› ›

Skyfall Special Effects and CGI

LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
edited December 2012 in Skyfall Posts: 204
Thought some of you might find this interesting. Not only was the Komodo Dragon CGI, but much of the whole shot including the background was CGI. Also the lake by Skyfall when Silva arrives by helicopter, and Skyfall on fire was digitally composed, as was the fog and the icy breath. The DB5 which was destroyed was actually 3D printed because they didn't want to destroy a real one, and damage was added digitally too.

Mod edit: direct links removed according to MGM/UA/Sony copyright policy.
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_07B.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_07A.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_06B.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_06A.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_CINESITE_VFX_01.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_CINESITE_VFX_02.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_CINESITE_VFX_05.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_CINESITE_VFX_08.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_CINESITE_VFX_10.jpg

http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_05B.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_05A.jpg

http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_02B.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_02A.jpg

http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_BLIND_VFX_01.jpg
http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_BLIND_VFX_02.jpg

«13

Comments

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    When you say Skyfall on fire was digitally composed - what exactly do you mean, because we know, the whole thing was blown up for real.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    This is great stuff! So, the CGI in Skyfall really was quite magnificent, because I never questioned half of what was actually digitally composed. Great screencaps too!
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Germanlady wrote:
    When you say Skyfall on fire was digitally composed - what exactly do you mean, because we know, the whole thing was blown up for real.

    I think it is two elements, Skyfall being on fire and then the separate shot of Silva walking away (can't risk getting an actor burnt) which are then merged, real elements just digitally put together. In the old days it would have been optical composites.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    Great images. I thought I knew of most of the CGI but clearly not. They did a good job.
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    edited December 2012 Posts: 204
    Germanlady wrote:
    When you say Skyfall on fire was digitally composed - what exactly do you mean, because we know, the whole thing was blown up for real.

    The Skyfall that was blown up was a minature. When we see Silva walking away, he's walking away from a light rig which was designed to look like the light from a fire. It is then digitally composited with a miniature of Skyfall lodge on fire and then fog is added for atmosphere and also to hide the lack of detail because it is a model.

    http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_04B.jpg
    http://www.artofvfx.com/SKYFALL/SKYFALL_MPC_VFX_04A.jpg
    http://www.arri.com/uploads/pics/b_SKYFALL_10.jpg
  • LicenceRevokedLicenceRevoked
    Posts: 204
    Sorry, didn't know about the copyright thing
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    I was quite surprised that one of the elements that some people complained about in SF was how "bad" the CGI was (to be fair, a couple of them seemed to be looking for anything to complain about - some things they referenced as CGI were real!).

    The first time that I saw SF was in Imax and the only parts that looked fake were the motorcycle chase from the PTS (mostly the masks) and the shot of Craig holding on to the bottom of the elevator in Shanghai. Things that people complained about as looking embarrassingly fake - such as the helicopters above Silva's island - looked fine to me.

    I saw SF again this weekend in non-Imax format and was amazed at how real everything looked. I knew about a lot more of the SFX shots (such as those listed above) yet everything looked completely real. An outstanding job by the VFX team!
  • MrBrownMrBrown
    Posts: 202
    Pretty convincing work. The dragons might not look too hot in 5 years, but they worked well for a 2012 film.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,310
    I didn't realize that the entire background behind the dragon was CGI also??? That is actually pretty incredible.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited December 2012 Posts: 4,436
    The source of this all above include a Interview with the guy who work on this and more pictures http://www.artofvfx.com/?p=3163 there work with 40 people on the movie and take 8 months to make more then 100 of those things. Also there is link there who link to http://www.cinesite.com/project-features/skyfall#/1

    I expect there filming a real komodo dragon and at this in the computer like the scorpions with Die Another Day.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    I don't like CGI in James Bond. This all started with Brosnan, and just find it unnecessary for the most part. Yes it may provide some exciting bits that you wouldn't have found in Bond before it, or not able to provide, but don't think it's something that really needs to be done. Granted the final moments of Skyfall (building) did look a bit far fetched, but you just concentrate on the action and don't think to yourself - 'look at the amazing CGI effects presented here'

    Thank the lord these things weren't used in the days of Connery or even Dalton. We don't really need outrageous sequences to make a good Bond film or provide more plaudits for any Bond involved, but like it or not, that's the way we've headed now
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    I don't like CGI in James Bond. This all started with Brosnan, and just find it unnecessary for the most part. Yes it may provide some exciting bits that you wouldn't have found in Bond before it, or not able to provide, but don't think it's something that really needs to be done. Granted the final moments of Skyfall (building) did look a bit far fetched, but you just concentrate on the action and don't think to yourself - 'look at the amazing CGI effects presented here'

    Thank the lord these things weren't used in the days of Connery or even Dalton. We don't really need outrageous sequences to make a good Bond film or provide more plaudits for any Bond involved, but like it or not, that's the way we've headed now

    I would actually disagree with you about Skyfall, seeing as the finale of Skyfall used just as much practical effects as they used CGI, composite effects have been around for decades.

