Who should/could be a Bond actor?

19619629649669671000

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate Arkhangelsk
    Posts: 460
    Trying to find this young actor, there's an entire Reddit thread from just over a week ago full of people who never realized the young Bond thing in the Skyfall titles. Strange to me! I was obsessed from first viewing.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/xfzxb9/young_old_bond_in_skyfall_titles/
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,258
    Hah that’s crazy, you’re eagle-eyed.
  • LucknFateLucknFate Arkhangelsk
    edited October 3 Posts: 460
    Hah that’s crazy, you’re eagle-eyed.

    I think they released the PTS before the film or something. I remember having a copy very early and doing my own edits.

    Also, this actor has played an MI6 assistant in both Skyfall and Spectre. He has the eyes and freckles, but I don't think he's our young Bond; however, with a bit of bulking I don't think he'd be bad for Bond himself.

    Ian Bonar
    MV5BNTkyNTk4YWYtOWZiOC00MzgyLWIzNzctZTViNDNhMDNkYTI5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU0OTQ0NA@@._V1_.jpg

    Edit: I've gone and emailed Kleinman lol so I'll keep everybody posted if I get a response.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,698
    mtm wrote: »
    Well fair enough, but I'd say it clearly is two different people, and the whole point of it is about young Bond hiding in the walls of the house.

    Skygfallpeepers.jpg

    I daresay the kid had a bit of digital tweaking to his eyes and possibly even ears to better match Craig's.

    I always thought the top image was a screenshot of Daniel's eyes from Casino, when he returns to the table after the shower scene. To be precise

    "I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire"
    "A litte...but I won't consider myself to be in trouble till I start weeping blood"
    At that moment Bond makes eye contact with Le Chiffre, his head is down but his eyes look up to meet his gaze, exactly the same expression as the top image. I could be wrong
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 555
    I never even noticed this. You learn something every day. That's cool.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,945
    I just always figured they were using some stock footage or bits of clips from the CR days, like @Jordo007, much like the old photos used in SP are clearly ripped from screenshots of the film. That's interesting.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 3 Posts: 1,700
    Hang on, this is a wind-up, right? Youse guys didn't really think it was Craig in both shots, you're just teasin', yeh?! :-O
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 37,945
    Venutius wrote: »
    Hang on, this is a wind-up, right? Youse guys didn't really think it was Craig in both shots, you're just teasin', yeh?! :-O

    I don't think it's as "obvious" as you think it is, given the response in this thread from diehard Bond fans. I personally never knew, but then again I don't bother much with SF viewings.
  • Posts: 14,591
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well fair enough, but I'd say it clearly is two different people, and the whole point of it is about young Bond hiding in the walls of the house.

    Skygfallpeepers.jpg

    I daresay the kid had a bit of digital tweaking to his eyes and possibly even ears to better match Craig's.

    I always thought the top image was a screenshot of Daniel's eyes from Casino, when he returns to the table after the shower scene. To be precise

    "I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire"
    "A litte...but I won't consider myself to be in trouble till I start weeping blood"
    At that moment Bond makes eye contact with Le Chiffre, his head is down but his eyes look up to meet his gaze, exactly the same expression as the top image. I could be wrong

    That's pretty much what I always thought. Younger CR era Craig.
    But compared side by side it does look like someone else.
    LucknFate wrote: »
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I still only see Craig in the titles. No younger Bond. You have the shadows of Bond's opponents collapsing after Bond fires then Silva pops up and aims.

    I literally posted the screenshots in this thread. You're not going to convince me there isn't a younger actor in those screenshots!

    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1601.jpg

    -

    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1888.jpg

    Not the same person. I feel like I'm losing my mind. Are we all actually looking at the reference?

    MV5BZGUyZDY1MTMtZTYxMy00Y2FkLWJkZjYtOGU3MmU3ODI4YTYzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTc5MDI5NjE@._V1_.jpg

    Just ease back..............RELAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX.
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.
  • LucknFateLucknFate Arkhangelsk
    Posts: 460
    ToTheRight wrote: »

    Just ease back..............RELAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX.

