Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19619629649669671147

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The eyes are different shapes (Craig's are quite triangular in shape). The iris don't match with the ring of darkness at the edge. The ears stick out in a similar way (potentially adjusted digitally) but the structure is different. The nose is a different shape (tapering to a point where Craig's is blunter at the end). He's been chosen because he can pass for a young Craig, but it's not him.

    Like I said, the last image has been manipulated, and from Kleinman's quote it seems like what he did to allow more of Craig's features to be seen resulted in some narrowing of the face.

    Manipulated to look like a different person? Why would they do that?

    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Your idea that they'd somehow get incredibly lucky and find extreme close-up unused material of Craig from a few years prior, lit and performing in exactly the way needed and in high enough resolution to zoom in tight, and then spend ages digitally changing him to make him look quite different, really seems more likely than them just hiring a boy who looks a bit similar, photographing him exactly how they need him, and boosting his eye colour a bit?

    It's not about getting lucky, it's about fitting what they have into the digital world they are trying to create. Again, with all the access to the unused promo material, footage etc. it's not unlikely they'd have found a close up of Craig such as this.

    It's very unlikely; it's being shot like a photography portrait.
    007HallY wrote: »
    Worth noting as well the first image looks noticeably soft. I'm not even sure if the left eye is in focus. A bit odd if it were a fresh bit of footage, and to me suggests it wasn't shot as recently as the last image.

    It's motion blur, the camera is zooming.
    007HallY wrote: »
    From experience, it'd be relatively easy and in keeping with the post-production process to do all that rather than get a young actor in, as both require extensive post-production work. Actually, probably using a previous still would be easier to work with in some ways. Less costly too.

    And yet they've got Daniel Craig, movie star, in to shoot his close-up. Hiring a kid for an hour or two isn't exactly going to blow the budget. It's a kid.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    He's been chosen because he can pass for a young Craig, but it's not him.
    Yes, that's what I've thought all this time. And, yes, surely it would've been a lot easier just to get a young actor or child model in for half a day and photograph him in the exact pose you want than it would've been to go to all that time, trouble and expense searching for and then digitally manipulating an old image of Dan? Always happy to hold my hands up if I'm wrong, but with this one I thought it was pretty clear cut, tbh. Like Creasy said, though - obviously not!

    Yep, exactly. Using an old photograph would look rubbish; it's far easier and more controllable to shoot new footage.
    Combined with the fact that it's a different face :D
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 2,860
    mtm wrote: »
    Combined with the fact that it's a different face :D
    I think that might be the key point... ;)
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,384
    Also the argument about the logistics of a child actor etc... Kleinman is a world-class commercial director. His entire business is rush jobs, quirky requirements, and resourcefulness. He would easily be able to have what's probably an on-staff casting manager quickly find a freckled blonde kid with blue eyes in London for what was likely no more than a couple of hours of work. The PTS BTS video doesn't mention the kid, but the BTS is also solely focused on the one day Craig was on set for the PTS. The younger actor could have been shot at any point during the process, which I think they said started about a year from release and ramped up 4 months before release. I emailed Kleiman's company, we'll see if they bite.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,554
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    The eyes are different shapes (Craig's are quite triangular in shape). The iris don't match with the ring of darkness at the edge. The ears stick out in a similar way (potentially adjusted digitally) but the structure is different. The nose is a different shape (tapering to a point where Craig's is blunter at the end). He's been chosen because he can pass for a young Craig, but it's not him.

    Like I said, the last image has been manipulated, and from Kleinman's quote it seems like what he did to allow more of Craig's features to be seen resulted in some narrowing of the face.

    Manipulated to look like a different person? Why would they do that?

    Read the quote. He said that for whatever reason the picture of Craig in tandem with the way the crack was placed didn't give a proper sense that it was Craig. This is what he felt at least. He says he had to 'widen' the image to make it fit.

    Just imagine Craig's head in the final image has had two large fingers placed on his temples and they have squeezed ever so slightly. I think this is is essentially what's happened during this process. By comparison the first image is closer (or at least pushed in to make the face fill the crack more fully/look closer) so the features seem wider by comparison.

