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

1105106108110111119

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    At first, I thought that Mexico DF pictures were too graded (yellowish to brownish). However, in my opinion, the "standard pictures" you have shown seem to be a bit cold for what Mexico City represents.

    I agree. The yellowish grading although not perfect gives it more personality and actually makes Mexico look alive. The standard pics just makes Mexico look absent of any exoticness and indeed quite cold.
  • Some of you need to watch "Traffic". That film is blue (washington), yellow (mexico), orange (san diego)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,479
    Some of you need to watch "Traffic". That film is blue (washington), yellow (mexico), orange (san diego)

    Yeah and it's a total misfire. It looks so dated as a concept.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    While I'm not complaining (I'm sure this film will be great), I don't necessarily argree with some of the arguments put forth in favour of the chosen grading.

    TSWLM is filmed in extremely 'warm' Egypt and the colours are absolutely amazing (I don't recall it being overly yellow but I may have to rewatch it again....which for me won't be a problem at all with that film). QoS was filmed in Chile/Panama (noted 'hot' areas) and also didn't appear too yellow. OP was filmed in India and the colours were super vibrant.

    Bottom line: the yellow hue is a little all encompassing and creates a sort of monotony to the Mexico palette....if that was intentional so be it, but I wonder how it will date and how it may appear over time on smaller LED screens with numerous rewatches that are likely to occur.

    As I said, I don't mind, but perhaps they should have thought that through (e.g. if this conscious 'yellow' choice was necessary). If it's only the pretitles then it's fine, but it seems to be impacting other locations too (I see a yellowish/orange tone to some of the Italy trailer shots).
  • Posts: 4,422
    All movies date but if its a classic then there's no problem
    Is it the job of the director to anticipate how a movie will look in ten years time or produce a contemporary blockbuster
    The colour tones are very clear to see and for some they maybe too much
    Hard to judge untill we have seen the complete movie
  • RC7 wrote: »
    Some of you need to watch "Traffic". That film is blue (washington), yellow (mexico), orange (san diego)

    Yeah and it's a total misfire. It looks so dated as a concept.

    Maybe Traffic is an extreme example. I'm no expert but there have been numerous directors over the years who have chosen to use different colour palettes to convey location or mood. I don't have an issue with the look of the overly yellow Mexico (when I was in Mexico City it certainly looked "warmer" than when I was in the Alps). I like the warmer look conveyed in the trailer. And I know its a matter of personal taste.


  • Posts: 4,422
    Anyone see graham norton last night? The were discussing Heat and referring to it as a classic (it is IMHO) massive use of colour tones in that movie and it has not hurt it's legacy
  • Maybe I need to get new glasses. The last trailer is great and I don't see how anyone can say the effects work in the collapsing building is poor.

    What does this reviewer see that I don't???



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,479
    RC7 wrote: »
    Some of you need to watch "Traffic". That film is blue (washington), yellow (mexico), orange (san diego)

    Yeah and it's a total misfire. It looks so dated as a concept.

    Maybe Traffic is an extreme example. I'm no expert but there have been numerous directors over the years who have chosen to use different colour palettes to convey location or mood. I don't have an issue with the look of the overly yellow Mexico (when I was in Mexico City it certainly looked "warmer" than when I was in the Alps). I like the warmer look conveyed in the trailer. And I know its a matter of personal taste.


    I don't get a warm look, I get an unnatural muggy haze which of course may be the intention. Even still, as @bondjames says, it's a little all encompassing. My issue with it is that the whole palette, across locations, isn't differentiated enough for my taste. Deakins did a quite incredible job at defining the aesthetic for each location.

    However, once the film rolls I'll be sucked in and I'm convinced it will be a thrill ride, so the observations above are slightly out of context. Once I've seen the film I'll have a much better idea of whether I appreciate this grade, or whether it is just a little too much.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

  • Posts: 4,422
    Before the movie is released the building stunt is a big talking point and I can see the debate going on for years
    We all have a line that can be crossed re the use of cgi but that where that line is varies according to our tastes
    Personally during my vist viewing I just thought "oh dear"
    Bond is a human and if we see him performing superhuman stunts that we know no human has performed (including stuntmen) its a dangerous road to go down
    There is going to be so so much to discuss in the months ahead
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

    I'm a picky guy with CGI. It's no big deal but I don't rate it as it currently stands. It's sort of like the Mitchell/Bond fall in QoS which is clearly CGI (to me) sort of takes me out of the experience. For me, it has to do with the graininess. Same with Bond on a bike in Istanbul in the pretitles of SF.

