Too much CGI in Skyfall ? Or just Obvious CGI that wasn't needed ?

1356712

Comments

  • Posts: 157
    I’ve seen the movie once so far at the BFI IMAX – I thought the CGI was decent enough, at no point did it take me out the film. The komodo dragons were perfectly fine. We should be applauding them for coming up with an inventive, original and well executed sequence.
    Of course the product placement does take you “out of the film”. The 2nd appearance of the Heineken bottle – coincidentally happening to be the same brand another service man drinks is that moment I briefly left.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I didn't have any problems with the product placement.

    It isn't something that has started with the Craig era.
  • Posts: 157
    I completely appreciate that and appreciate it has to be there. However the exact placement at that moment took me out of the experience. Not good. In comparison - the CGI was good enough to keep in and entertained.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    grunther wrote:
    I completely appreciate that and appreciate it has to be there. However the exact placement at that moment took me out of the experience. Not good. In comparison - the CGI was good enough to keep in and entertained.

    The Heineken bottles are barely seen. Maybe they are CGI too...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    I'll say this for SF, I for one did not notice any CGI. But then I have seen the film only once.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I'll say this for SF, I for one did not notice any CGI. But then I have seen the film only once.

    I have seen it only once too. For most of the time, it looks fine to me.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    JamesCraig wrote:
    The bikes were all done for real.

    And you don't have get worked up. It's only a movie & and a forum.

    Exactly. And does anyone go on about the awful use of bluescreen in the 60s and 70s films. Always noticeable, especially in YOLT when Miss Brand parachutes from the plane, a really bad bit of blue screen, worst ever in a Bond film and probably any film made at that time. But do people drone on endlessly about how crap is was? No they watch the film and enjoy it - not my favourite, but there you go. CGI is here to stay, it is just another tool in the filmmakers arsenal to get the story told.
    Having seen Skyfall I think it is a brilliant Bond and at no time was I going 'ooo cgi' - well apart from the one obvious scene with Silva, but it didn't make me think any less of the film. I'll be going to see it again soon, and will probably enjoy it just as much or even more.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Mind you, I much prefer practical effects (like Ledger's Joker scars, and my God, how brilliantly disgusting does Evil Dead 2013 look???) or modelling (like the BMW 750il in TND), but if CGI is used in a proper way, why not?

    I don't think Michael Bay will ever direct a Bondfilm, and I'm pretty sure we'll never see something like DAD again, at least not during Craig's tenure.

  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Good god no. Keep Michael Bay away from Bond. Actually keep him away from any film!
  • Posts: 8
    Apart from the komodo dragons, i didn't even notice the cgi. You guys have very anal observational skills.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Imo, the cgi didn't really bother me. Cgi is the new rear projection. If used like the cgi was used in Skyfall, well, then it doesn't bother me. We got a very flemingian moment with a little aid of cgi.
  • I was quite invested in the story and plot for the cgi to be too much of a distraction. Though the helicopters were pretty silly looking. However, I have no problem with Silva's island, when Bond and Severine first arrive I actually thought it looked very real. Also I had no probelm with Silva's disfigurement, looked pretty real to me.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Rocco wrote:
    Apart from the komodo dragons, i didn't even notice the cgi. You guys have very anal observational skills.

    I don't think it's anal, if you're interested in that kind of thing and watch a lot of films it's obvious.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited October 2012 Posts: 3,497
    It is anal, sorry.

    I still don't see how the helicopters are blatant CGI. The only times are Silva's deformity (actually, only the eye looks really fake to me) and the Komodo dragons, especially in closeups.

    If you want to spot everything that's "wrong" in a movie with a microscope, you can't enjoy movies anymore.

    We have had much worse CGI & action sequences in the past.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    It is anal, sorry.

    I still don't see how the helicopters are blatant CGI. The only times are Silva's deformity (actually, only the eye looks really fake to me) and the Komodo dragons, especially in closeups.

    If you want to spot everything that's "wrong" in a movie with a microscope, you can't enjoy movies anymore.

    We have had much worse CGI & action sequences in the past.

    You're assuming I'm complaining. I'm not. I don't mind it, what I'm saying is I find it easy to see.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I'm not talking directly to you, RC7.

    And the things I listed are the only obvious uses of CGI for me.
  • Posts: 157
    RC7 wrote:
    what I'm saying is I find it easy to see.
    Maybe more for those that not only watch a lot of films, but a lot of making of's.
    You find yourself becoming an insider on what techniques are used to make a sequence. You see a sequence and start to think, I bet they did that with CGI....they could have only done that with CGI....it must be CGI!...its obvious!!

