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
And id rather they not use animals for entertainment but if they insist stunts involving animals will be compared with the crocodile stunt
Are animal rights rules so draconian these days that they couldn't even use a real mouse? All it does is sit there scratching and then walk across the floor. It's not exactly like Bond puts it in a microwave is it. Ok it's a pain the arse to sit around all day to get it to do that but that's all part of film making. I can feel a lump in my throat at the notion that 'Mouse wrangler' is no longer a job on set.
The Komodo dragons I can understand as they are unpredictable creatures.
It's tragic to think that we'd never get the LALD crocodile stunt these days. Despite the fact that it was Ross Kananga's farm and presumably the creatures were his livelihood so he would know more about them than some lefty students with too much money from daddy in London or New York.
It's only a matter of time. Soon, Bond will trade going to bars for coffee shops, asking for a glass of soya milk.
Shaken?
Before CGI, we had greenscreens or other backscreen techniques. We see it in the bobsleigh scenes in OHMSS. Or the fight in the Disco Volante in TB. Ask yourself how irritated you are with that. Or is it merely a matter of....getting used to it after so many repeated viewings?
I am asking this for a very simple reason. If these backscreen techniques were used in a contemporary blockbuster movie, we probably would have destroyed it with all our over-critical, nitpicking mindset. Don't you think :-)?
There were days when people simply.....enjoyed movies despite some technical flaws. And don't start now by saying this comparison doesn't hold. It's an entirely valid comparison. To my eyes, especially for new youthful eyes, OHMSS looks incredibly dated from a technical viewpoint. Yet when watching SF and SP I am so immensely satisfied with how these wonderful CGI techniques made recent Bond films more 'real' to me.
I admire the people who worked so tremendously hard to make Craig's double on the motorbike in SF really look like Craig, to make a little CGI-mouse in SP that's truly a masterpiece, to make Blenheim castle look like it's part of Rome and to bring in Komodo dragons in such a believable way that only after looking in these topics I found out they weren't real.
We should be ashamed how we constantly destroy and nitpick the work of an integral part of the Bond crew.
The difference is back in the day they only used these effects to show the actor's face closeup. But they would still cut to a wide shot of a stuntman actually doing the stunt.
I haven't got a problem replacing Craig's face for the SF motorbike scenes (pretty sure they did in in SP when they are hanging out of the helicopter too) or using a CG background for a closeup. But now we have a situation where there isn't even a stuntman doing anything.
Slagging off the tsunami in DAD, the freefall sequence in QOS or the jump through the MI6 building in SP is more shitpicking than nitpicking.
And in a series that prides itself on real stunts we have every right to pick as CGI has its place in Bond (eg removing the wires on the CR crane jump) but the over reliance in recent films just isn't acceptable for a Bond audience I'm afraid.
You want a film full of CGI action? Go and watch on Transformers or Marvel films but it should be banned from Bond.
It did bother me in Airport 1979 - Concorde, where it was overused. Same goes for Jaws 3. Those were disgraces, given the live action and brilliant models used in Airport 75 & Jaws respectively.
There is something about CGI which is terribly contrived in my view.
For me, I always believe it's because the precedent is set in the medium. Back projection and primitive green screen were/are photographic tools created to service film. It's an accepted standard. CGI, on the other hand, is intrinsically tied to the video game medium, so I think it's much harder to separate that in your subconscious.
Still, on the whole one could make the case that today's CGI is very much like the 1960's primitive backscreen projections. For me it feels like that. Perhaps furthermore, external critics have changed tremendously as well? Standards in the 1960's were much more different. Films on the whole were much more 'accepted', whereas today everyone has become its own expert and doesn't leave criticism to others anymore. Perhaps therefore we criticise much more.
The point I was making is that the execution of certain shots was for a time only achievable in a certain way. For that reason it's subconsciously accepted.
These days CGI has complicated matters because it's one of a number of options. If it's 'obvious' in its execution and the viewer is subconsciously aware it's achievable in a more realistic manner, or with a better shot selection, then that registers negatively. Coverage can be much more expansive now. Back in the day mounting a camera on a car was not even possible.
There is a big difference between using back projection in past decades and using CGI in the last 20+ years.
Back projection worked better in the old days because neither the resolution was very high nor the size was very big of the cinematic screens and TV sets.
Nowadays with 65" High Definition screens almost being the rule you can see back projection way better and it looks, quite frankly, just wrong.
Best example is Goldfinger, the whole Hotel sequence where Goldfinger is cheating in the card game is plagued with back projection as obviously neither Connery or Fröbe were there and shot their scenes in sets in England.
Personally I don't mind because it was done that way in practically all Hollywood movies of that era. For me it even has some nostalgic value.
CGI on the other hand can be a high crime that should be punished by getting transferred to Siberian Hobby Film School.
