›

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: 4,538
    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: 6,130
    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: 19,388
    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?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    edited 1:22pm Posts: 4,538
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    CG Animals rarely look real. Admittedly some of the best CGI i have experienced is the Apes in the recent Planet Of The Apes films. But if it takes me out of a film, it's not convincing.
  • MalloryMallory Rules Reastaurant
    Posts: 2,399
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    CG Animals rarely look real. Admittedly some of the best CGI i have experienced is the Apes in the recent Planet Of The Apes films. But if it takes me out of a film, it's not convincing.

    Krypto in Superman was nearly all CGI and I thought he was really convincing.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 2:16pm Posts: 19,388
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    CG Animals rarely look real. Admittedly some of the best CGI i have experienced is the Apes in the recent Planet Of The Apes films. But if it takes me out of a film, it's not convincing.

    But if you can't tell if it's CG or not? It's quite possible you've seen a CG animal and not known it.

    For example, I was 100% convinced by the mouse in Spectre. I wouldn't have guessed it was CG. I get that a mouse is less challenging than a Komodo dragon, but it's still an animal.

    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,683
    I also think the context of a sequence can effect perception; it would have very possible to use a real mouse, but virtually impossible to use real Komodo dragons
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,388
    Yes that's true, a bit like the Q Glider mentioned above: we know it's going to be CG because it doesn't exist, whereas a CG Land Rover is much harder to spot.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,683
    mtm wrote: »
    Yes that's true, a bit like the Q Glider mentioned above: we know it's going to be CG because it doesn't exist, whereas a CG Land Rover is much harder to spot.

    I don’t think the general filmgoers realize the massive amount of CG imagery is in also every film, even “non-effects movies “
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,538
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    CG Animals rarely look real. Admittedly some of the best CGI i have experienced is the Apes in the recent Planet Of The Apes films. But if it takes me out of a film, it's not convincing.

    But if you can't tell if it's CG or not? It's quite possible you've seen a CG animal and not known it.

    For example, I was 100% convinced by the mouse in Spectre. I wouldn't have guessed it was CG. I get that a mouse is less challenging than a Komodo dragon, but it's still an animal.

    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.

    I guess i'm not a big fan of CG. Strangely enough, i think the Komodo Dragons are quite effective. But then they are seen very briefly.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited 3:42pm Posts: 3,369
    mtm wrote: »
    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.
    Yeah, this. I'd seen NTTD maybe four times before I read that Craig and Magnussen's faces were CGI'd onto stuntmen for the fight on the trawler. Hadn't spotted it at all and I haven't found it even vaguely intrusive when I've rewatched it after finding out. And Paloma's legs are CGI'd too? Damn, man...
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 2,465
    When Bond leaves the motorcycle, it's clear that he's a stunt double with Craig's face but these aren't things you notice on first viewing.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,538
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.
    Yeah, this. I'd seen NTTD maybe four times before I read that Craig and Magnussen's faces were CGI'd onto stuntmen for the fight on the trawler. Hadn't spotted it at all and I haven't found it even vaguely intrusive when I've rewatched it after finding out. And Paloma's legs are CGI'd too? Damn, man...

    That's when it's used correctly. As a tool to be invisible and unobtrusive. I had no idea myself those scenes had CG in them. In fact i'd rather not know.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 5:50pm Posts: 19,388
    Venutius wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.
    Yeah, this. I'd seen NTTD maybe four times before I read that Craig and Magnussen's faces were CGI'd onto stuntmen for the fight on the trawler. Hadn't spotted it at all and I haven't found it even vaguely intrusive when I've rewatched it after finding out. And Paloma's legs are CGI'd too? Damn, man...

    Yes I've looked out for that face replacement and can't spot it at all. I suppose you can only really guess where it is on the basis of how violent they're being: you don't want your actors getting hurt.
    DEKE_RIVERS wrote: »
    When Bond leaves the motorcycle, it's clear that he's a stunt double with Craig's face but these aren't things you notice on first viewing.

    Yes that's slightly more noticeable, I think I have spotted that one. It's still way better than it was in the PTS of Skyfall though, with the bikes on top of the bazaar.
    There's a really funny one in CR, in the foot case when Bond jumps from the crane he's run up onto the steel frame: they've kind of just stuck a 2D photo of Craig onto the stuntman! It's so brief that it works though.
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    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?

    CG Animals rarely look real. Admittedly some of the best CGI i have experienced is the Apes in the recent Planet Of The Apes films. But if it takes me out of a film, it's not convincing.

    But if you can't tell if it's CG or not? It's quite possible you've seen a CG animal and not known it.

    For example, I was 100% convinced by the mouse in Spectre. I wouldn't have guessed it was CG. I get that a mouse is less challenging than a Komodo dragon, but it's still an animal.

    CG isn't bad, only bad CG is bad.

    I guess i'm not a big fan of CG.

    I don't really understand why, when we're talking about stuff which is so well-done it's imperceptible.
  • ColonelAdamskiColonelAdamski UK
    Posts: 1,204
    It's like when people say "I can always tell when someone's wearing a wig". There's no way of knowing that you can always tell. You can only ever say "I can often tell when someone's wearing a wig" with any truth.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 6,130
    To be fair people’s faces being put onto others is digital VFX (not strictly speaking CGI, which is a particular subset of digital VFX. VFX in general, however, has been around forever in cinema in various forms).
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,683
    007HallY wrote: »
    To be fair people’s faces being put onto others is digital VFX (not strictly speaking CGI, which is a particular subset of digital VFX. VFX in general, however, has been around forever in cinema in various forms).

    There was some masterful face replacement and full CG doubles done for “ Logan”

Sign In or Register to comment.