SPECTRE Trailer/TV Spot Thread - NEW TV Spots Page 117 - Final Trailer Page 106

1959698100101119

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,116
    What's wrong with the dragons?

  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,310
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What's wrong with the dragons?
    They look fake (particularly the running one Bond jumps on to get out of the pit). I'm not a huge fan of the scene in general anyway, but if it had to be in the movie I have no idea why animatronic models were not built. (Touch them up with CGI later if needed.)

    What looks more real to you? This:
    Velociraptors.jpg

    ...or this:
    cinesitekimodo.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What's wrong with the dragons?
    Nothing, they look great and help create an exotic atmosphere that harkens back to Bond's pulp roots.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2015 Posts: 5,921
    TripAces wrote: »
    Jan1985 wrote: »
    In my opinion, that line ("you have come across me so many times" or so) is delivered by Scott. In the trailer, they have mixed two different Waltz lines and that one.

    Wrong. It's Waltz all the time.
    We had this discussion already months ago.

    As I said then: why should Waltz be dubbing Scott in the german version?
    Waltz speaks all these lines.

    I agree, although I do think the 'you came across me...' bit could be Scott.

    That is the part that is Scott.

    Agreed.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,879
    talos7 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What's wrong with the dragons?
    Nothing, they look great and help create an exotic atmosphere that harkens back to Bond's pulp roots.
    Exactly, I just don't get how the dragons look dodgy. I thought they were done incredibly well. The helicopters and the corner of Silva's mouth were the bits I found questionable on the first viewing, and my opinion of them hasn't changed.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    How real or fake they look is an opinion, or preference, not a fact. Every effect technique has a tell, something that gives it away. The most incredible animatronic creation, like the Raptor above from JPIII looks great but there are aspects of how it moves that scream "fake". It boils down to a matter of preference. For a full motion creature like the Komodo dragons, CGI was the most viable technique. In my opinion they look great and the sequence adds to the film.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SJK91 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    What's wrong with the dragons?
    They look fake (particularly the running one Bond jumps on to get out of the pit). I'm not a huge fan of the scene in general anyway, but if it had to be in the movie I have no idea why animatronic models were not built. (Touch them up with CGI later if needed.)

    What looks more real to you? This:
    Velociraptors.jpg

    ...or this:
    cinesitekimodo.jpg[/quote

    And? Have you not seen a real komodo dragon? Jk but seriously what's wrong with it?
  • Posts: 1,310
    talos7 wrote: »
    How real or fake they look is an opinion, or preference, not a fact. Every effect technique has a tell, something that gives it away. The most incredible animatronic creation, like the Raptor above from JPIII looks great but there are aspects of how it moves that scream "fake". It boils down to a matter of preference. For a full motion creature like the Komodo dragons, CGI was the most viable technique. In my opinion they look great and the sequence adds to the film.
    Naturally, everything is preference when it comes to films and this is indeed no different. What strikes me is that Skyfall is full of 100% convincing and unnoticeable uses of CGI as mentioned in this article. Some of the compositing and environments that were created are simply undetectable from the real thing and movie magic.

    A full CGI animal is incredibly difficult to pull off. When I compare the Komodos (and the scorpion) in Skyfall to some of the better attempts I've seen in other films, I ultimately am let down. But anyway, I think we understand each other and will have to agree to disagree.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,889
    Yep
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    DAD had undeniable subpar examples of bad CGI.

    IMO I think the perspective of the quality of the SF CGI or at least SOME of the CGI is influenced to some degree as to how much one likes SF.

    Just saying NOT arguing or accusing.
  • Posts: 1,310
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    DAD had undeniable subpar examples of bad CGI.

    IMO I think the perspective of the quality of the SF CGI or at least SOME of the CGI is influenced to some degree as to how much one likes SF.

    Just saying NOT arguing or accusing.
    That is fair. I also believe the video @talos7 posted (Why CG Sucks - Except It Doesn't) touches upon that concept.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SJK91 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    DAD had undeniable subpar examples of bad CGI.

