It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Why do you want them to be responsible? It's not our money! Personally I'd love to see what Denis Villeneuve given 400 million to play with looks like. Maybe then they could afford to get Deakins back with a nice fat cheque to set him up for retirement.
We get 1 Bond film every 6 or 7 years these days, I don't want them to be penny-pinching.
James Bond can be bigger, but do we really need more CGI? I don't think they'll spend it on sets at this point.
Even with Denis at the helm?
They don’t just sit in a room and knock up some CGI for the film. It’s a whole team which works at integrating that digital work into live action to make the film as cinematic as possible (ie. A lot of the background of the Matera scenes in NTTD was CGI. No one ever realises. The VFX team in that sense has a range of people, many working on the production. If anything a big VFX budget means they’re going to be putting a lot of effort into sets and location work). Even if a film nowadays is supposedly ‘100% practical’ you’re still going to need a VFX team to do things like rotoscope out stunt-people’s harnesses or enhance explosions or whatever. And that’s the absolute minimum! That’s not even mentioning the pre-titles sequence which will require a good bit of VFX/CGI no matter what.
I don’t think this Bond film will cost $600 million. Bond is a different beast to Star Wars. But I’m not going to clutch any pearls if the film is $300 million.
If you want the Bond girl to start kicking bad guys and jumping around with stupidly high heels, yes.
I mean, we’re not going back to sped up footage or jump cuts, are we? 😉
Probably not, but wasn’t that part of the charm of some of the older films.
Even LTK was using some iffy rear projection work, but it’s still a relatively solid entry.
Sure, and I’m not knocking back projection or all of the editing Peter Hunt did (the stuff he did in DN was great, although TB has some very iffy editing even for the time. From what I understand not entirely his fault).
But I think if a new Bond film were released with those things (or at least done in the same way) it would be very strange for a viewer.
I know how to recognize straw men. Nobody talks about using special effects from 60 years ago.
Ok, so in your opinion then how is the best way for Bond to move forward with action and location work with limited or less VFX work?
My opinion is that we don't need to spend 400 million on a Bond movie. Where do you spend the money? On more digital legs?
We don’t know how much they’ll spend yet or what the film will be like. Worth saying they won’t have to pay Craig’s salary for the next actor initially either. But honestly, the budget really has little to do with us viewing the film. Long as they’re paying (and treating) everyone fairly I personally don’t care how much a multi billion dollar company shovels out to make a film.
They’ll spend their budget on many things - specific locations, set work (wouldn’t it be great having a cool villain lair or some memorable set pieces?) stunts, explosions, car chases, the titles etc.
All of which is going to require some sort of VFX and CGI. I don’t think it’s even the problem here.
Incidentally a lot of the basic stuff the older Bond films did are still there today. They still use miniatures and model work for instance. And studio work. Do we need less of those in Bond? It’s not inexpensive (and requires hiring teams of very skilled people) and we have real locations we can simply shoot in fully. Sure, we might sacrifice a set piece or a villain’s lair, but why not save as much money as possible? Does that sound feasible (or necessary) for a Bond film?
From reading about the making of Blade Runner 2049, Denis Villeneuve much prefers physical sets.
Personally while a lot of it was 'invisible' there was way too much CGI in NTTD. The car Logan Ash is driving in the forest looks horribly fake when it flips over..
Yeah I thought that too mate. I noticed it on the last rewatch of the film, it felt very fake at points in the film and was a bit jarring compared to the rest of the Craig era
The way I see it - it’s all in the service of telling the story (yes, even Paloma’s CGI legs).
That flip would have been practical and done with a ramp, but digital VFX (not even CGI potentially) would have been used to enhance things and of course put it together into a shot with Craig. I think they used a remote controlled car controlled by a stunt driver https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a37814305/all-the-stunts-in-james-bond-no-time-to-die-are-real/
It may look a bit too ‘controlled’, which I get (that’s the nature of using a ramp to flip a car under those conditions and then put it into a different shot). But I don’t think it’s fully an issue with VFX or CGI as a whole, and honestly, there’s much more noticeable things in Bond films. A good amount of stuff simply couldn’t be done without this, or would look horribly unconvincing if they only used practical work without any significant post production.
NTTD definitely has a sheen to the look/cinematography too, so I can understand getting that sort of ‘unreal’ vibe from everything. But it’s remarkably well done, and the stunt work is genuinely amazing. The Craig era as a whole has some noticeable CGI too - the background when Bond and Camille are falling from the plane in QOS being an example. That’s fine incidentally - no film is going to look 100% real, especially as they age. But what we have now can be pretty damn good.
It's funny, I said this on here when that shot was in one of the trailers and everyone said I was wrong and it looked real.
I think I read about that shot: they did flip the car for real but the bit where it lands and slides away is CG (and they probably replaced the car for the whole shot anyway because of that), and I do think there's something about the movement after it's landed which gives it away a little, yeah. And obviously Craig is comped in afterwards, but I think we'd forgive that! :D
But to be honest, if the CG is truly invisible, as an awful lot of it is, I don't think I mind that much.
Just been. wow I'm feeling it