›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Steven Knight to Write)

1…134135136137138140»

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,575
    delfloria wrote: »
    142 pages?

    What happens at 142 pages?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,531
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, I suppose NTTD is destined to go into that pantheon of Bond effects then. If one has no issue with back-projections, obvious stunt doubles, or jarring editing, then this should fit in with all that surely?

    I suppose I'm just more forgiving of poor back projection, obvious miniatures, and the like, since I'm still looking at something real (footage of a real street, a physical object, etc.). Don't get me wrong, some of those effects look pretty atrocious, even by the standards of the day, but I guess it just adds to the slightly rough charm of those early films. And I don't get quite the same feeling from unconvincing CG. It looks more like a video game to me.

    Maybe I'll look back on it with a similar nostalgic affection in years to come.

    Yep. I'd rather have a rubbery looking Shark than a CGI one. I know it's actually there..
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,129
    I’d say it’s all more or less the same in terms of how I react to it (in this case unconvincing CGI vs unconvincing practical). The majority of both in Bond is pretty good though, but obviously all the films are products of their time to some extent.

    I don’t think the Bond films have a VFX ‘problem’ or anything. Budgets get inflated for so many other reasons.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,381
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, I suppose NTTD is destined to go into that pantheon of Bond effects then. If one has no issue with back-projections, obvious stunt doubles, or jarring editing, then this should fit in with all that surely?

    I suppose I'm just more forgiving of poor back projection, obvious miniatures, and the like, since I'm still looking at something real (footage of a real street, a physical object, etc.). Don't get me wrong, some of those effects look pretty atrocious, even by the standards of the day, but I guess it just adds to the slightly rough charm of those early films. And I don't get quite the same feeling from unconvincing CG. It looks more like a video game to me.

    Maybe I'll look back on it with a similar nostalgic affection in years to come.

    Yep. I'd rather have a rubbery looking Shark than a CGI one. I know it's actually there..

    Even if you can't tell if it's CG or not?
Sign In or Register to comment.