Would you be interested in seeing a digitally rejuvenated Sean Connery play Bond one more time?

1356

Comments

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    patb wrote: »
    I think many movie fans have an issue with CGI as they are judging it on what they have seen rather than what they will see or what future generations will see. As someone whose first video game was Pong, its very easy for me to extrapolate the progression. Eventually "perfect" CGI will be a reality and we will see future generations of movie fans treating this as completely normal.
    The interesting question is will CGI be used to recreate human actors or will we see digital actors instead? On that basis, could we finally see the perfect James Bond ? (I know some think SC was that person) but the opportunities of creating a digital character to fit the role rather than finding a human to play the role will be interesting.
    In the long term, movie acting will die , or at least be something relegated to art house movies IMHO
    Good scripts will always be the big factor rather than the quality of the CGI and its another topic worthy of discussion re will we see CG scripts?

    It's never a good idea to look to far into the future my friend, you'll go cross-eyed. ;)
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Not to me it isn't. And I don't get that "fake CGI" rant some people keep throwing with biased templates. The "fake parachute" complaint in Spectre that "took some people out of the film" struck me as nonsensical at best I couldn't take them seriously at all.

    I'm not saying Cushing and Fisher looked too real. But, they were close. And I didn't mind them. Perhaps not now, but in the future, maybe the next decade or five years more on it, I don't mind a CGI Bond at all.

    Whereas I am horrified by the concept. The day we have a CGI Bond the franchise will be dead to me. Not interested.

    +1. I wouldn't watch it.
  • Posts: 17,185
    Regarding my previous comment about the possibility of having a digitally rejuvenated Connery in a Bond related commercial, like a Blu-ray release: Here's a Mustang commercial featuring Steve McQueen. This is one way to do it.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Yes but this is a short advert made to be iconic. Putting a CGI actor in Bond is just lazy and lacks art (I.e. the craft of acting).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited February 2017 Posts: 16,315
    Not to mention that commercial was cut together using stock footage of McQueen and a body double. Impressive but it wouldn't work as a movie.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 17,185
    Know that, but I was thinking more of a Bond related commercial, rather than a movie. Like a Blu-ray commercial or something.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,315
    They sort of did that in the Heineken commercials with Skyfall and Spectre using Dr. No and Nick Nack.
  • Posts: 5,744
    To answer the original question :

    No. Nope, No way. Unh unh. Non. Nein. Nyet. I trust I made my point clearly enough.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Gerard wrote: »
    To answer the original question :

    No. Nope, No way. Unh unh. Non. Nein. Nyet. I trust I made my point clearly enough.

    Nei.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,597
    There is no logical reason why we wont have full CGI movie in future replacing live action, it's just our inbuilt ressistance to change. Its coming whether we like it or not.
    As long as there is an emotional connection to the character, nothing else reallymatters.

    Not that they are mutually exclusive but I would rather have a full CGI movie with a great script rather than a "real world" movie with a poor script.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    patb wrote: »
    There is no logical reason why we wont have full CGI movie in future replacing live action, it's just our inbuilt ressistance to change. Its coming whether we like it or not.
    As long as there is an emotional connection to the character, nothing else reallymatters.

    Not that they are mutually exclusive but I would rather have a full CGI movie with a great script rather than a "real world" movie with a poor script.

    Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean you have to be in favour of it. I don't care whether its going to happen, I'm not watching it. That's the only part I am sure about. I watch cinema because it is a collaborative process. There are certain things out of your control, and you have to work around these limitations. That's literally the definition of being creative. When you can conjure something effortlessly and without risk on a computer the "magic of cinema" is gone.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 4,597
    Interesting points, I'm not sure that CGI is "effortless" but I am sure that creating a script that evokes emotion within the audience is not effortless. Anyone seen "Up" and shed a tear? Or some of the classic Disney cartoons? To me, these works are creative and I struggle to see how they are not. CGI is just advanced cartoons. Once the brain has got over that, we are still more than capable of investing emotion and empathy into these basic cartoon characters. If we can do that to cartoons, we can do that to more detailed cartoons ie CGI
    PS another example, the original King Kong, basic special effects but the final scenes when he dies? heart wrenching IMHO.
    PPS Is Rise of the Planet of the Apes a lesser emotional experience due to them not using a real chimp rather than CGI? We all know the chimp is CGI but our brains dont care. We quickly immerse ourselves in the story (as long as the characters and script are good), Ceasar for me was a wonderfully written character.
    If we can ignore that fact that its not a real chimp, we can do the same for humans.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    patb wrote: »
    Interesting points, I'm not sure that CGI is "effortless" but I am sure that creating a script that evokes emotion within the audience is not effortless. Anyone seen "Up" and shed a tear? Or some of the classic Disney cartoons? To me, these works are creative and I struggle to see how they are not. CGI is just advanced cartoons. Once the brain has got over that, we are still more than capable of investing emotion and empathy into these basic cartoon characters. If we can do that to cartoons, we can do that to more detailed cartoons ie CGI

    Of course. We can do that to books, which are just symbols on paper. It s all in your head.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I don't want to live in the Matrix - I want to see real actors perform on screen. An new Bond movie starring Sean Connery will be a fake and nothing else but somebody's interpretation of his screen work.