    The CR crane sequence (parkour) is real (with stuntmen) and I can tell the difference between that and the QoS post-title sequences. No graininess. The Aston sequence at the start of QoS is also real (for the most part but there is obvious inserted CGI) and I can tell.

    So again, don't misunderstand me.....this is not that bad.....but I am picky and I am sort of taken out of the experience in a way that I am not in CR parkour, MI-GP Dubai or MI-RN plane......or even OP-finale plane........since those are all 'super-sharp' since they are done for real.
  • Maybe for another thread but -

    Bond jumping from a collapsing building (that looks very good visually) (Spectre)

    versus

    Bond jumping off a cliff and chasing a plane and climbing inside. (which is terrible) (Goldeneye)

    The actual stunt and how its done doesn't in the end really effect the quality of the actual film. GE is a very good Bond film with some pretty awful effects work even for 1995.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,479
    patb wrote: »
    Before the movie is released the building stunt is a big talking point and I can see the debate going on for years
    We all have a line that can be crossed re the use of cgi but that where that line is varies according to our tastes
    Personally during my vist viewing I just thought "oh dear"
    Bond is a human and if we see him performing superhuman stunts that we know no human has performed (including stuntmen) its a dangerous road to go down
    There is going to be so so much to discuss in the months ahead

    I agree. Where they used to try and outdo 'themselves' with large scale set pieces done real, they now seem to be trying to compete with the other blockbusters of the moment. Which is a dangerous road. This shot looks like something straight out of an Avengers film to me. I don't think they need to do this kind of stuff, they should just stick to their mantra of doing it for real. As mentioned above, the crane scene shows what you get when you go physical.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Before the movie is released the building stunt is a big talking point and I can see the debate going on for years
    We all have a line that can be crossed re the use of cgi but that where that line is varies according to our tastes
    Personally during my vist viewing I just thought "oh dear"
    Bond is a human and if we see him performing superhuman stunts that we know no human has performed (including stuntmen) its a dangerous road to go down
    There is going to be so so much to discuss in the months ahead

    I agree. Where they used to try and outdo 'themselves' with large scale set pieces done real, they now seem to be trying to compete with the other blockbusters of the moment. Which is a dangerous road. This shot looks like something straight out of an Avengers film to me. I don't think they need to do this kind of stuff, they should just stick to their mantra of doing it for real. As mentioned above, the crane scene shows what you get when you go physical.

    Very good points. This does seem 'Avenger'ish' to me as well. There is only so much 'suspension of disbelief' that some of us can realistically do when watching a film...even today. 'Less is more' sometimes.
  • edited October 2015 Posts: 11,119
    I used Auto Color in PS and came out with this

    NhYUBJO.jpg

    You're just judging frames. You can not possible see at this stage what works better for the entire film.

    It tires me a bit. Analyzing so much of these cinematographical choices. For the very same reason we started peeling off "Skyfall" and a few months later it was a movie with the worst CGI in years.

    I'm not going to be part of it. I let myself indulge in the creative choices of the people who made that film. Moreover, it also makes "SPECTRE.........."SPECTRE", and not "Skyfall" part 2.

    Did anyone actually notice this 1950's mood of old Hitchcock movies in "SPECTRE"? The 'warmth' comes back in every aspect. Not just the cinematography and the color filters. But also the 'sandy' locations in Morocco, the costume choices made by Jany Temime, and Gassner's production design (from M's old office to that Orient Express-esque train).

    This is a forum. Analyzing, nitpicking and talking about things is sort of what the whole thing is based upon.

    And yes, you're right. All of those things are top notch. However the problems arise when the grade dilutes those elements and lessens the effort made to bring them to life.

    I know it's a forum. In which nitpicking happens too. But it takes away a bit of the fun really. I really think it's too early to say that "problems arise when the color grading dilutes those elements and lessens the effort to bring them to life". I think you need to see the full 155 mins before you start worrying. Only then....you can see if the cinematography worked. And make no mistake, perhaps the director wants to give us....to let us indulge in a particular atmosphere with this kind of cinematography. In that way....it really could be supportive of the story and plot. Try to see that as well.

