#1201
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:07 PM
#1202
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:12 PM
#1203
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:21 PM
The MI6 set was absolutely awful in the last film. Which was particularly annoying because Tim Piggott-Smith's office looked great.
I quite liked it. The MI6 graphical style, since used in loads of Bond games, is very eye-catching and nicely designed.
#1204
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:25 PM
#1205
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:40 PM
The MI6 set was absolutely awful in the last film. Which was particularly annoying because Tim Piggott-Smith's office looked great.
I quite liked it. The MI6 graphical style, since used in loads of Bond games, is very eye-catching and nicely designed.
It's not so much the graphics, but Gassner's MINORITY REPORT design of the buildings and corridors. Part of Forster's "the locations are characters" bollocks, no doubt.
The villains should have the weird futuristic architecture, not MI6.
#1206
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:40 PM
#1207
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:44 PM
#1208
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:49 PM
#1209
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:50 PM
#1210
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:51 PM
MI6 posted on their main page that they think it's two meteorites entering the Earth's atmosphere........hmm....certainly an OTT, supervillain-esque concept...
Sounds like the movie 2012 to me.
#1211
Posted 19 January 2012 - 10:56 PM
#1212
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:03 PM
#1213
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:10 PM
No, IP addresses have four separate numbers; these only have three.Are the numbers IP addresses?
I'm guessing they could be x-y-z co-ordinates. AICN reported a while ago that the plot revolves around a downed satellite, so if that is the case, then these number could refer to the satellite's latitude, longitude and altitude so that MI6 can predict where it will land.
That said, these are very tiny numbers. Even if the position of the camera in this shot is where the camera will be in the actual film, the numbers are going to barely be noticeable, so I don't think they have much significance.
#1214
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:34 PM
It's not so much the graphics, but Gassner's MINORITY REPORT design of the buildings and corridors. Part of Forster's "the locations are characters" bollocks, no doubt.
The villains should have the weird futuristic architecture, not MI6.
No, I don't get that. Despite Bond having all of his gadgets, there is a strange anti-modernist thing going on with 007, especially in the early days. Bond is shown as a traditionalist and the villains are always the forward-thinkers with the modernist designs and funky ways of doing things. Bond's all three-piece suits and wooden wall panelling. Hell, Fleming even named Goldfinger after a famous modernist architect whom he had a major beef with.
I think that's something that needs correcting: Bond himself shouldn't be stuck in the past, a champion for stuffiness. MI6 should have sexy new stuff.
#1215
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:44 PM
Well not quite.
It means that they are using a telephoto lens. And it’s by far the narrowest lens they’ve shown us so far.
Explained simply: A 50mm is roughly what the human eye sees, every mm below that takes the image wider and wider. Every mm above takes it narrower, but closer onto an object from a distance.
I agree with that, although, 100mm is barely telephoto. It depends on what you are shooting. They aren't using "zoom" lens, so they must be shooting something that's probably a little bit away from them, but not too much that they would need anything more.
It’s what’s called a Medium Telephoto lens, they range between 85mm and 135mm.
#1216
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:48 PM
#1217
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:49 PM
I think that's something that needs correcting:
It's pretty much all but extinct, sadly. However, it's something that was always unique to Bond, what he represents - the longing for an "Older England" where the grass was always greener, and before the horrors of the modern world took their grip. You can find it in everything from Chaucer, to Shakespeare to Fleming.
I say bring it back. At least for the 50th anniversary.
MI6 should have sexy new stuff.
They can. But keep the oak panels, desks, books and so on. Otherwise it becomes as alienating as the villain's lair.
Keep Krest's "corrector" for stuff that actually needs fixing.
#1218
Posted 19 January 2012 - 11:49 PM
Edited by Chief of SIS, 19 January 2012 - 11:50 PM.
#1219
Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:03 AM
#1220
Posted 20 January 2012 - 12:52 AM
Computerised readouts from the 80s on a new video wall perhaps.
#1221
Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:10 AM
Interesting idea. It would certainly tie into the idea of M's past being pivotal to the plot.I think it looks as if it could be a modern display screen showing an old-fashioned digital record of something.
Computerised readouts from the 80s on a new video wall perhaps.
This is perhaps the msot ambiguous shot we've seen so far, simply because we can't really see anything that is happening in it. Most of the images on the screens are only partial to begin with.
#1222
Posted 20 January 2012 - 01:39 AM
I think it looks as if it could be a modern display screen showing an old-fashioned digital record of something.
Computerised readouts from the 80s on a new video wall perhaps.
I also thought they looked like old school schematics. Very neat image.
#1223
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:03 AM
#1224
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:06 AM
Exactly, odd. Can anyone else see those bloody meteorites besides Mi6? I sure can´t.We know nothing about the plot, but MI6's conclusion that it's two meteorites entering the atmospheres strikes me as...odd.
#1225
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:08 AM
#1226
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:13 AM
Like this?I can, but only when they're pointed out to me.
http://en.rian.ru/im...5/168013501.jpg
Or maybe a spectometrer image of a meteorite entering orbit:
http://www.universet...ctic-meteor.jpg
Still doesn´t seem like meteorites to me.
Edited by univex, 20 January 2012 - 02:14 AM.
#1227
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:16 AM
#1228
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:20 AM
I can, but only when they're pointed out to me.
Yeah basically. It's not the worst idea....but it's most likely not what we're looking at. I still think they're specs of an old spy satellite.
#1229
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:23 AM
Looks like SputnikYeah basically. It's not the worst idea....but it's most likely not what we're looking at. I still think they're specs of an old spy satellite.
I can, but only when they're pointed out to me.
But can be just some light tricks going on like in that sniper scene.
#1230
Posted 20 January 2012 - 02:27 AM
Oh, me neither. I'm just saying that once you've seen it, you'll always see it. The MI6 article draws attention to the left-hand side and something that could be a meteor. Once it was pointed out to me, all I could see was a meteor.Still doesn´t seem like meteorites to me.
Anyway, I'm iffy on the idea of an extraplanetary body playing an important role in the plot. It reminds me of the original idea for A VIEW TO A KILL, which had Max Zorin re-directing Halley's Comet to hit Silicon Valley. This was possibly the worst idea ever.
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Skyfall, photo, beard
Film Eras →
General Bond Film Discussion →
The 007th Minute: a review seriesStarted by Jim , 17 Nov 2013 Skyfall |
|
||
Film Eras →
Daniel Craig (2006 - ) →
Skyfall (2012) →
SPOILERS: Skyfall (2012) →
Shades of You Only Live Twice in Skyfall?Started by Colombo , 08 Jan 2012 Bond 23, Skyfall |
|