    A related discussion is going on in the dubbibg scene. If it would be possible to bring back lost voices through technology it's still not that actor's performance. I don't need that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,848
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I don't want to live in the Matrix - I want to see real actors perform on screen. An new Bond movie starring Sean Connery will be a fake and nothing else but somebody's interpretation of his screen work.

    A related discussion is going on in the dubbibg scene. If it would be possible to bring back lost voices through technology it's still not that actor's performance. I don't need that.

    Yes, there is also a Chinese whispers effect, where the most iconic aspects of our favorite actors will become exaggerated over time. They will become caricatures.
  • Posts: 4,023
    patb wrote: »
    Interesting points, I'm not sure that CGI is "effortless" but I am sure that creating a script that evokes emotion within the audience is not effortless. Anyone seen "Up" and shed a tear? Or some of the classic Disney cartoons? To me, these works are creative and I struggle to see how they are not. CGI is just advanced cartoons. Once the brain has got over that, we are still more than capable of investing emotion and empathy into these basic cartoon characters. If we can do that to cartoons, we can do that to more detailed cartoons ie CGI
    PS another example, the original King Kong, basic special effects but the final scenes when he dies? heart wrenching IMHO.
    PPS Is Rise of the Planet of the Apes a lesser emotional experience due to them not using a real chimp rather than CGI? We all know the chimp is CGI but our brains dont care. We quickly immerse ourselves in the story (as long as the characters and script are good), Ceasar for me was a wonderfully written character.
    If we can ignore that fact that its not a real chimp, we can do the same for humans.

    But all of those are original CGI characters. It is harder for people to invest in CGI recreating real actors.
  • Not for 2 hours BUT how cool would it be IF they established that James Bond 007 was a CODE NAME for the best agent of each era and maybe M tells the current "Bond" about a tough mission that the 1st Bond went on- cue flashback with cgi Connery
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2017 Posts: 17,615
    Not for 2 hours BUT how cool would it be IF they established that James Bond 007 was a CODE NAME for the best agent of each era and maybe M tells the current "Bond" about a tough mission that the 1st Bond went on- cue flashback with cgi Connery

    No, no, no, no, no etc. etc. etc.

    Awful, awful idea.

    If that's your first post...

    Hopefully you'll improve from this though!
  • Posts: 5,744
    Agree, Dragonpol. That is already a very, very, very, very, very (add as many verys as you want) bad idea. Besides, the codename theory has been debunked time and again. We don't need it to surface again, or to use CGI to make it come true.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,707
    Relatively speaking, CGI is in it's infancy. At this time my answer to the initial question is NO! But there will come a time when technology allows for perfect renderings of CG humans.
    Now, Connery being agreeable, if it could be done to perfection, would I not watch a Bond film that features a CG'd, In his prime Connery Bond? I can't say I wouldn't.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 12,820
    chrisisall wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Only if we can do it for a Special Edition of OHMSS where George replaced with an in his prime Connery. ;)
    ummm........
    jb_what_if__sean_connery_in__ohmss__artwork__2_by_doctor_woo-d7ujjk2.jpg

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    chrisisall wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Only if we can do it for a Special Edition of OHMSS where George replaced with an in his prime Connery. ;)
    ummm........
    jb_what_if__sean_connery_in__ohmss__artwork__2_by_doctor_woo-d7ujjk2.jpg

    Goldfinger Sean Connery is prime Sean Connery and to see that in the 60s would be pretty cool
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited February 2017 Posts: 45,489
    vzok wrote: »

    But all of those are original CGI characters. It is harder for people to invest in CGI recreating real actors.

    How is that worse than real actors recreating cartoon characters?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,176
    Not for 2 hours BUT how cool would it be IF they established that James Bond 007 was a CODE NAME for the best agent of each era and maybe M tells the current "Bond" about a tough mission that the 1st Bond went on- cue flashback with cgi Connery

    Go to your room, there'll be no dessert for you tonight.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Or how about they live in six different dimensions instead?
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Are we talking about a full CGI movie or inserting a CGI Connery into a film with real people and places? I don't think I'd really want to see either but the latter could possibly be the worst idea ever.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,707
    I can understand not wanting it now, or ever for that matter; but the time will come where CG imagery will be perfected to the point of being undetectable.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,653
    talos7 wrote: »
    I can understand not wanting it now, or ever for that matter; but the time will come where CG imagery will be perfected to the point of being undetectable.
    No. Undetectable by the casuals. Artists will always know. Tarkin looked fishy in R1, but he's a supporting bad guy in a fantasy film, so that's okay IMO.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,707
    Ok, just playing Devils advocate, twenty years from now a film is produced that takes place between Goldfinger and Thunderball. It's perfect in every way and looks as if it was shot in 64/65, do you want to see it? I do
    now this doesn't mean I want to see real , flesh and blood actors replaced by digital performers but for a one off or a side project, when the technology is ready, it's intriguing.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,722
    I'm just going to say no to CGI actors.
    Rogue One having Peter Cushing was an interesting concept. But he's still CGI Peter Cushing. And as @Birdleson says above, he can never play a scene as an actor. He cannot play a scene, other than the way he is programmed to. There are no sublte nuances to his performance. It's too controlled, and ultimately just doesn't look real.
    Interesting idea, but not one I hope to see gain popularity with film makers.
Sign In or Register to comment.