    It is interesting that people can see different things, isn't it? Honestly, I can't see anyone other than Craig in these two images. I certainly can't see a 9 year old...
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Your idea that they'd somehow get incredibly lucky and find extreme close-up unused material of Craig from a few years prior, lit and performing in exactly the way needed and in high enough resolution to zoom in tight, and then spend ages digitally changing him to make him look quite different, really seems more likely than them just hiring a boy who looks a bit similar, photographing him exactly how they need him, and boosting his eye colour a bit?

    It's not about getting lucky, it's about fitting what they have into the digital world they are trying to create. Again, with all the access to the unused promo material, footage etc. it's not unlikely they'd have found a close up of Craig such as this.

    It's very unlikely; it's being shot like a photography portrait.

    Then it might be an unused promo shot for CR or QOS. Or test footage. Or any number of things that would have required such a shot to be taken. Like I said, Kleinman would have had access to that, not just the final films. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Worth noting as well the first image looks noticeably soft. I'm not even sure if the left eye is in focus. A bit odd if it were a fresh bit of footage, and to me suggests it wasn't shot as recently as the last image.

    It's motion blur, the camera is zooming.

    It's definitely softened to my eye. Regardless of who it is. You can see from the skin. The last image of Craig also looks higher resolution and the eyes are much sharper even with the motion blur. That's why I'm inclined to believe the second image was shot with a more modern camera than the first one.
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    From experience, it'd be relatively easy and in keeping with the post-production process to do all that rather than get a young actor in, as both require extensive post-production work. Actually, probably using a previous still would be easier to work with in some ways. Less costly too.

    And yet they've got Daniel Craig, movie star, in to shoot his close-up. Hiring a kid for an hour or two isn't exactly going to blow the budget. It's a kid.

    It wouldn't blow the budget, but it'd be an unnecessary expense for something so small. These things aren't cheap. Again, it's not just the kid, it's the handler, the crew, the space needed. Like I said, going from Kleinman's interviews it seems even the stuff he did with Craig was after a days work, probably when they were in London. He even frames it less as 'this was something he needed to do' more than it seemed to be a favour almost. Like they were using spaces and equipment/costumes already there.

    It's also worth saying that reusing footage from previous films and repurposing them is seen throughout the Craig era. Look at how many times Vesper, Le Chiffre, Silva etc all pop up in photographs in SP. All are from bits of footage in the previous films or from promo material. They've just been photo edited to suit whatever they're trying to do. Because y'know, it'd be expensive and pointless bringing the actors back in.
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Also the argument about the logistics of a child actor etc... Kleinman is a world-class commercial director. His entire business is rush jobs, quirky requirements, and resourcefulness. He would easily be able to have what's probably an on-staff casting manager quickly find a freckled blonde kid with blue eyes in London for what was likely no more than a couple of hours of work. The PTS BTS video doesn't mention the kid, but the BTS is also solely focused on the one day Craig was on set for the PTS. The younger actor could have been shot at any point during the process, which I think they said started about a year from release and ramped up 4 months before release. I emailed Kleiman's company, we'll see if they bite.

    Surely the idea that Kleinman is used to working under deadlines and being resourceful would support the idea that he'd have been able to find a previous image of Craig and have fitted his work around it?

    The BTS issue is another thing. I don't think people realise the logistics it takes organising all this, the amount of time to even get relatively simple images for these things. Even before his day shoot with Craig Kleinman would have had to have prepared and have made sure he knew what he wanted in order to work with the material. It would have been great BTS material at least, and certainly an interesting bit of trivia. I doubt BTS footage/photographs would have missed such a thing, or at least not have been made publicly available nor have been even mentioned 10 years after this film came out.

    I don't think we're going to get to a conclusion without a definitive answer, ideally from someone in the know. I know the titles for SF was completed at Framestore's London office. I used to work at a Post-Production house in Soho as an assistant (I'm not a VFX artist to make clear, and again I have no definitive insight into what was done with this particular work) and do know some people who still work in that industry around London. I'm not sure if anyone with two degrees of separation from me works for Framestore, and even if they do likely not 10 years ago, but I can ask around. Not sure if this would open up any leads to anyone else if Kleimnan's company doesn't bite.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Bond fans with no new content are like rats in a bucket... they begin to... eat eachother.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,554
    Bond fans with no new content are like rats in a bucket... they begin to... eat eachother.

