon enough. Could just be an iffy frame. I remember when the Terminator Genysis trailer hit, the Internet was in uproar because of the CGI used. When the movie came out, it looked alright.

MilleniumForce

I think it might have been where the smoke has been enhanced, or that the frame will need some tint to make it look a bit more gritty.

HatThrowingHenchman

blame_thatcher wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

not necessarily

Yes, necessarily.

childish

Sir Miles

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

blame_thatcher wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

not necessarily

Yes, necessarily.

childish

If we could all keep on topic and discuss civilly please -{

Thunderpussy

One frame from a two and a half hour movie, being discussed for
Days ! ....... Yep ! It's a Bond forum alright ! ) ) )

blame_thatcher

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

blame_thatcher wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

not necessarily

Yes, necessarily.

childish

As Sir Miles has said, please try to avoid this type of one-word silliness and provide explanations for your viewpoint. You haven't really explained anything at this juncture.

Gala Brand

Let's see. At 24 frames per second and 150 minutes of film that's, hold on, I'll need to take my shoes off to make this calculation . . . that's, let's see, carry the one . . . 12,960,000 frames.

One down 12,959,999 to go. )

HatThrowingHenchman

blame_thatcher wrote:

HatThrowingHenchman wrote:

blame_thatcher wrote:

Yes, necessarily.

childish

As Sir Miles has said, please try to avoid this type of one-word silliness and provide explanations for your viewpoint. You haven't really explained anything at this juncture.

-{

the needed explanation: bad cgi doesn't necessarily ruin a movie. take DAD, while some hate it because of its CGI, there are other people who don't mind that and take it for what it is, a 2h adventure.
Anyway, I think it's too early for those critics for SPECTRE (just a trailer glimpse and a frame, that don't bother the majority at all).
And with 'childish' I meant our little "yes, it is....no, it isn't" chit-chat, not your opinion and I think thats what SM ment, too, so no sillyness. -{

Bleuville

welshboy78 wrote:

Besides Sir Roger is getting on a bit

Yes I'm going to see him at the Theatre Royal Bath on afternoon of 30th October.
Should be funny and enjoyable. (His 2nd talk tour.)

Bleuville. "All those feathers and he still couldn't fly !" RM in TSWLMe.