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
What happens at 142 pages?
Yep. I'd rather have a rubbery looking Shark than a CGI one. I know it's actually there..
I don’t think the Bond films have a VFX ‘problem’ or anything. Budgets get inflated for so many other reasons.
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.
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 don’t think the general filmgoers realize the massive amount of CG imagery is in also every film, even “non-effects movies “
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't really understand why, when we're talking about stuff which is so well-done it's imperceptible.
There was some masterful face replacement and full CG doubles done for “ Logan”
As someone mentioned on here, Digital VFX is not quite the same thing as CGI. The former i have no problem with.
I get that we'd all rather see real stunts than CG ones because there is a degree of verisimilitude to someone standing on top of a real moving train which a studio still can't replicate, but Bond hasn't really gone there to a huge degree (and Octopussy still had Rog in a studio pretending to be on the train). The bike jump in NTTD for example is a great example of CG embellishing a stunt: it could add a realistic bit of scenery for Bond to use as a ramp and the head replacement meant that the rider could wear a helmet and be safer.
True, I heard Marina Hyde on that Rest is Entertainment podcast say that most movie actors wear wigs so they can keep continuity of hair accurate, which is a statement I'm really dubious about(!), but I can well believe that more of them are wearing wigs than we can ever spot. So yeah, I think it's a good analogy.
Logan’s a great film. Some good VFX in there too.
I mean, some casual viewers would probably take more issue with digital VFX if they knew just how much of it was there in certain films and what it did (I think a recent example was Top Gun Maverick where the implication was no CGI was used - there was to some extent, and certainly included a lot of VFX coupled with the practical work).
The way I see it - the VFX team is a department on a film like any other who do a lot, with a number even working on the set. CGI is just a subset/division of what they do, which incidentally I wouldn’t say is inherently bad or preferable to any of the other digital work. The title sequences and gun barrel fall into the category of CGI.
At any rate I think it’s less an issue of ‘how much’ it’s used, but how it’s used. NTTD would inherently have more noticeable CGI at some points because it’s a pretty big, at times fantastical Bond film with more elaborate scenes. That plays into what they’re creating. Take another movie like, say, The Batman, which is meant to be a bit more subdued/grounded (and has a budget of around $200 million - not cheap but not the most expensive franchise movie of all time) and the CGI in that film becomes more subtle (and yes, they used a fair bit to help create the city and certain sequences).
As i first mentioned, i'd rather a rubber Shark than a CGI one. Just my preference as CGI animals seem difficult to render convincingly. The Komodo dragons in SF were very well done, but Bond films have always had excellent effects work. Which is why i was surprised at the unconvincing Land Rover crash in NTTD.
I actually like that moment with the Land Rover, wished it wasn't in the trailer. As I thought it was a cool Bond bump as Cubby used to call them. Like how Bond fires at it after it near misses him
The Konodo dragons is another story. Wasn't convinced at all by them. And I dislike that whole scene as we were built up to something special like the Hinx scrap, after the meet with Severine ("when I leave, they're going to kill you!") And all we got was a lame fight sequence with the stupid dragons!
As reported by The Spy Command:
https://cnews.topnewsource.com/?p=2448&fbclid=IwY2xjawNeUqhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFUZFJGOGp6dks3ZWdsaTNMAR6MApOZDZLjY4bekR2cfWwJjv1XnS4y4_FA64VCzW3Mn6wGCngAaVYmFMtgIA_aem_tdXzA7MOSw_Tbrnb0vGMZw
Sources familiar with early script sessions say the pair spent nine hours locked in the room, debating tone, stakes, and the character’s evolution — with Villeneuve advocating for a cinematic, visually bold Bond while Knight pushes for narrative depth and modern complexity.
I mean... this isn't really news. These discussions will be happening a lot as they develop the project. Good to hear (if true) what both Villeneuve and Knight want... as I dont think they are contradictory. Both can be achieved.
Heh! Yes, I guess it's not huge news that they've talked about what the script will be, but thanks for sharing!
Nothing is like Tenet. Just for that sound design alone. I expect to actually be able to make out dialogue in this one!
I just found it too intrusive in various instances in NTTD. And yes, if I was given a choice between a bad CGI shark and a bad rubber one, I'd take the rubber one. Or in this case, an obvious miniature glider over an obvious CGI one.