    :)) Yes, it does feel like that doesn't it?
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,384
    Again. The BTS video is like 3 minutes long and from one day of shooting with Craig. They had about 300 other days to work with a young actor/model for one photo with specific lighting they need. To my mind, one photo of a young actor, probably matching direct reference if they got the Craig shot first, is something an intern could accomplish once you had the model.

    BTS wouldn't have been there because, as you say, Framestore/RattlingStick was working on this, so they didn't have a constant BTS team like you'd probably have at a Pinewood set etc.

    I do agree... it's weird it's never mentioned, Craig or stranger either way. I also just emailed some Framestore folks. Told them I'm working on a 60th Anniversary story and this topic came up. Not untrue.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,554
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Again. The BTS video is like 3 minutes long and from one day of shooting with Craig. They had about 300 other days to work with a young actor/model for one photo with specific lighting they need. To my mind, one photo of a young actor, probably matching direct reference if they got the Craig shot first, is something an intern could accomplish once you had the model.

    I doubt it'd be an intern's job. It's not hard per say, but you don't want to mess it up. Also there are lots of other things that'd need considering like assistants for the lighting, the space needed etc.

    I suspect if anything the image of the 'older' Craig was done to match the first. Which could have come from previous footage or an old picture of Craig or whatever. Again, nothing about the shadows, contrast etc. looks like it couldn't have been accomplished through post-production.
    LucknFate wrote: »
    BTS wouldn't have been there because, as you say, Framestore/RattlingStick was working on this, so they didn't have a constant BTS team like you'd probably have at a Pinewood set etc.

    Possibly, but it seems like something they'd be keen on getting snaps of, especially f they were in London. And also keep in mind, Kleinman has done interviews about his process on this piece. He's pretty open about what he did, what thought he put into all this etc. Not once does he mention a child model, and it's a pretty glaring omission. It's far more likely he'd have neglected to mention using an old image of Craig for the first 'priest hole' motif rather than completely missed the fact that a child was brought in.

    I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,384
    My totally baseless theory is that 1. I believe it's not Daniel Craig nor a photo of him, 2. unless it's a computer de-age effect of some sort, and 3. my suspicion is the kid may not be a professional model/actor.

    For whatever reason, it just wasn't a big deal, or they didn't want it to be a big deal. It would totally change that kids life to throw him into stardom and call out his tiny role. His family may have opted not to do that, who knows. I think they brought in someone who looked right and took a photo for three seconds of film, and that was that.

    I hope we find out.

    Though, the "woman holding a gun" in the TS is credited, but this Bond person is not. It's very strange. FWIW, the Amazon trivia overlay for the movie shows the scene starring Craig when it's on the boy's frame.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    My baseless theory is that the young Bond in the SF titles sequence is actually @mtm.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited October 2022 Posts: 573
    My baseless theory is that the young Bond in the SF titles sequence is actually @mtm.

    I'm going to play my Joker card. I think it's @DewiWynBond ... He's been applying for the main role in B26 and fooled us all along. He was already in a Bond movie.

    Is there a thread for this on the Skyfall board? Just thinking we could move the discussion there / make a thread for it and get back to castings here as this might rumble on for a while :).
  • Posts: 234
    The age comment from MG Wilson may not mean much. Paul Haggis wrote Bond as age 28 in his Casino Royale screenplay. Babs cast Daniel Craig age 38!

    Things can change subject to casting although it makes sense to go with a relatively younger actor.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    It'll be a lot of fun when they finally announce the casting for the next Bond and the community goes crazy devouring the entire filmography of that actor.

    At this point there are definitely a few picks that would be disappointing, but anything is workable. I predict it will still be at least a year.
  • 00Heaven wrote: »
    My baseless theory is that the young Bond in the SF titles sequence is actually @mtm.

    I'm going to play my Joker card. I think it's @DewiWynBond ... He's been applying for the main role in B26 and fooled us all along. He was already in a Bond movie.

