Skyfall makers 3D printed Bond's DB5
Exploding cars a la model
The makers of James Bond's latest outing, Skyfall, cut a couple corners in production and used modern 3D printing techniques to fake the decimation of a classic 1960s Aston Martin DB5.
You wouldn't steal a car but now you can download one
The movie studio contacted Augsberg-based 3D print firm Voxeljet to make 1:3 scale replicas of the car for use in explosive scenes during the new film.
The company churned them out through a VX4000 3D printer and shipped the 18-piece DB5 miniatures to London's Propshop where they were assembled, painted and touched up with fake bullet holes, 3ders reports.
The final products were then used to shoot an adrenaline-pumping scene which concludes with the total destruction of the DB5. Badum tish and there goes the spoiler... along with the rest of the car.
Bear that in mind when you spend your weekly wage on popcorn to accompany the extortionate cinema ticket. As impressive as 3D printing has become, Skyfall had a budget of $200m and we don't even get to see a real car explode. Cheapskates.
Vulture Central published plenty of Bond-related articles to coincide with Skyfall's release last month. Unpleasant surprise? We aim to please. ®
As impressive as 3D printing has become, Skyfall had a budget of $200m and we don't even get to see a real car explode. Cheapskates.
No matter what the budget, touching a real DB5 would be sacriledge.
This often illicits the reply
I'm sorry, it often "not legally permitted or authorised"s the reply, does it? I'm curious to see what sort of response that elicits.
Sorry - couldn't resist!
Can we get someone to re-shoot the opening scenes of The Italian Job with printed replicas, please? Then I'll be able to watch that bit without a pillow over my face to block out the horror.
And the mona lisa is just paint on a lump of wood.
It's art, you... you philistine!
Nah I'm kiddin, you're great, really.
"Decimation in modern parlance no longer means 1 tenth, is often used to refer to an extreme reduction."
That's as maybe, but it's still wrong. Like people who type "lightening" when they mean "lightning".......
Oh, so you just saw a "make less heavy" strike, did you?
The pedant in me (becoming more evident as I age) finds it nigh on impossible to ignore such stupidity and forces me to correct them. This often illicits the reply "But my spellchecker didn't pick it up!", the results of which I'll not go into but, suffice it to say, they are not pleasant. :-D