    What I do like about the cinematography, is that this color-grading is a departure from previous films. It's not a 'standard' so to say. And more radical filmmaking choices always worry Bond fans who know this 53 year franchise by heart and who have enough comparison material to write another Bond book about it :-). In any case, also I have to wait and see...if this 'radical cinematography' works for "SPECTRE". Let's wait and see :-).
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,547
    Wasn't the stunt done for real on the back lot
    at Pinewood?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,470
    jake24 wrote: »
    Wasn't the stunt done for real on the back lot
    at Pinewood?

    It's a combination of a real stunt and computer enhancement. It looks pretty damn good to me. The reaction shot of Bond before it is way worse. That really stood out as digitally manipulated.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,547
    jake24 wrote: »
    Wasn't the stunt done for real on the back lot
    at Pinewood?

    It's a combination of a real stunt and computer enhancement. It looks pretty damn good to me. The reaction shot of Bond before it is way worse. That really stood out as digitally manipulated.
    Agreed. Not sure where all the criticism is coming from.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

    All these CGI experts need to step up and show screen shots of their complaints. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the effects in that scene in my opinion.

    In real life an actual collapsing building does look almost surreal btw.

    Not trying to be argumentative or rude but IMO these assessments seem just way too critical.



  • Posts: 11,119
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

    All these CGI experts need to step up and show screen shots of their complaints. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the effects in that scene in my opinion.

    In real life an actual collapsing building does look almost surreal btw.

    Not trying to be argumentative or rude but IMO these assessments seem just way too critical.



    It tires me also. If I read other non-Bond forums, I really don't see any criticism about the CGI or color gradings. Mostly applauding reactions. Even the word "Oscars!" is mentioned again on IMDB. Although I find that way too premature.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

    All these CGI experts need to step up and show screen shots of their complaints. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the effects in that scene in my opinion.

    In real life an actual collapsing building does look almost surreal btw.

    Not trying to be argumentative or rude but IMO these assessments seem just way too critical.



    It tires me also. If I read other non-Bond forums, I really don't see any criticism about the CGI or color gradings. Mostly applauding reactions. Even the word "Oscars!" is mentioned again on IMDB. Although I find that way too premature.

    I can assure you these discussions will be ongoing here (as with the song) in earnest once SP is released and once we all get over our enthusiasm. I guarantee it. There will be specific threads for each of these items and they will be discussed ad nauseum in excruciating pin-prick detail.

    It's early for this.......for some.......I understand that, which is why I tempered my comments. I'm still quite excited for this huge event film, just not clouded by euphoria.

    Talk of Oscars is a little overblown imho.....at least from what we've seen up to this point. There is nothing in this film from the trailers to suggest anything other than an absolutely fantastic 'par for the course' James Bond adventure....and that's good enough for me.
  • RC7RC7
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,479
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I haven't read the review you posted, but If I'm being honest, I agree that the collapsing building is poor. I'm sure it will be cleaned up for final release.

    Why do you think its poor ? Maybe I need to watch it on a bigger screen !

    All these CGI experts need to step up and show screen shots of their complaints. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the effects in that scene in my opinion.

    In real life an actual collapsing building does look almost surreal btw.

    Not trying to be argumentative or rude but IMO these assessments seem just way too critical.



    If you look at the GE Dam jump next to it, the SP shot looks like a fantasy film/video game by comparison. It's not bad in that context, but there should always be something textually visceral and real about Bond. A combination of factors make this feel unreal, choreography (camera and action) grading and composition. By comparison the obviously fake crater shot of Morocco ext and int both look great. You would gloss over it in a comic book film, but there's something jarring here. Much like the Mitchell - Bond fall in QoS.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,984
    Maybe for another thread but -

    Bond jumping from a collapsing building (that looks very good visually) (Spectre)

    versus

    Bond jumping off a cliff and chasing a plane and climbing inside. (which is terrible) (Goldeneye)

    The actual stunt and how its done doesn't in the end really effect the quality of the actual film. GE is a very good Bond film with some pretty awful effects work even for 1995.

    Whoa, why did GE get brought up out of nowhere? If we are bringing up bad looking CG effects/stunts that couldn't have been properly done, look no further than SF's PTS fall off the bridge.