Around 2002 many film had ridiculous CGI be it Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Catwoman etc. but that is no excuse for the catastrophe that is the use of it in DAD.
EON is to blame. Cubby would have never allowed it and it is one more thing that shows that his daughter and it seems, even MGW, don't give a damn about his legacy.
And the sad thing is they haven't learned. QOS and SF is full of bad and/or obvious CGI.
SP at least, got the CGI right as it looks good in all places.
But I still rather have EON go by this:
If you can't do it with a stunt-man, don't do it at all and look for something different, original.
I agree @RC7. I do think however that CGI in a Bond film isn't that deplorable or obvious as CGI used in other bigger blockbuster productions, like the recent "Furious 7", "Transformers" or "Kingsman: The Secret Service".
I also think it's mainly a criticism that lives here in the Bond fan community, as we discuss each and every film to such great detail, that many other generic movie lovers would feel a bit surprised about.
I do agree however for instance that the skydive sequence in "QOS" failed to register. Simply because for all its so called 'realism' of the film, we actually know it was done in real, far more realistic, in Bond flicks like "Octopussy" and "Moonraker". So with that I agree. It's too 'obvious'.
But I doubt that generic movie audiences really saw that mouse in "SPECTRE" as a CGI-effect, or those Komodo dragons in "Skyfall" as fake. At least not on first watch.
Surprisingly I agree with every word of that.
The reason we are critical of it here is precisely because we are Bond fans. The big difference between Bond and the crappy franchises you mention above is that there is a history of doing it for real and for me one of the reasons I hold Bond head and shoulders above other action franchises is that I can see there is a stuntman actually risking life and limb instead of standing in front of a green screen.
It's what the Star Trek-franchise is really suffering from.
That's what made CR so special imho, especially the crane sequence which I always hold up as one of the great action sequences of the 00's. Everything that they did was believable and we could accept it as being real. It looked 100% real too, which is always a bonus.
Except for running up that crane. That was so damn obvious 'fake'. We all know there was a big wire attached to Craig. And that wire actually assisted Craig, by making it appear as he was really running up that crane, which is sheer impossible really. Though, thanks to 'deleting' these wires and obvious 'package' on Craig's back by CGI, it all looked so wonderfully real :-).
In a nutshell.
As I've said, that began in QoS with the fall from the church tower, and continued with the plane disintegration. Now it's become more prevalent in the more recent Bond films, and I'm not happy about it.
Precisely. When you're removing wires or a rig, what you're left with is 'real'. How that is choreographed will impact on the experience, but it's certainly preferable to a CGI double.
Just as a choreographed fight has actors and stuntmen looking like they're making devastating contact with each other's faces as they punch each other, but in reality it's all a cleverly crafted illusion based on camera position and over visual tricks.
As with the Bond examples, that illusion doesn't take away from the fact that it's real people in that scene. In an industry where CGI has become the lazy, go-to and easy solution, I think some have taken real stunt work for granted, when it used to be a pinnacle and staple of the greatest of cinema back in the day.
I think in a nutshell my arguments still stand as well though. I think people are right about many action sequences in "QOS". But really, in the last two Bond films that was done much much better than, let's say "DAD" and "QOS". So, I do find it a bit exaggerated when people lambast CGI-experts for that in "SF" and "SP". But it's also a matter of taste.
Take for instance the PTS in "SP". You can obviously see the surroundings are backscreen, but Daniel Craig is truly giving his best in that action sequence. It really depends how you look at it. CGI is way more diverse than only action sequences.
It's really because of articles like these that you start noticing certain CGI effects. And not many people in here are willing to admit that:
http://tom-i-butler.tumblr.com/post/134800730986/spectres-incredibly-subtle-cgi-before-and-after
Perhaps it's a feeling of being fooled so tremendously well? :-)
This is the crucial difference.
Using CGI to remove stuff is fine. You still need someone to actually do the crane jump.
Using CGI to create stuff is a whole different kettle of fish.
Of course, CGI has its place. They've been dropping in elements for decades. TND has some great use of 'unnoticeable' CGI. Where it becomes a problem is when they use it as a cheap alternative and that is more and more prevalent. I have mates who work in post and the workload is getting ever bigger, with costs being constantly squeezed. CGI is fantastic for augmenting reality, but not replacing it.
Rick Sylvester or CGI Bond?
Which Bond films to you failed miserably then with regard to 'deplorable CGI'?
If I were ever tasked with defining CGI, I would have to rip you off, @RC7, as that's a perfect summation of it right there. Cheers.
Everything post-TWINE. DAD is the worst culprit, but QoS, SF and SP all have terrible moments. CR cuts it fine with the sinking house, but the model work saves it. The skydive in QoS is abysmal, the Hashima island lead in is crap and the collapsing building in SP is also a waste of time. Scenes where CGI swallows the frame.