    As for your main point though, I agree. However the only Bond film that has gone way overboard on CGI has been Die Another Day, so I think Bond is still doing pretty well to do as many things for real as possible.
  • AdrianAdrian
    Posts: 15
    I know people like to complain about CGI and about how they didn't need it back when so-and-so was made but I must disagree. If CGI was available back then on the cheap and with a convincing look, they would've used it then like they use it now.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    CGI has obviously changed since the atrocities shown in 'Die Another Day'. CGI used to be a 'thingie' for spectacular blockbuster movies in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.

    Without CGI, a realistic scene like that could not have been made. Allthough I love miniatures from the late Derek Meddings and John Richardson for the Bond films, I do think CGI can do it much better now.

    Some other CGI effects from the Daniel Craig Bond films: The entire Skyfleet Airplane in 'Casino Royale' was CGI. At first I never realized that. And not to mention the komodo dragons in 'Skyfall', which looked....so real! Watch some documentaries about these extraordinary reptiles on youtube. The motoric moves of these fantastic animals.....simply marvellous CGI work.

    And then we had the entire island off the coast of Macau. When you saw it at the horizon on Silva's ship the 'Chimera', I couldn't tell if it was real or CGI. Astonishing!

    I also think the 'Visual Effects' category for awards is slightly going to change. You have CGI visuals that can marvel you, like in 'Avatar' and 'Life Of Pi' (Also with 'Life Of Pi' the animals looked so bloody real! I was kinda shocked it was CGI!), but also CGI visuals that make things look more realistic, that are actually necessary to make a film look more realistic!

    I really hope the Academy Awards look into the latter field of CGI effects as well. And I do recommend EON Productions to make special documentary style movies about the CGI Visual Effects process of their Bond films for the 'For Your Consideration Screening Audience'. It is actually vital, because these CGI effects are not here to marvel us with beauty. They actually hide that beauty to make a movie more realistic.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    CGI has obviously changed since the atrocities shown in 'Die Another Day'. CGI used to be a 'thingie' for spectacular blockbuster movies in the sci-fi/fantasy genre.

    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.

    Without CGI, a realistic scene like that could not have been made. Allthough I love miniatures from the late Derek Meddings and John Richardson for the Bond films, I do think CGI can do it much better now.

    Some other CGI effects from the Daniel Craig Bond films: The entire Skyfleet Airplane in 'Casino Royale' was CGI. At first I never realized that. And not to mention the komodo dragons in 'Skyfall', which looked....so real! Watch some documentaries about these extraordinary reptiles on youtube. The motoric moves of these fantastic animals.....simply marvellous CGI work.

    And then we had the entire island off the coast of Macau. When you saw it at the horizon on Silva's ship the 'Chimera', I couldn't tell if it was real or CGI. Astonishing!

    I also think the 'Visual Effects' category for awards is slightly going to change. You have CGI visuals that can marvel you, like in 'Avatar' and 'Life Of Pi' (Also with 'Life Of Pi' the animals looked so bloody real! I was kinda shocked it was CGI!), but also CGI visuals that make things look more realistic, that are actually necessary to make a film look more realistic!

    I really hope the Academy Awards look into the latter field of CGI effects as well. And I do recommend EON Productions to make special documentary style movies about the CGI Visual Effects process of their Bond films for the 'For Your Consideration Screening Audience'. It is actually vital, because these CGI effects are not here to marvel us with beauty. They actually hide that beauty to make a movie more realistic.

    PS: I just saw the examples in the opening post of this topic. I. Am. Amazed. I....never thought that this was CGI!!!! Bond breathing in the cold air.....I am amazed how these little CGI touch-ups are so good. 'Skyfall' deserves an Oscar for this category as well. As long as EON starts creating these special documentaries for the 'For Your Consideration Screening Audience'.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2012 Posts: 3,497
    The Top Gear 007 special was awesome. 15 Audi's A5 were destroyed!!! #-o 8-| And Hammond even drove teh Skyfall DB5!