    FeMCByYX0AAXun3?format=jpg&name=medium
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 4 Posts: 11,648
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.

    He’s got different facial features, the shape of his eyes, eyebrows nose etc. are all different. The ear is a similar general shape but the structure inside is different, and that won’t change with age. It’s a different person.
    They would get a kid in because they needed a kid, and they’re not going to use a shot of Craig from only a couple of years ago because no shot of him would have been photographed correctly: this eyeball had to be twenty feet high on the screen and Kleinman wants it lit/shot perfectly, he’s not Binder, using old scraps from previous films and titles and bodging them together (TSWLM Rog in AVTAK titles etc). And at no point (other than the end of the titles) in CR does he look into the camera. Its not a ‘deaged’ shot of Craig as this is three years before Ant Man. It’s a child/teen actor or model, it just is.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited October 4 Posts: 480
    Venutius wrote: »
    Hang on, this is a wind-up, right? Youse guys didn't really think it was Craig in both shots, you're just teasin', yeh?! :-O
    I've always thought it was CR era Craig.
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.

    He’s got different facial features, the shape of his eyes, eyebrows nose etc. are all different. The ear is a similar general shape but the structure inside is different, and that won’t change with age. It’s a different person.
    They would get a kid in because they needed a kid, and they’re not going to use a shot of Craig from only a couple of years ago because no shot of him would have been photographed correctly: this eyeball had to be twenty feet high on the screen and Kleinman wants it lit/shot perfectly, he’s not Binder, using old scraps from previous films and titles and bodging them together (TSWLM Rog in AVTAK titles etc). And at no point (other than the end of the titles) in CR does he look into the camera. Its not a ‘deaged’ shot of Craig as this is three years before Ant Man. It’s a child/teen actor or model, it just is.

    Kleinman's used footage from previous films in his titles before, SP being a prominent example. He just uses them for more symbolic purposes than Binder, who did it more for practical reasons. Nonetheless he still uses them when needed, and again looking at the inclusion of Vesper, Silva, Le Chiffre etc from the SP titles they can be blended in effectively.

    At the end of the day it's a bit difficult to tell as none of us know what the process was when the titles were created in general, let along for this one moment! That said, it's really not a case of any previous still needing to be 'correct' to fit into this moment because Kleinman and his VFX team would have crafted the digital images (in this case the crack) around what they have. If it is a previous still it wouldn't even have been from a couple of years prior but more likely 6+ years prior. Remember, they'd also have access to all the footage from CR and QOS. Not just the final product, but all the deleted scenes, unused promo material etc. It doesn't have to be from the finished film. Airbrushing and smoothing out facial features has existed for a long time in digital VFX, and if present here is a relatively simple example. Heck, even before Ant-Man you had films like X-Men: The Last Stand and Benjamin Button which applied VFX for such purposes. Even cutting an old still with new footage to add the little facial movements you see in the titles as they zoom in on the face was possible in 2012.

    Also, did no one catch the little quote from Kleimnam cited by @DewiWynBond? It's legitimate and might explain why the facial features in these two images (should they both be Craig) look slightly different.

    "There was a bit of a stumble over Daniel Craig’s eyes at the end of the sequence, which were meant to be a reprise of his young eyes from earlier on, witnessing something we know not what, yet. The problem was that although I filmed Daniel himself, many people didn’t recognise the eyes as his! I think he is not often filmed that close and he has very distinctive features that if not seen altogether can cause a bit of confusion. So I had to artificially widen the shot to see a bit more nose, ears, and mouth to make sure everyone knew who it was."

    We know Kleinman shot fresh footage for that final shot, but obviously he doesn't mention the footage/still of the 'young eyes' from earlier. That said I've searched and found nothing about a young actor ever mentioned by Kleinman. Why not? Even if it were a VFX technician's son or something that'd be a cool bit of trivia. It wouldn't be a secret. To be honest it seems like the sort of thing he'd specifically mention.

