NTTD Gun Barrel Sequence OOO O O O

13468922

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 6,859
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.
  • Posts: 5,869
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,859
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.
  • Posts: 5,869
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Me too. Perfectly feasible now.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    Posts: 544
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Until massive audiences start laughing at a traditional gun barrel, I disagree.

    Exactly. Audiences won't laugh, they'll cheer. They should especially cheer if the Bond theme that accompany's the image is in sync and bad ass.

    The gunbarrel is part of the Bond folklore. Definitively not something that should be changed just to please potential audiences who may or may not become Bond fans,
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 12,159
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    Until massive audiences start laughing at a traditional gun barrel, I disagree.

    Exactly. Audiences won't laugh, they'll cheer. They should especially cheer if the Bond theme that accompany's the image is in sync and bad ass.

    The gunbarrel is part of the Bond folklore. Definitively not something that should be changed just to please potential audiences who may or may not become Bond fans,

    They should feel free to change whatever they want if they have a good reason for it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2019 Posts: 6,859
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.

    Photography has come a long way since 1962, especially with advancement of stabilizers. I don’t think it would hurt to test out live gun barrel footage.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,159
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.

    Photography has come a long way since 1962, especially with advancement of stabilizers. I don’t think it would hurt to test out live gun barrel footage.

    The amount of work it would take though. It's just not worth the effort just to get some reflections which you'd get a better matching result by CGing in.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,859
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.

    Photography has come a long way since 1962, especially with advancement of stabilizers. I don’t think it would hurt to test out live gun barrel footage.

    The amount of work it would take though. It's just not worth the effort just to get some reflections which you'd get a better matching result by CGing in.

    I don’t see how it would be such a hassle.
  • Posts: 5,869
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.

    Photography has come a long way since 1962, especially with advancement of stabilizers. I don’t think it would hurt to test out live gun barrel footage.

    The amount of work it would take though. It's just not worth the effort just to get some reflections which you'd get a better matching result by CGing in.

    Yes, it would be art. And why not? Film is not supposed to be art anymore?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,159
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Here’s one way to do it: Shoot the gun barrel live with a pinhole camera on set. Affix it to the camera that is taking footage of the actor. Then when in editing you composite Bond’s image onto the hole of the gun barrel, and any reflective shadow movement within the gun barrel matches with Bond’s movements, so it’s the real deal.

    Very well thought. Don't know why they don't think like that and rather use an unmovable, light-wise, image of a bun barrel, or a cgi version of it. Couldn't someone just get creative?

    It probably wasn’t feasible in 1962, or even 1995 given it was all shot on film. Today with digital cameras? Might be possible. If it’s been tested by Kleinman I’d love to know.

    Think of how tiny it is and how any tiny vibration would show up onscreen. Just not really worth the effort of trying to shoot actual action down it. CG is fine.

    Photography has come a long way since 1962, especially with advancement of stabilizers. I don’t think it would hurt to test out live gun barrel footage.

    The amount of work it would take though. It's just not worth the effort just to get some reflections which you'd get a better matching result by CGing in.

    Yes, it would be art. And why not? Film is not supposed to be art anymore?

    My version would be art too; you think Kleinman’s titles aren’t art because they use CG? Film is not supposed to be art any more?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,859
    It’s all art, it’s just one method does not negate the other. It’s ultimately up to Kleinman, but I’d like to see him try a live gun barrel.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,117
    Until massive audiences start laughing at a traditional gun barrel, I disagree.

    Do the audience really care that much? I mean, care about the gunbarrel. We do, but do they, I would be surprised.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 6,859
    My point is they likely don’t care enough to the point that they’d laugh at a Binder styled version of it. SP was the closest we got to that, short of an iris opening up at the end.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 12,159
    It’s all art, it’s just one method does not negate the other.

    Yes, that was my point.
    It’s ultimately up to Kleinman, but I’d like to see him try a live gun barrel.

    He may have already! My suspicion is it won't work/look any good.
  • My point is they likely don’t care enough to the point that they’d laugh at a Binder styled version of it. SP was the closest we got to that, short of an iris opening up at the end.

    Why would they laugh at Binder's design? Don't understand that one. Eon still use it heavily in promoting Bond anyway.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,117
    The Binder design was fine up the 1989, but the 1995 gubarrel makes it obsolte now. Why go back just because it is the Binder design? The GE gunbarrel just looks modern, then and still does today.

    Why not use it?