    They also showed parts of the car chase on ice from DAD, it still looks horribly fake (the added effects that is). Btw, I absolutely loved the modelwork with the 750IL in TND.
  • youknowthenameyouknowthename
    Posts: 16
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.
    I can't think many people would have had the same reaction, seeing as the MI6 building obviously wouldn't have blown up in real life. I think the explosion in TWINE looked a lot better.

    Realistic CGI effects have come so far, but the way it was used in Skyfall felt similar to Mission Impossible 4, very stylised and used a lot as if it looked fantastic, but really it looked quite cartoonish. In MI4 I spose it was deliberately a bit over the top because of Brad Bird's background, but scenes like the helicopters over the island and the dragon stuck out like a sore thumb in Skyfall.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    youknowthename wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.
    I can't think many people would have had the same reaction, seeing as the MI6 building obviously wouldn't have blown up in real life. I think the explosion in TWINE looked a lot better.

    Realistic CGI effects have come so far, but the way it was used in Skyfall felt similar to Mission Impossible 4, very stylised and used a lot as if it looked fantastic, but really it looked quite cartoonish. In MI4 I spose it was deliberately a bit over the top because of Brad Bird's background, but scenes like the helicopters over the island and the dragon stuck out like a sore thumb in Skyfall.

    Why would it not have blown up in real life? Yeah I do admire the effects work on the building explosion in TWINE, I felt it was extremely well done.

    And not at one stage in MI4 did I feel the effects were cartoonish, could you maybe give some examples of where you thought they were this way?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    youknowthename wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.
    I can't think many people would have had the same reaction, seeing as the MI6 building obviously wouldn't have blown up in real life. I think the explosion in TWINE looked a lot better.

    Realistic CGI effects have come so far, but the way it was used in Skyfall felt similar to Mission Impossible 4, very stylised and used a lot as if it looked fantastic, but really it looked quite cartoonish. In MI4 I spose it was deliberately a bit over the top because of Brad Bird's background, but scenes like the helicopters over the island and the dragon stuck out like a sore thumb in Skyfall.

    I fully disagree. The question should be: How can you make a terrorist attack more realistic. If I compare the explosion of the weapons factory in the opening sequence of 'GoldenEye'....or the explosion of Blofeld's volcano in 'You Only Lve Twice' with the terrorist attack on the MI6 building in 'Skyfall', I choose the latter.

    For me personally, miniatures (GoldenEye) or cross-edited videos (You Only Live Twice) can't beat the current mixture of CGI with miniatures (Skyfall). I think it's that combination that works also.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    The weapons factory in the PTS of GE was a big painting, and they just used computers to put in the exploding factory and Bond bailing on the motorcycle.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote:
    The weapons factory in the PTS of GE was a big painting, and they just used computers to put in the exploding factory and Bond bailing on the motorcycle.

    Nope. It was Derek Meddings miniatures work.
    goldeneye_derek_meddings_on_his_miniature_severnaya_set.jpg?w=356&h=248
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote:
    The weapons factory in the PTS of GE was a big painting, and they just used computers to put in the exploding factory and Bond bailing on the motorcycle.

    Sorry, you're right hehe:
    GoldeneyeGlass.jpg
  • youknowthenameyouknowthename
    Posts: 16
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    youknowthename wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.
    I can't think many people would have had the same reaction, seeing as the MI6 building obviously wouldn't have blown up in real life. I think the explosion in TWINE looked a lot better.

    Realistic CGI effects have come so far, but the way it was used in Skyfall felt similar to Mission Impossible 4, very stylised and used a lot as if it looked fantastic, but really it looked quite cartoonish. In MI4 I spose it was deliberately a bit over the top because of Brad Bird's background, but scenes like the helicopters over the island and the dragon stuck out like a sore thumb in Skyfall.

    Why would it not have blown up in real life? Yeah I do admire the effects work on the building explosion in TWINE, I felt it was extremely well done.

    And not at one stage in MI4 did I feel the effects were cartoonish, could you maybe give some examples of where you thought they were this way?