    To me, it doesn't even look like a 9 year old quite frankly. I always thought it was just meant to be a younger version of Craig's Bond, not the literal embodiment of him as a child. Maybe I'm just not seeing it, and at the end of the day either it is a child model or it isn't. I suspect it isn't. It just doesn't seem practical or necessary to use one for such a small moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 4 Posts: 11,648
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.

    He’s got different facial features, the shape of his eyes, eyebrows nose etc. are all different. The ear is a similar general shape but the structure inside is different, and that won’t change with age. It’s a different person.
    They would get a kid in because they needed a kid, and they’re not going to use a shot of Craig from only a couple of years ago because no shot of him would have been photographed correctly: this eyeball had to be twenty feet high on the screen and Kleinman wants it lit/shot perfectly, he’s not Binder, using old scraps from previous films and titles and bodging them together (TSWLM Rog in AVTAK titles etc). And at no point (other than the end of the titles) in CR does he look into the camera. Its not a ‘deaged’ shot of Craig as this is three years before Ant Man. It’s a child/teen actor or model, it just is.
    At the end of the day it's a bit difficult to tell as none of us know what the process was when the titles were created in general, let along for this one moment!

    It's not though, because it's a different person :) Different facial features = different person. They don't look slightly different, they look completely different.

    Skygfallpeepers-copy.jpg
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.

    He’s got different facial features, the shape of his eyes, eyebrows nose etc. are all different. The ear is a similar general shape but the structure inside is different, and that won’t change with age. It’s a different person.
    They would get a kid in because they needed a kid, and they’re not going to use a shot of Craig from only a couple of years ago because no shot of him would have been photographed correctly: this eyeball had to be twenty feet high on the screen and Kleinman wants it lit/shot perfectly, he’s not Binder, using old scraps from previous films and titles and bodging them together (TSWLM Rog in AVTAK titles etc). And at no point (other than the end of the titles) in CR does he look into the camera. Its not a ‘deaged’ shot of Craig as this is three years before Ant Man. It’s a child/teen actor or model, it just is.

    Kleinman's used footage from previous films in his titles before, SP being a prominent example. He just uses them for more symbolic purposes than Binder, who did it more for practical reasons. Nonetheless he still uses them when needed, and again looking at the inclusion of Vesper, Silva, Le Chiffre etc from the SP titles they can be blended in effectively.


    No, it's been shot with very specific lighting, harsh and from directly above at the front, to evoke hiding in an enclosed space. He hasn't repurposed it, he's shot it and photographed it rather nicely; and directed the boy to give a performance too. All of which he's then repeated with the shot of Craig because he needs them to match. He shoots lots of stuff especially (all of it, essentially), and he hires actors to play the dancing girls etc. And it then zooms to a huge degree on the boy; it's not some old grainy photo.
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Interesting, I’m happy to hear this.

    https://screenrant.com/james-bond-younger-actor-never-producer-response/

    ”We’ve tried looking at younger people in the past. But trying to visualize it doesn’t work. Remember, Bond’s already a veteran. He’s had some experience. He’s a person who has been through the wars, so to speak. He’s probably been in the SAS or something. He isn’t some kid out of high school that you can bring in and start off. That’s why it works for a thirty-something.”

    Always reassuring to read quotes like these. :)

    Indeed. Maybe something of a response to that reported Tom Holland pitch. I wonder how seriously they considered it, or something like it first.

    Also, we've gotten a young Bond recently. I assume they cast somebody for the Skyfall PTS, right?:
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1602.jpg
    skyfall-movie-screencaps.com-1598.jpg

    Was that actor’s name ever credited? Weird to have someone play Bond that prominently and not know who they are!

    Am I missing something? That's just Daniel Craig in the Skyfall titles, isn't it?

    At the end of the titles it is, but halfway through it's boy Bond, as recounted in the story Kincaide tells M later about Bond hiding in the priesthole when he found out his parents had been killed.
    The Skyfall credits are clever like that, on a couple of occasions they show us bits of plot we're only told about later on in the film, like the brief glimpse of Silva being tortured when he was an MI6 agent.

    Just looks like Craig to me. Probably from an earlier film, possibly airbrushed and widened, but still very much Craig.