    See what’s happening- a different thought process occurs.

    I believe if people get too deep into the making of's, it can then be hard to detach yourself and go back to viewing films for pure entertainment - being immersed in the illusion it’s trying to create.
  • DiscoVolanteDiscoVolante Stockholm, Sweden
    edited October 2012 Posts: 1,347
    Had a guest lecturer at Uni. today and yesterday from Moving Pictures Company (MPC), London. He said they did some work on Skyfall. I know from the credits that there were two other studios involved too (probably Double Negative and Framestore?). Who knows what company made what effect though, it's often a mix and mess between several studios.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited October 2012 Posts: 3,497
    http://www.dneg.com/projects/projects_list.html

    Double Negative. A company I've been admiring since 2005.

    Example: a certain part from the car chase during QOS's PTS was CGI, with added debris. Only the airplane chase looked fake, much more than anything in Skyfall tbh.
  • Some DC shots on the bike were CGI - they put his face on the stuntman's.

    The dragons were good - a real dragon would not have been used because you can't control them, they would have attacked everyone on set. And their bite, even their saliva is deadly, ask Sharon Stone.

    The helicopters were a big let down - it was the pay off for 'his line' after the awesome island section - they should have rocked out with real ones.



  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    It is anal, sorry.

    I still don't see how the helicopters are blatant CGI. The only times are Silva's deformity (actually, only the eye looks really fake to me) and the Komodo dragons, especially in closeups.

    If you want to spot everything that's "wrong" in a movie with a microscope, you can't enjoy movies anymore.

    We have had much worse CGI & action sequences in the past.

    You're assuming I'm complaining. I'm not. I don't mind it, what I'm saying is I find it easy to see.

    Seriously, you do? I watched closely the second time to see if I could see how fake the helicopters looked, and they still looked like bloody helicopters to me, damn them.

    So, how do you tell when you see that they are CGI? I'm genuinely interested.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    But those helicopters didn't look fake at all to me. And they are seen for how long, 10 seconds?

    And DC did a lot of his stunts himself. True story.
  • edited October 2012 Posts: 2,782
    JamesCraig wrote:
    But those helicopters didn't look fake at all to me. And they are seen for how long, 10 seconds?

    And DC did a lot of his stunts himself. True story.

    Not all of them. He did do the shower stunt for real. That was a cunning stunt.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    NicNac wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    It is anal, sorry.

    I still don't see how the helicopters are blatant CGI. The only times are Silva's deformity (actually, only the eye looks really fake to me) and the Komodo dragons, especially in closeups.

    If you want to spot everything that's "wrong" in a movie with a microscope, you can't enjoy movies anymore.

    We have had much worse CGI & action sequences in the past.

    You're assuming I'm complaining. I'm not. I don't mind it, what I'm saying is I find it easy to see.

    Seriously, you do? I watched closely the second time to see if I could see how fake the helicopters looked, and they still looked like bloody helicopters to me, damn them.

    So, how do you tell when you see that they are CGI? I'm genuinely interested.

    Ok, I'll admit it.





    I stood in for Craig during the filming of SF. His face was superimposed on mine and he recorded his dialogue in the basement of the SIS building.

    So there you have the obvious CGI. I'm sorry!!!
  • Posts: 37
    I don't understand why they couldn't have used real Komodo dragons and a human sacrifice.

  • I was too busy squezzing my other half's hand and whispering to her..."it's like live and let die, it's like live and let die. He's going to jump on it"

    She whispered back, "what are you going on about?"
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    I was too busy squezzing my other half's hand and whispering to her..."it's like live and let die, it's like live and let die. He's going to jump on it"

    She whispered back, "what are you going on about?"

    You see, women! They really aren't on the same wavelength are they? Apart from Germanlady of course.
  • I haven´t notice some of the CGI that you say. DAD had horrible visual effects, but SF has done a decent job in this aspect.
  • diamonddiamond Bonn
    Posts: 7
    There were not too much CGI and certainly did not spoil the overall good impression of the film. Obviously there were a lot of real stunts, fine performances from the actors, nice landscapes so it is easy for everyone to see that a lot of effort was put to make it really nice film this time. I don't like DAD as well to be honest and not just because of the CGIs in it...
  • Posts: 266
    I personally thought the CGI was fine i only really noticed the dragons and the Silva bit, and i thought they were done well. I never noticed the helicopters.
Sign In or Register to comment.