Daniel Craig resisted Android phone placement in "Spectre" because "James Bond only uses the best"

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 117
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by deepen03 View Post



    The Z4 is far superior to any iPhone and is a $700 flagship device.

     

    I appreciate the fact that Sony made it waterproof, but sorry dude, this is where its "superiority" ends, and your delusions begin.

    And I am not even talking about the lag that Sony/Google notoriously unable to fix despite of the dedicated "butter" projects.

  • Reply 42 of 117
    anomeanome Posts: 1,487member
    cali wrote: »
    I hate when they do that. Why not just turn the computer on and film the actual screen? I don't understand.
    The frame rate of the camera, and the refresh rate of the monitor are different, so you typically get severe strobing. Time was you needed to spend a lot of money on special 24fps monitors to be able to film them properly. Putting an overlay on them is much easier, and cheaper.

    Also, having people act while looking at a blank screen is easier than having to reset the cool animation every time, so that it matches the dialogue, and any continuity across different takes.
  • Reply 43 of 117
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by koop View Post

     

    James Bond could use an iPhone. Of course Q has to jailbreak it to run useful spy apps, and then Apple patches over it and oh what a mess. ;)




    Not really. Just use Xcode and install the app directly onto the phone. That is a FREE option with Apple. Besides, you don't want to distribute secret spying apps through AppStore, for pete's sake!

  • Reply 44 of 117

    In Spectre, Bond does indeed use a Sony Xperia Z5 'Made for Bond' Edition!

     

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2379713/trivia?item=tr2646493

  • Reply 45 of 117
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,020member
    deepen03 wrote: »
    The Z4 is far superior to any iPhone and is a $700 flagship device.

    While Sony may be my favorite design-wise for Android phones, Android on it still makes it lipstick on a pig, and u very well know that.
  • Reply 46 of 117
    runbuhrunbuh Posts: 315member
    slurpy wrote: »
    This is something you don't see everyday. Impressive, not easy to turn down 50M to use a phone. Glad they stuck to some higher principles, like not wanting to tarnish the Bond image.

    They used the Sony phone in the film, so I guess they didn't stick to some higher principles.

  • Reply 47 of 117
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    ff



    Bond wears an Omega.

    I know at first Seamaster Ocean. I thought earlier it was Rolex. Anyway, my point was that classy stuffs and then cheap crap android don't blend. 

    Some guys came in posting the most expensive watches and stuffs. Who cares. No one said Bond wore the most expensive stuffs...Some people just don't think when they read. BTW, Aston Martin is not the most expensive car either...Understand, people?

  • Reply 48 of 117
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,050member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Ah, back to trolling again, I see.



    He's something for you to peruse: http://www.smashinglists.com/20-most-expensive-watches/



    Hmm... What's that at #18? Wait... Where's the Rolex?

    What is your point? no one said Bond wore most expensive stuffs in the world. You need to check it with King of Brunei or Some tycoons in Dubai.

  • Reply 49 of 117
    Yes Android is better suited for a spy life considering what it can do.

    On the other hand he didn't resist being in Heineken commercials, so, i think not enough money was the problem.
  • Reply 50 of 117
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,020member

    While I haven't seen the movie yet, it looks like Sony did put up enough "bribery" money.  I just saw the next "Spectre" commercial... sponsored by Sony for the Experia.



    Knowing Bond is using an Android phone (to me) just diminishes the brand value of the Bond franchise.

  • Reply 51 of 117
    tenlytenly Posts: 710member
    zroger73 wrote: »
    What is interesting and annoying to me is the mismatch of devices and the information they display in movies and on TV. For example, I've seen Macs running Windows, PCs running Mac OSs, both devices running fake programs, and everything in between. Regarding smartphones, Dallas (2012) had a mixture of mismatched smartphones and the sounds they make. You'd hear Apple ringtones coming from non-Apple devices and vice versa. Recently, there was an episode of The Middle showing what appears to be an HP laptop running OS X. Last season, there was another episode where Frankie was laying in bed using an old Windows laptop with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen, but the video overlay was a recent version of OS X. I guess the producers generally gather up any hardware they can find and use stock video overlays without regard to what is actually correct.

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="64877" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/64877/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 263px">

    Yes - the computers, phones and electronics are not always completely authentic like the car chases, fight scenes and conversations are...

    It's funny how people complaint about "what they know" when watching TV. For you (and me sometimes) its the computer scenes. For my niece, it's the dance scenes (i.e. Those are totally the wrong shoes for that kind of dancing...she did the pirouette COMPLETELY wrong...etc)

    For me, it's always how whatever piece of information they're trying to "hack" off of a PC. When they are successful, the information they are after is the ONLY piece of information displayed - and it's in big bold information right in the center of the screen.