    I think you're broadly right about the symbolism behind it and how it feeds into the later plot (I didn't necessarily get the sense it was meant to literally be a 9 year old Bond, but just a visualisation of the priest hole idea.. SF really has great titles indeed), but why would they get another actor for such a moment? The process is so digital effects heavy and it's a relatively simple thing to do. There'd be no point in getting a younger actor in. Anyway, Kleinman has said that Craig was featured in the titles and did stuff specifically for it. No one else to my knowledge was ever mentioned. It'd be a strange thing to keep secret.

    He’s got different facial features, the shape of his eyes, eyebrows nose etc. are all different. The ear is a similar general shape but the structure inside is different, and that won’t change with age. It’s a different person.
    They would get a kid in because they needed a kid, and they’re not going to use a shot of Craig from only a couple of years ago because no shot of him would have been photographed correctly: this eyeball had to be twenty feet high on the screen and Kleinman wants it lit/shot perfectly, he’s not Binder, using old scraps from previous films and titles and bodging them together (TSWLM Rog in AVTAK titles etc). And at no point (other than the end of the titles) in CR does he look into the camera. Its not a ‘deaged’ shot of Craig as this is three years before Ant Man. It’s a child/teen actor or model, it just is.
    At the end of the day it's a bit difficult to tell as none of us know what the process was when the titles were created in general, let along for this one moment!

    It's not though, because it's a different person :) Different facial features = different person. They don't look slightly different, they look completely different.

    Well, no, like I said it could just be that the manipulation of the last image makes Craig's nose/face look narrower.

    Both images have Craig's rather distinctive ears which, let's be honest, stick out slightly. The cheekbones look similar. The eyes are certainly the same. At a casual glance they look like the same person, just at different ages. If anything it's the last image of Craig which looks ever so slightly 'off' (again, it makes sense as we know it's been manipulated).

    mtm wrote: »
    No, it's been shot with very specific lighting, harsh and from directly above at the front, to evoke hiding in an enclosed space. He hasn't repurposed it, he's shot it and photographed it rather nicely; and directed the boy to give a performance too. All of which he's then repeated with the shot of Craig because he needs them to match. He shoots lots of stuff especially (all of it, essentially), and he hires actors to play the dancing girls etc. And it then zooms to a huge degree on the boy; it's not some old grainy photo.

    The shadowing/lighting really doesn't look like anything that couldn't be done in post/through colour grading from a previous image.

    He does shoot a lot of stuff for his titles, which again this is why it's surprising nothing about a child actor is ever mentioned by him in interviews.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 4 Posts: 11,648
    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.
    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?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 1,698
    9475791c-1252-46a5-ae5f-b5362e9d44f4_text.gif

    I could be wrong but I always thought it was a screenshot from that moment, the expression on Daniel's face and the position of his eyes are almost an identical match. Perhaps they used that and digitally altered his features to make him look younger?

    I'd be surprised if they kept a close up double of Bond hidden for 10 years, from us die hard fans 😅.
    I do see your point though @mtm they do look different, you're definitely onto something mate
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    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.

    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.

    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. 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.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited October 4 Posts: 1,700
    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!
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    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!

    The cost of paying for a child actor (not to mention the handler, the crew/equipment needed to photograph them) outweighs the low cost of finding a previous image. The post production process for these titles are extensive, and usually take a year anyway. Even Craig's footage for the titles was filmed in a day after shooting on location from what I understand. Honestly, I'd be very surprised if anything definitive about a 'child actor' for that shot was dug up.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 11,648
    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: 11,648
    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: 1,700
    mtm wrote: »
    Combined with the fact that it's a different face :D
    I think that might be the key point... ;)
  • LucknFateLucknFate Arkhangelsk
    edited October 4 Posts: 460
    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 4 Posts: 1,122
    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: 7,258
    Bond fans with no new content are like rats in a bucket... they begin to... eat eachother.
  • edited October 4 Posts: 1,122
    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 Arkhangelsk
    edited October 4 Posts: 460
    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 4 Posts: 1,122
    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?
Sign In or Register to comment.