SPECTRE Theatrical Trailer!

WTF? Stop polluting this thread. You're trolling on purpose.

Stamper wrote:

WTF? Stop polluting this thread. You're trolling on purpose.

As opposed to trolling on accident? Get a life.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

... Seriously? "The CGI is no better than what was used in DAD"? What planet are you living on? Sure, there's obviously some degree of CGI here, but the stuff used in DAD looked like a cartoon bu comparison.

That scene with Bond running away from a falling wall....pure garbage. I mean, it doesn't even look like Craig was running away from a green screen; looks like his face grafted onto someone else's body.

Furthermore, why are we using CGI dust and dirt? It's not as if Mendes was creating a Martian landscape. There's not a world shortage of rubble, dirt and dust, so why fake it?



The pertinent bit is at the 6:22 mark: Cubby: "They are very smart. They know just where you are. They know you're in Hollywood behind a palm tree and not in Ouarzazate or not in Morocco."

What's the point of a $300 million dollar budget if you have to lower yourself to manufacturing cgi dust? It's laziness, pure and simple.

Given Chris Corbould's reputation, he would have done as much of that scene through practical effects as possible. So they would have built a roof to collapse under Craig or his double, and they would have toppled the facade of the other building - if not onto it, then certainly as close as possible - and while they evidently needed some CGI in there, it's considerably better than what was used in DAD, which looked like a Ken doll on an animated wave.

While most of us are looking forward to a new film, and some of us are maybe cautious about it, you're the only person - possibly on the entire internet - who seems to be relishing the prospect of the film being a failure.

There's been snark about the 'Umm, thought the Bonds did things for real?'/CGI collapsing building' bit of that trailer on another forum I'm on. I've responded by saying that there aren't ANY modern movies that would actually put their star in the path of a collapsing building ... in fact (beyond a couple of establishing shots before the rest gets 'greenscreened in), there probably aren't many that would even genuinely have him on a rooftop.

Δ

I don't think that's CGI. Looks more like a digital composite of a practical effect. This is awfully reminiscent of people complaining about the sinking building being "too CGI", when it's actually a rig that was built and digitally composited.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I don't think that's CGI. Looks more like a digital composite of a practical effect. This is awfully reminiscent of people complaining about the sinking building being "too CGI", when it's actually a rig that was built and digitally composited.

Sense!

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Given Chris Corbould's reputation, he would have done as much of that scene through practical effects as possible. So they would have built a roof to collapse under Craig or his double, and they would have toppled the facade of the other building - if not onto it, then certainly as close as possible - and while they evidently needed some CGI in there, it's considerably better than what was used in DAD, which looked like a Ken doll on an animated wave.

DAD relied too much on fakery, but that's also a product of the way the story was written. I don't know how the characters can go to Iceland yet we get no establishing shots of anybody in Reykjavik. The first time Bond has gone to a Scandinavian country in the movies and we get everything filmed on the backlot. It was an abomination. But I digress.

Maybe if you have to rely too much on special effects to complete a scene then perhaps the scene should be rewritten so that f/x aren't needed.

Quote :

While most of us are looking forward to a new film, and some of us are maybe cautious about it, you're the only person - possibly on the entire internet - who seems to be relishing the prospect of the film being a failure.

I don't attend events where I am rooting for the failure of those involved. How does my putting money down for 5 tickets ensure its failure? Wait. Don't answer that.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I've read a few concerns comments on other message boards about the hue of the film and I'm in agreement with them. Almost everything in every scene other than the trip to Austria looks like a variation of brown, tan, beige, etc....there's very little color.

I was the one who sparked the complaint at Cb.n, but that was directed at the previous trailers. I take it back after seeing this. Like QOS the colour pallet is mainly earth tones, but it looks natural rather than pushed through grading. Also, I welcome the grainy, slightly overlit closeups of Craig and Waltz--very 60s/70s Bond.

You may have sparked that debate at Cbutt.n, but I've read similar comments on YouTube, AICN, and IMDB.

I put my new CASINO ROYALE blu-ray into the player last night and started off watching the special features first (haven't gotten to the film just yet). Just in the previews for the film and the behind-the-scenes-footage and deleted scenes there are extremely vibrant reds and turquoise and blue, and I haven't even gotten to the main feature yet. Alternatively, the trailers for SPECTRE have dry colors....orange, buttermilk, tan, beige, and brown. Just not a very extensive or vibrant color pattern from what I've seen so far.

I don't think you should be concerned with the cinematography. Hoyte van Hoytema knows how to shoot a film. The visuals will be comparable to the work of Moore, Young and Deakins. If EON allows the post-production team to fuck with the color palette, then I'll be disappointed. SKYFALL was gorgeous.

I'm more concerned about how the story will unfold.

I'm already spotting a parallel to the visuals of SKYFALL, with the wide shot of Bond being guided by Oberhauser and his cronies. Looks similar to when the henchmen guided Bond and Severine to Silva. It'd be a nice way of connecting the two films. I hope we'll be able to find other parallels to the previous film.

Control wrote:

I don't think you should be concerned with the cinematography. Hoyte van Hoytema knows how to shoot a film. The visuals will be comparable to the work of Moore, Young and Deakins. If EON allows the post-production team to fuck with the color palette, then I'll be disappointed. SKYFALL was gorgeous.

I'm more concerned about how the story will unfold.

I'm already spotting a parallel to the visuals of SKYFALL, with the wide shot of Bond being guided by Oberhauser and his cronies. Looks similar to when the henchmen guided Bond and Severine to Silva. It'd be a nice way of connecting the two films. I hope we'll be able to find other parallels to the previous film.

I've read other comments where people seem to think they've seen homages or parallels to the other films.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW:

Bond struggling to get back inside helicopter (FYEO); although I think this helicopter sequence, an homage it might be, is going to be far superior to FYEO in every way conceivable.

Blofeld Oberhauser to Bond: 'And I thought you came here to die'. (Goldfinger?)

The villains each having a high tech sports car and fighting each other with it: DIE ANOTHER DAY

There were more, but some of these are likely to be mere coincidental redundancies and nothing else.

I'm sure we can expect homages to the past films, but I'm more interested in seeing how Mendes connects this one with his previous Bond film. Or maybe he won't even bother to.

The trailer is exciting, enough to rope in EON's target audience. I'm really hoping the quality matches SKYFALL.

Until the new trailer, I didn't know about what I'm going to call 'the big base in the desert' ... am guessing the movie ends with it going up in flames (yay!).

Ties in with what Craig once said about being up for the 'submarine pen' stuff, as long as it can be made to work within his style of Bond flick.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Maybe if you have to rely too much on special effects to complete a scene then perhaps the scene should be rewritten so that f/x aren't needed.

And if the collapsing facade was entirely CGI to the point where the only things filmed through practical effects were the slab and the actor on it, you might have a point. But this has clearly been done with practical effects and some visual effects.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Until the new trailer, I didn't know about what I'm going to call 'the big base in the desert' ... am guessing the movie ends with it going up in flames (yay!).

Sam Mendes was guest editor for the November 2015 issue of Empire, so naturally Spectre featured pretty prominently. And in it, it was revealed that:

Spoiler:

I do like the visual image of the crater base - it looks like a steampunk Victorian mansion; it's very Ken Adam.

I like it but it's kinda short.

bitchcraft wrote:

I like it but it's kinda short.

The brilliant thing is that we know practically nothing about the story.