    I decided long ago, the shows are much more enjoyable to just ignore the inaccuracies or chuckle under my breath, let them slide and follow the story.
  • Reply 52 of 117
    Took kids to see James Bond yesterday.
    What a load of rubbish.... Totally lost what it used to be...
    The toys where better in the early years.. That was the appeal to the audience and its gone.
    The writers and Directors have lost it.
    The great British icon as been turned into a standard serious but boring movie.
    Spooks is a better watch now than that . For something as big as James Bond then they should be ashamed of what they have made..
    A seriously good film. Better story and spot on action was Sicario. Set in Mexico the same.
    In fact I'm going to watch it again at 12 noon today because got time out.
    Bond as made its money in my opinion through hype only because people are made to believe its the one to watch... The acting was spot on.. The movie as gone
  • Reply 53 of 117
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,609member
    Paid for product placement is hilarious. ho would buy anything from Samsung after the slaughter in Jurassic World, "Let me check the tracking on my Galaxy Gear, aaaaaaaargh" Nom Nom Nom. :D
  • Reply 54 of 117
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,609member
    Kinda hoping that this will be the last Sony Pictures Bond film, their license is up and Warner among others have been sniffing round the franchise.
  • Reply 55 of 117
    zroger73 wrote: »
    What is interesting and annoying to me is the mismatch of devices and the information they display in movies and on TV. For example, I've seen Macs running Windows, PCs running Mac OSs, both devices running fake programs, and everything in between. Regarding smartphones, Dallas (2012) had a mixture of mismatched smartphones and the sounds they make. You'd hear Apple ringtones coming from non-Apple devices and vice versa. Recently, there was an episode of The Middle showing what appears to be an HP laptop running OS X. Last season, there was another episode where Frankie was laying in bed using an old Windows laptop with a 4:3 aspect ratio screen, but the video overlay was a recent version of OS X. I guess the producers generally gather up any hardware they can find and use stock video overlays without regard to what is actually correct.
    Set dressers, low pay, place the dummy computers. Highly paid and more educated special effects post production technicians do the video effects of the computer display.
    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="64877" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/64877/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 263px">
  • Reply 56 of 117
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    <iframe width="640" height="385" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/3uoM5kfZIQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

    <iframe width="640" height="385" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/wX_i2vhnVKQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

    Ah yes... Techno-fantasy.
  • Reply 57 of 117
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    tenly wrote: »
    Yes - the computers, phones and electronics are not always completely authentic like the car chases, fight scenes and conversations are...

    It's funny how people complaint about "what they know" when watching TV. For you (and me sometimes) its the computer scenes. For my niece, it's the dance scenes (i.e. Those are totally the wrong shoes for that kind of dancing...she did the pirouette COMPLETELY wrong...etc)

    For me, it's always how whatever piece of information they're trying to "hack" off of a PC. When they are successful, the information they are after is the ONLY piece of information displayed - and it's in big bold information right in the center of the screen.

    I decided long ago, the shows are much more enjoyable to just ignore the inaccuracies or chuckle under my breath, let them slide and follow the story.

    It seriously degrades my ability to suspend disbelief and focus on the story when the production team showcases such ignorance of reality. Especially if I'm not watching scifi, which I expect to have ludicrous techno garbage portrayed. I don't like fantasy unless I'm specifically prepared for it. Flashy graphics and fictional technology (especially holographic nonsense) feels like I'm being forced to watch advertising or techno porn.
  • Reply 58 of 117
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Bond wears an Omega.
    I know at first Seamaster Ocean. I thought earlier it was Rolex. Anyway, my point was that classy stuffs and then cheap crap android don't blend. 
    Some guys came in posting the most expensive watches and stuffs. Who cares. No one said Bond wore the most expensive stuffs...Some people just don't think when they read. BTW, Aston Martin is not the most expensive car either...Understand, people?

    Omega isn't the most expensive, (actually priced comparable to Rolex) and I prefer them over Rolex which is how I knew it's what James Bond wears of late. You are correct in that he did wear Rolex early on.
  • Reply 59 of 117
    ssalbssalb Posts: 14member
    Since 1995 (Golden Eye) Bond has only worn Omega watches. Prior to that it was primarily a mix of Rolex and Seiko.
  • Reply 60 of 117
    sflocal wrote: »
    While Sony may be my favorite design-wise for Android phones, Android on it still makes it lipstick on a pig, and u very well know that.

    What's wrong with Android? Have you ever used a Vanilla Android device? Lollipop runs flawlessly on Nexus devices. And the Xperia is very close to clean Android.

    I switched from iPhone to Galaxy devices in 2013 and have never looked back. Using and enjoying an s6 edge now
Sign In or Register to comment.