    Is there a thread for this on the Skyfall board? Just thinking we could move the discussion there / make a thread for it and get back to castings here as this might rumble on for a while :).

    mandela-effect-damm.jpg
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,845
    cwl007 wrote: »
    I can't picture Matt Smith as Bond, he looks too unconventional. Then again, I was wrong about him in Doctor Who, he was an excellent choice. I will happily be proven wrong again, I just can't see it in my head.

    Great comment. It was me who suggested Matt Smith a few posts back, a left field choice. (I'm sure I'm not the first to do so)
    But your comment perfectly mirrors my thoughts on who ever gets the job. There are so many suggestions on this thread who I just can't picture as Bond. Yet that is what makes it so exciting, we won't know if they are the right man for the job until the film starts. I'm completely open minded on it.

    I think it might be a mistake for Smith to take on another another career shadowing role. Over the last 9 years, he has shaken off The Doctor, and has been carving out a good career for himself.

    It's funny, at the time, I wanted David Morrisey as The Doctor. But now I can't imagine anyone other than Matt Smith taking over at that time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    007HallY wrote: »

    I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?

    Who played Bond in, say, the GoldenEye credits? It’s not Brosnan. These things don’t really become common knowledge.


    Anyway, from one bizarre conspiracy theory to another: I was at the Sound of 007 concert tonight and who did I spot… but Aaron Taylor Johnson… ;)
  • Posts: 2,554
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?

    Who played Bond in, say, the GoldenEye credits? It’s not Brosnan. These things don’t really become common knowledge.

    According to 'Art Of The Title' it's Eddie Kidd. Full credits list can be found here:

    https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/goldeneye/
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,517
    Don't even remember Bond being in the GoldenEye titles. Thought it was just ladies with hammers.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2022 Posts: 14,792
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?

    Who played Bond in, say, the GoldenEye credits? It’s not Brosnan. These things don’t really become common knowledge.

    According to 'Art Of The Title' it's Eddie Kidd. Full credits list can be found here:

    https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/goldeneye/

    Eddie Kidd?! How bizarre! Just the year before his terrible injury. I guess I can kind of see it being him. Maybe they’ll get around to listing who’s young Bond in SF at some point.
  • edited October 2022 Posts: 2,554
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »

    I mean, it's a big deal trivia-wise. A kid technically played Bond. Why would this not be common knowledge by now, or at least mentioned by someone?

    Who played Bond in, say, the GoldenEye credits? It’s not Brosnan. These things don’t really become common knowledge.

    According to 'Art Of The Title' it's Eddie Kidd. Full credits list can be found here:

    https://www.artofthetitle.com/title/goldeneye/

    Eddie Kidd?! How bizarre! Just the year before his terrible injury. I guess I can kind of see it being him.

    Actually I didn't realise until now who he was/the fact that he was also a stunt double in GE. Makes sense actually.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,792
    He was a model as well as a stunt rider so it does make sense, yes. Famously in the cut action sequence from TLD.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited October 2022 Posts: 1,384
    Really convinced it isn't Craig circa CR as "young" Bond. There's just no way.
    FeRn9wNWIAYGsMV?format=jpg&name=medium
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2022 Posts: 7,517
    Is that Patrick Wilson?

    The people in those two photos are definitely not the same.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited October 2022 Posts: 13,845
    I never paid that much attention to it, but looking at the bottom image now, it looks a little like Ewan McGregor to me. Just a little bit.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,729
    I thought one of them looked like Idris Elba, but that's just me. >:)
    I cannot believe this is still going on.
    It's Craig in both btw
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 7,968
    abuelo-simpson.gif
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Really convinced it isn't Craig circa CR as "young" Bond. There's just no way.
    FeRn9wNWIAYGsMV?format=jpg&name=medium
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    I don't think they look that dissimilar...
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,867
    abuelo-simpson.gif
    I think I had a hat when I came in.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,384
    Got a response from marketing and production contacts at Framestore who told me to ask Kleinman and Eon, which I already have. Sorry to dredge it up... I would like to know if there's another Bond actor though.
Sign In or Register to comment.