    The Kremlin explosion. What I meant about the MI6 explosion was that, however realistic you try and make the explosion, ultimately the majority of the audience is aware that the real life MI6 building hasn't been blown up. When I see that scene, I see an FX sequence; when I see the TWINE scene, I see it a real, tangible effect. I would have preferred a minature composited into the sequence. A less spectacular result probably, but better IMO.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    It's fine. I always heard it was a painting, and then I saw this picture in a 50th Anniversary magazine I picked up months ago.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    youknowthename wrote:
    CraigMooreOHMSS wrote:
    youknowthename wrote:
    Gustav_Graves wrote:
    BUT a new CGI has developed since then: The 'Realistic CGI effects'. Thanks to CGI, we were able to blow up a big part of the MI6 building at Vauxhall Cross. It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock. At least, for me it did. A terrorist attack never looked so real and never gave me so mmuch goosebumps.
    I can't think many people would have had the same reaction, seeing as the MI6 building obviously wouldn't have blown up in real life. I think the explosion in TWINE looked a lot better.

    Realistic CGI effects have come so far, but the way it was used in Skyfall felt similar to Mission Impossible 4, very stylised and used a lot as if it looked fantastic, but really it looked quite cartoonish. In MI4 I spose it was deliberately a bit over the top because of Brad Bird's background, but scenes like the helicopters over the island and the dragon stuck out like a sore thumb in Skyfall.

    Why would it not have blown up in real life? Yeah I do admire the effects work on the building explosion in TWINE, I felt it was extremely well done.

    And not at one stage in MI4 did I feel the effects were cartoonish, could you maybe give some examples of where you thought they were this way?

    The Kremlin explosion. What I meant about the MI6 explosion was that, however realistic you try and make the explosion, ultimately the majority of the audience is aware that the real life MI6 building hasn't been blown up. When I see that scene, I see an FX sequence; when I see the TWINE scene, I see it a real, tangible effect. I would have preferred a minature composited into the sequence. A less spectacular result probably, but better IMO.

    I find this.....a bit of a bullocks argument. Sorry, but I DO think the MI6 building blow-up in 'Skyfall' was oozing realism. Especially combined with the cameo's of CNN's Wolf Blitzer and the BBC News. Please remember, the James Bond world IS an alternative mirror world of our own world. But that doesn't mean it's less realistic...or that it suddenly looks 'fake' because of the 'terrible CGI because people know the real building is still there'.

    The fact is: For me it worked. This is the reality of the post-Brosnan films if you ask me. A slightly more fantastic version of Julian Assange -Silva-, a WikiLeaks-like security breach vs. cyber attack, and a terrorist attack: For me it worked.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    The only CGI that truly bothered me in the film was either Patrice falling from the building, the motorcycle chase in the PTS, or the helicopters on Silva's island. I thought the MI-6 building explosion was handled beautifully.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote:
    The only CGI that truly bothered me in the film was either Patrice falling from the building, the motorcycle chase in the PTS, or the helicopters on Silva's island. I thought the MI-6 building explosion was handled beautifully.

    I also think, once the film is very good, once you're drawn into a great plot, the CGI -masterfully crafted or bad executed- does not really bother me. The only bad CGI that bothers me is the stuff we saw in 'DAD'. By the way, since 'Skyfall' the Bond franchise is updated to 'The Dark Knight'-like standards. Which means that even realistic 2D IMAX action films will get a CGI-treatment too. I actually welcome it. As long as it is executed as we saw in 'Skyfall'.

    One other example of GOOD CGI in my example: Silva's 'jawdropping' moment. Okay, if you take that moment out of perspective, out of the storyline, like most Bond fans are doing, it is indeed not real. We can see it, and we know Javier Bardem's face isn't like that in real life. But again, that moment could not have existed without CGI. And taking into account the storyline, that moment really WORKED for me. Even my mum got chills "Ughh, don't wanna look!". Then CGI works at that very moment.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    @Gustav_Graves, I, too, thought Silva's 'jaw' scene was wonderfully executed. I think the CGI is perfection in comparison to DAD, and that's why I don't let it take me out of the film.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @Gustav_Graves, I, too, thought Silva's 'jaw' scene was wonderfully executed. I think the CGI is perfection in comparison to DAD, and that's why I don't let it take me out of the film.

    Indeed ;-). By the way, do people realize that CGI was also very important for the overall cinematography executed by Roger Deakins? The glowing orange colors when Skyfall Lodge is completely burnt.....that could have only happened with help of CGI. So when Roger Deakins does win an Oscar for his work, I think he will most certainly thank the visual effects department too.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,449
    @Gustav_Graves, one can only hope. I love how they used the lighting for the fire, then just placed it in afterward. It looked wonderful, and I never noticed.
Sign In or Register to comment.