    The building falling and Bond's subsequent fall in that SP trailer is obviously touched up with CGI, and it's clear they weren't going to make Dan run through a real stunt like that due to the risks. It just couldn't be done.
  • Posts: 1,552
    Maybe I need to get new glasses. The last trailer is great and I don't see how anyone can say the effects work in the collapsing building is poor.

    What does this reviewer see that I don't???



    I couldn't listen to much of that review. Very annoying. Desperation? I don't see it as desperation at all, it's been handled very well - slowly showing us more and more.
  • jesus christ I can't stand it any more. Whats wrong with people nitpicking about CGI and actually seeing things that are simply not there??? The shot of the collapsing building looks absolute perfect. I watched it in HD 20 times, I looked at the High res screenshots of it... there is absolute nothing wrong with it, in fact I still believe, it could be a real non-CGI scene. maybe it is not, but then again it is absolutely flawless.

    People are so obsessed with "detecting" CGI tricks that they complain about poor CGI when a stunt is actually real (Terminator Genisys' bus flip for instance)
  • Posts: 11,119
    I'd like to have a closer look at these pictures, and focus for a while on the story, instead of all the technical elements. And I think I found out some very intriguing clues....but some clues also leave me more clueless :-O!


    Screenshot #1:
    g2OTHx.jpg
    Is that an old Citroën Traction Avant? I think the last time we saw it in a Bond film was in "From Russia With Love" no ;-)? Anyway, I love this shot.....leading towards some kind of crater. Great modern and more realistic interpretation of that old vulcano from "You Only Live Twice". Especially when the crater-door opens.... Here down is the Citroën from "FRWL". Anyway, this shot gives me a 'feeling' that I have never seen before in a Bond film. Very 'film noir'-esque...
    052.jpg


    Screenshot #2:
    ECo5Z.jpg
    You know, I previously thought that the villain's scheme of Oberhauser would be like an extended and larger computerhacking plot. But I was never really sure, as I mentioned in this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10500/spectre-what-will-the-villain-s-scheme-of-this-bond-film-be-what-s-the-terrible-truth#latest. And this new screenshot baffles me even more. It seems like a lair with several telescopes. It looks like a giant astronomical observatory. So I'm now even more confused about the villain's scheme. What will the "terrible truth" be?


    Screenshot #3:
    3SUvW42.jpg
    I opened a topic earlier this year, related to the publicity shots of that bullet hole evolving in the S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-Octopus logo: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/11671/spectre-so-who-s-that-bullet-meant-for#latest. I was fairly convinced we already got our first bit of narrative/plot of the film. And although I was wrong to whom this bullet was meant for, you can now see from the above screenshot that I was right. The bullet hole IS part of the story. You can see that Bond's shooting is more or less evolving in the bullet hole from the first teaser poster :-). By the way, do we see a glimpse of a scarred Oberhauser here as well?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited October 2015 Posts: 4,116
    GE had sub par effects ..nothing like DF but not to standard.

    But then the GE PTS was OTT and the effects added to that fantasy.

    Again the stunt is fine. If we didn't have it then everyone would be complaining the action wasn't creative.

    If it bothers you that much go see HG with that reviewer.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Maybe for another thread but -

    Bond jumping from a collapsing building (that looks very good visually) (Spectre)

    versus

    Bond jumping off a cliff and chasing a plane and climbing inside. (which is terrible) (Goldeneye)

    The actual stunt and how its done doesn't in the end really effect the quality of the actual film. GE is a very good Bond film with some pretty awful effects work even for 1995.

    Whoa, why did GE get brought up out of nowhere? If we are bringing up bad looking CG effects/stunts that couldn't have been properly done, look no further than SF's PTS fall off the bridge.

    The building falling and Bond's subsequent fall in that SP trailer is obviously touched up with CGI, and it's clear they weren't going to make Dan run through a real stunt like that due to the risks. It just couldn't be done.


    i brought up the jumping after the plane from GE purely to make the point that a lot of people are going on about how "bad" and ott the collapsing building looks and feels in the SP trailer. In my opinion it doesn't look bad at all - however the GE "stunt" catching up to the plane after diving off the cliff (real stunt) isn't very well done at all and looks fake. This doesn't take away the fact that GE is a very good Bond film. I just don't get all these comments about the collapsing building. I'm pretty sure its more believable than catching a falling plane and climbing inside.
Sign In or Register to comment.