"Dont blow it all at once ": Die Another Day Appreciation Thread

1434446484967

Comments

  • Posts: 613
    you saw predator and terminator 2 though right?

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Chuck Norris will whup your ass @Birdleson for that impertinence :))

    There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris, but it was changed because nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives!
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 613
    what did you hate about T2 because it always gets a lot of praise as one of the best action movies? I'm curious to see what you didn't like about it.
  • Posts: 613
    I see was just wondering why you disliked it haven't seen many people that have.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2016 Posts: 9,117
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Skeete

    The key phrase 'Skeete attained a level of fame that was out of proportion to his quite modest achievements as a showjumper. This was partly due to his status as a dreadlocked black competitor in the overwhelmingly white, comfortably middle-class world of British showjumping'.

    He was a minor celeb for a brief time back then (I think he also embarrasses himself in an episode of Brasseye) and I've always kind of thought his appearance was Tamahori's (who is part Maori after all) two fingers to colonial Britain and the stuffy culture of gentlemens clubs.
  • Posts: 4,325
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Skeete

    The key phrase 'Skeete attained a level of fame that was out of proportion to his quite modest achievements as a showjumper. This was partly due to his status as a dreadlocked black competitor in the overwhelmingly white, comfortably middle-class world of British showjumping'.

    He was a minor celeb for a brief time back then (I think he also embarrasses himself in an episode of Brasseye) and I've always kind of thought his appearance was Tamahori's (who is part Maori after all) two fingers to colonial Britain and the stuffy culture of gentlemens clubs.

    Maybe that's why he decided to turn in a horrendous Bond film - as Bond himself is emblematic of colonial Britain.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Micro-celebrity cameos do not belong in a Bond film. Even one as crap as DAD.
  • edited April 2016 Posts: 4,325
    Micro-celebrity cameos do not belong in a Bond film. Even one as crap as DAD.

    I think the one in TWINE worked, with the 2 guys from the TV programme The Clampers - that was quite funny - although audiences who see the film in the future (and now even) won't get the joke. Come to it, I'm guessing that that joke would have been lost on US and international audiences outside of the UK at the time.

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    "As of mid-July 2010 Skeete now works within the haulage industry as a lorry driver for MJD Group located in Kent."
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    Micro-celebrity cameos do not belong in a Bond film. Even one as crap as DAD.

    I think the one in TWINE worked, with the 2 guys from the TV programme The Clampers - that was quite funny - although audiences who see the film in the future (and now even) won't get the joke. Come to it, I'm guessing that that joke would have been lost on US and international audiences outside of the UK at the time.

    Ah, that was a funny moment, but as you mention, lost on audiences outside of the UK and anyone who hadn't seen the programme.
    I must admit I had a genuine dislike of Skeete back then and to see him turn up in a Bond film (Along with his naff acting) really pee'd me off!
  • Posts: 4,034
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hated TERMINATOR 2. I don't really go for franchise films aside from Bond and the occasional STAR WARS film.

    Are you not keen on Marvel or DC movies?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    vzok wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hated TERMINATOR 2. I don't really go for franchise films aside from Bond and the occasional STAR WARS film.

    Are you not keen on Marvel or DC movies?

    No.

    You say that like it's an impossibility that people could possibly be bored with the tedious churning out of creatively moribund, CGI overloaded mediocrity?

  • Posts: 4,034
    vzok wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hated TERMINATOR 2. I don't really go for franchise films aside from Bond and the occasional STAR WARS film.

    Are you not keen on Marvel or DC movies?

    No.

    You say that like it's an impossibility that people could possibly be bored with the tedious churning out of creatively moribund, CGI overloaded mediocrity?

    It was just a simple question for Birdleson as I remember his liking of Superman.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Hated TERMINATOR 2. I don't really go for franchise films aside from Bond and the occasional STAR WARS film.

    Are you not keen on Marvel or DC movies?

    No.

    You say that like it's an impossibility that people could possibly be bored with the tedious churning out of creatively moribund, CGI overloaded mediocrity?

    It was just a simple question for Birdleson as I remember his liking of Superman.
    The thing about Superman (1978) was that they couldn't wave a magic CGI wand to 'amaze' the audience. The wrote a good script full of great dialogue, they cast & photographed it meticulously, the got the number one musician on the planet to score it, and the achieved outstanding visual effects with fine craftsmanship, hard work & ingenuity. I was a monumental undertaking that paid off handsomely.
    Today we just get the kids together, run around a bit in front of a camera and then spend six months letting the technicians (many of whom I will admit are artists in their own right) add all the backgrounds, foregrounds & fight scenes. 8-|
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Birdleson wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    The thing about Superman (1978) was that they couldn't wave a magic CGI wand to 'amaze' the audience.

    I'm glad that you put that in quotes. The end result is that the reliance on CGI has taken much of the amazement and wonder out of film. We just assume all great stunts and sets are CGI constructions now. That feeling of "Oh my God!! How did they do that (MOONRAKER PTS)!?!" is gone.

    Absolutely. It's very sad.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited April 2016 Posts: 17,741
    Just listen to the speech...
    [Superman catching up to the rocket (1978)] "OMG that looks so REAL!"
    [Superman taking off straight up breaking the ground beneath him (2013)] "That looked so COOL!"