    IMO I think the perspective of the quality of the SF CGI or at least SOME of the CGI is influenced to some degree as to how much one likes SF.

    Just saying NOT arguing or accusing.
    That is fair. I also believe the video @talos7 posted (Why CG Sucks - Except It Doesn't) touches upon that concept.

    Well I didn't necessarily mean you or anybody in general. Maybe should not have said. I really truly didn't mean offensive.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,015
    For the CG lovers (and I worked in that field), well, just ask yourself if you think the actors love to play between green walls while facing nothing. I think you'll find the actors are amongst those who like CG the less. Once I was on location with a computer for previz, a member of the cast passed by and said "Oh no, a computer..."

    Also see how the actors laughed about the CG artists in the Academy Award ceremony. Or how Ang Lee never thought about thanking the CG artists for Life Of Pi. Mr Negativity here made once again his usual comments about how the stupid Bond fans are "whiners" and so on, he should have a look at that ceremony.

    CG is here mostly for money, not for art. Hopefully, they put the money on screen with SPECTRE, and it means :

    "Michael Wilson, producer: ‘[SPECTRE] is old-style film-making, the kind people don’t do now, as they rely on CGI."

  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,879
    Inching back to SP- and I don't really want to pick the film before I've seen it, but in the first trailer, the plane crashing through the trees looks like CGI. I think it's the motion of the plane, more so than the lighting, shadows etc.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Patrice fall was perfect for the film in the film ...violent and befeating.

    Meh. Too CGI. The artistic fight should have extended to the death shot

    Well they couldn't very well drop him for real lol :P

    Well, that's the whole thing @mcdonbb . Just watch Sandor's fall in TSWLM. In those days you could only make it appear as if someone really fell. People in those days weren't attached to high cables on big cranes. I guess first time they used wires were actually in MR.

    Hence why I think CGI is so incredibly important and, especially on here, an underappreciated art of moviemaking. I mean, back in 1973 Guy Hamilton risked the life of his crew to 'play' with these crocs. As of today it's even way more dangerous to do a similar trick with komodo dragons! People tend to forget that completely sometimes.

    CGI is very important. Thank God we have Steve Begg and his team doing all this stuff right at this very moment. Otherwise we could not have included such gripping scenes like those with the komodo dragons, the entire destruction of the MI6-building and all that jumping from high altitudes! :-)

    Did you just describe the Komodo Dragons scene as gripping?
  • SkyfallCraigSkyfallCraig Rome, Italy
    Posts: 630
    Wasn't Patrice fall shot for real?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    QBranch wrote: »
    Inching back to SP- and I don't really want to pick the film before I've seen it, but in the first trailer, the plane crashing through the trees looks like CGI. I think it's the motion of the plane, more so than the lighting, shadows etc.

    That was a combination of a model plane with computer generated wings and snow blowback etc. as far as I remember! I think you're right though - there was something off about it. However, I think it'll look fine in the film itself. They still had a bit to go in post when the trailer came out.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I thought the Komodo CGI was done pretty well...the disappointment is that this is a series that prides itself on doing stunts for real. The croc stunt comes to mind here as well...although the crocs were tied down.

    However, in defence of CGI, they would've used puppets/props in older films and that would be worse
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I also thought Silva's facial implant was done well too.

    In fact I thought that most of the SF CGI was far better than what we had seen from Bond before.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I also thought Silva's facial implant was done well too.