    Too slick? That is like saying something is too Bondian.
  • Posts: 16,482
    The GE gunbarrel is perfection – I've always liked the way the animation moves. It looks like it could've been made in 2019.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 12,159
    Yeah it's hard to beat. One thing I really love is the transition from the dots to the full gunbarrel: it doesn't open up because it doesn't need to- it simply appears out of the darkness as the barrel moves. That's brilliant.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe Moderator
    Posts: 13,117
    The GE gunbarrel is perfection – I've always liked the way the animation moves. It looks like it could've been made in 2019.

    Exactly. Moreso when you look at the gunbarrels since, that have all been well below standard in one way or another. 1/2 of a gunbarrel, 3/4 of a gunbarrel, wrong place, wrong colour, too fast. ~X(
  • Posts: 5,869
    Yes, the Goldeneye gunbarrel is the gold standard. Wish they would bring it back.
  • Posts: 4,619
    Yes, the GE gunbarrell is perfect, including Brosnan's walk. They should use it and simply put Craig's head onto Brosnan's body. I am not being sarcastic.
  • Posts: 1,333
    Yes, the GE gunbarrell is perfect, including Brosnan's walk. They should use it and simply put Craig's head onto Brosnan's body. I am not being sarcastic.

    Yes, that's a great idea. I am being sarcastic. Sorry.

  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 683
    I really do wish that after Casino Royale gun barrel (which I was totally fine with) they had just gone back to Kleinman's GoldenEye/Brosnan design. For 1995 CGI I must say it has aged well. It still looks good today. Just a sleek, fresh take on the classic design.
  • The Binder design was fine up the 1989, but the 1995 gubarrel makes it obsolte now. Why go back just because it is the Binder design? The GE gunbarrel just looks modern, then and still does today.

    Why not use it?


    Too slick? That is like saying something is too Bondian.

    That is Binder's design.
  • Posts: 14,808
    The Binder design was fine up the 1989, but the 1995 gubarrel makes it obsolte now. Why go back just because it is the Binder design? The GE gunbarrel just looks modern, then and still does today.

    Why not use it?


    Too slick? That is like saying something is too Bondian.

    That is Binder's design.

    Exactly. The GE gunbarrel is essentially a CGI version of Binder's giving the image additional movement and depth.

    The only element I don't care for is post gun shot, apparently there wasn't enough time to present the melody in it's full glory. Hence, in the first two Arnold scores he chooses to remove the melody altogether. In DAD the guitar riff is shortened. Actually, one could still play the theme properly, quicker, a'la FRWL and it would be ending just as the iris opens.

    If Arnold were to recycle the Brosnan gun-barrel design and insert Craig, I'd be happy.
  • Posts: 5,869
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The GE gunbarrel is essentially a CGI version of Binder's giving the image additional movement and depth.

    That’s why I love it. Just slow down the post-shot scene so it can fit the proper music section and it will be perfect!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 12,159
    Univex wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The GE gunbarrel is essentially a CGI version of Binder's giving the image additional movement and depth.

    That’s why I love it. Just slow down the post-shot scene so it can fit the proper music section and it will be perfect!

    It's actually only marginally quicker: if you play it to the music from a Roger gunbarrel or Tim it fits perfectly well: it's only really TWINE which has a really short ending. The circle starts wobbling from side to side about half a second earlier, but there's not much in it. In GE the music actually ends before the circle has opened up on the plane, whereas in most Bond films the music is still playing as the circle opens onto the film.

    One quite nice touch I'd not noticed before is the gunbarrel gets smaller and tighter around him as he walks into the middle of the screen.
  • Posts: 14,808
    The Brosnan era gunbarrel is classic yet modern. I really want something closer to that for NTTD.
    IMO, the gunbarrel design for QoS looked more like something you'd see on a SIMPSONS episode that spoofs Bond rather than the real deal.
  • GertGettlerGertGettler Laptop Barcelona
    Posts: 431
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    The Brosnan era gunbarrel is classic yet modern. I really want something closer to that for NTTD.
    IMO, the gunbarrel design for QoS looked more like something you'd see on a SIMPSONS episode that spoofs Bond rather than the real deal.

    I just don't like the Brosnan posing. It's like he tries to hard, as if he has a back injury...standing up that straight. Nah, the SP-gunbarrel for me is the best since Brosnan became Bond. But then again, it's also a matter of taste :-).
Sign In or Register to comment.