    CGI isn't even for making stuff look real anymore. It's for making stuff look beyond what real could look like. It's the crack cocaine of visual FX. It's acceptable for stuff here & there imo, but when every shot is filled with the stuff, part of your brain either switches to dim mode, or loves it to the point where a sunrise or reflections in a pool or water during rain in real life just become boring without the visual tweaking. Both suck.
    Rant over. ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited April 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Very well said chaps.

    For me the cinematography of real locations in The Revenant was far more visually arresting than anything in The Avengers or Man of Steel.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I agree that CGI is not quite up to the job and should be used sparingly, especially for Bond, to augment. It's actually more annoying than anything if not used properly and takes one out of the moment, at least imho.

    Having said that, I recently watched the 4K blu ray copy of Total Recall (the remake). Although the film is useless compared to the charismatic Arnie original from 1990, the CGI is superb. Very realistic, especially the night scenes. From about 1:10 onwards in this clip below:

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    The cinematography in The Revenant is the only thing worth seeing. The rest is crap.

    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that CGI is not quite up to the job and should be used sparingly, especially for Bond, to augment. It's actually more annoying than anything if not used properly and takes one out of the moment, at least imho.

    Having said that, I recently watched the 4K blu ray copy of Total Recall (the remake). Although the film is useless compared to the charismatic Arnie original from 1990, the CGI is superb. Very realistic, especially the night scenes. From about 1:10 onwards in this clip below:


    Meh. Just a poor mans CR parkour isn't it? (A scene which incidentally used CGI perfectly)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that CGI is not quite up to the job and should be used sparingly, especially for Bond, to augment. It's actually more annoying than anything if not used properly and takes one out of the moment, at least imho.

    Having said that, I recently watched the 4K blu ray copy of Total Recall (the remake). Although the film is useless compared to the charismatic Arnie original from 1990, the CGI is superb. Very realistic, especially the night scenes. From about 1:10 onwards in this clip below:


    It's very impressive stuff to be sure, but the problem is that you'd need an astronomical budget to have guys tweaking all the visuals for potentially years to cover every visual problem I can detect here at first glance (please don't ask for a laundry list- I have work early tomorrow morning). This level works best in superhero movies where there is already a suspension of disbelief joined with an expectation of an art or anime style of visual motion.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree that CGI is not quite up to the job and should be used sparingly, especially for Bond, to augment. It's actually more annoying than anything if not used properly and takes one out of the moment, at least imho.

    Having said that, I recently watched the 4K blu ray copy of Total Recall (the remake). Although the film is useless compared to the charismatic Arnie original from 1990, the CGI is superb. Very realistic, especially the night scenes. From about 1:10 onwards in this clip below:


    It's very impressive stuff to be sure, but the problem is that you'd need an astronomical budget to have guys tweaking all the visuals for potentially years to cover every visual problem I can detect here at first glance (please don't ask for a laundry list- I have work early tomorrow morning). This level works best in superhero movies where there is already a suspension of disbelief joined with an expectation of an art or anime style of visual motion.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    It's very impressive stuff to be sure, but the problem is that you'd need an astronomical budget to have guys tweaking all the visuals for potentially years to cover every visual problem I can detect here at first glance (please don't ask for a laundry list- I have work early tomorrow morning). This level works best in superhero movies where there is already a suspension of disbelief joined with an expectation of an art or anime style of visual motion.
    I agree, to get to the Total Recall level probably does require an incredible budget. IF you've not seen the film, I recommend it just for the visual effects which are brilliant. Very Blade Runner in places. Philip Dick's vision is nicely realized. Kate Beckinsale kicks some 'a' in it too, but she's no Sharon Stone in her prime.
    Meh. Just a poor mans CR parkour isn't it? (A scene which incidentally used CGI perfectly)
    I agree here too, CR showed how CGI can be integrated perfectly to augment live action rather than to recreate.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
    Sadly it's a total bore and very inferior to the Arnold film but it's fancy visuals is a positive.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.

    I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either

  • Posts: 4,325
    The CGI in Spectre is pretty good, certainly in comparison to DAD.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    w2bond wrote: »
    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.

    I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either

    That was for real. The trick in that scene was Craig s face plastered on a stuntman. More impressive than the similar SF stunt, wasn t it?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    w2bond wrote: »
    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.

    I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either

    That was for real. The trick in that scene was Craig s face plastered on a stuntman. More impressive than the similar SF stunt, wasn t it?

    It's not for real. They shot the explosion (briefcase detonation) for real, using a facade, but the building collapse is CGI.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    RC7 wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.

    I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either

    That was for real. The trick in that scene was Craig s face plastered on a stuntman. More impressive than the similar SF stunt, wasn t it?

    It's not for real. They shot the explosion (briefcase detonation) for real, using a facade, but the building collapse is CGI.
    The reason most of the CGI (like the wall collapse) in SP worked for me is that it was all fast stuff, no big linger on the FX to supposedly WOW us with amazement. It was all to keep the story going.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.

    I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either

    That was for real. The trick in that scene was Craig s face plastered on a stuntman. More impressive than the similar SF stunt, wasn t it?

    It's not for real. They shot the explosion (briefcase detonation) for real, using a facade, but the building collapse is CGI.
    Thanks for clearing that up. I had heard that it was 'real' and I just couldn't believe it. Looked 100% CGI to me and so I thought my eyes were deceiving me. Likely a few more years before that becomes a genuine problem thankfully.
Sign In or Register to comment.