    In fact I thought that most of the SF CGI was far better than what we had seen from Bond before.
    Agreed. Anything to complain about I guess.
  • Posts: 3,164
    So on the topic of the final trailer...happy with the runtime? What would you want to see? Do you want Smith's song in it or not?
  • DCisaredDCisared Liverpool
    Posts: 1,329
    Kinda completely maybe not related but that is precisely what is wrong with Jurassic world! Jurassic park 3 gets huge flack for being a crap film but at least it's dinosaurs look real! Some of the best animatronic work ever in my book. The sole apatasaur animatronic in JW was lousy in comparison and the cgi especially on some of the raptors movements and eyes is awful. Oh and don't get me started on my beloved tyrannosaurus :(
    Glad to have got that off my chest lol
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Oh yea ..bit off topic :( ... I'm fine with it. Just needs to have punch. I'd rather not have Smith's song in it.

  • Posts: 3,164
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Oh yea ..bit off topic :( ... I'm fine with it. Just needs to have punch. I'd rather not have Smith's song in it.

    Same here, I know some on other forums nare shocked at the short length but.... It's not like the other films which had their theatrical trailer as their final trailer.

    A lot of similar "final" one minute trailers released following a full length theatrical packed a lot.of punch for sure, and this should too.

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    antovolk wrote: »
    So on the topic of the final trailer...happy with the runtime? What would you want to see? Do you want Smith's song in it or not?

    If Smith's song is in it then at least we'll get an official glimpse of how it works with the action. Playing it while watching the existing bits hasn't really worked for me.

    I am surprised by the runtime but it is fine by me. The less they show, the better. It's a final trailer, not a theatrical one. Not expecting too much new footage, either.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Still no HD version of the spot?
  • Posts: 3,164
    antovolk wrote: »
    So on the topic of the final trailer...happy with the runtime? What would you want to see? Do you want Smith's song in it or not?

    If Smith's song is in it then at least we'll get an official glimpse of how it works with the action. Playing it while watching the existing bits hasn't really worked for me.

    I am surprised by the runtime but it is fine by me. The less they show, the better. It's a final trailer, not a theatrical one. Not expecting too much new footage, either.

    Given it's only meant to appear over the opening titles, not sure how that'll help? But yeah I get your point. I'm tempted to cut a short piece with existing footage together myself actually.
    jake24 wrote: »
    Still no HD version of the spot?

    No - I'm quite surprised by that to be honest.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    jake24 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I also thought Silva's facial implant was done well too.

    In fact I thought that most of the SF CGI was far better than what we had seen from Bond before.
    Agreed. Anything to complain about I guess.

    You say that as if I look for every reason to hate SF, which I dont. There are things and scenes in it that I love, but the bad CG just adds to what I don't like about it. It's my opinion, and it was brought up and discussed. I can't help that I don't like it; wish it wasn't the case, but it is.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,586
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    I also thought Silva's facial implant was done well too.

    In fact I thought that most of the SF CGI was far better than what we had seen from Bond before.
    Agreed. Anything to complain about I guess.

    You say that as if I look for every reason to hate SF, which I dont. There are things and scenes in it that I love, but the bad CG just adds to what I don't like about it. It's my opinion, and it was brought up and discussed. I can't help that I don't like it; wish it wasn't the case, but it is.
    Yeah, you're right. It’s just that after nearly 3 years of Skyfall slamming, every time I hear people talking negatively about it an alarm is triggered in my head.
  • robcoperobcope St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts: 58
    I personally think that the voice is Denbigh's, but I do think one thing is very clear: they are trying to avoid giving out too many plot details like they did with the Skyfall trailers. It'd be brilliant if they're making you think it's Christoph Waltz so that you are very surprised that it's indeed Denbigh who utters those words. At the very least, they are doing a better job of not taking you chronologically through the plot of the movie through the trailer like they did with Skyfall.

    I'm hoping the final trailer has a few more new lines, a few more new frames, but not much else. They've essentially reduced 2 1/2 hours worth of screen play into a concise 8 or 10 lines for a trailer campaign, and I'd like to see that stay where it is. So much dialog, so much content in the Skyfall campaign. I love what they're doing with Spectre.

    And let me add that the frame of Bond in the white shirt and the pointed machine gun is a brilliant shot to add to a TV spot. Love it.
Sign In or Register to comment.