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
SF features "Boom Boom" by The Animals.
It's the only thing DAD does better.
In all honesty @RC7? When I saw "Skyfall" for the first time, many, almost every, CGI-generated image, got unnoticed for me. It was only later, during many tech-rich, behind-the-scenes articles (about Deakins cinematography, Steven Begg's way-too-real visual effects), I noticed how much time and effort was made into such scenes.
Moreover, did anyone ever ask the question how a scene like this could be made in real without even a bit of CGI?
Impossible. You can not blow up a real building no?
In a way I think it's similar to the komodo dragon scenes? When I watched/heard the behind-the-scenes commentary for LALD I heard that through the grace of God the entire crocodile scene was added. If Guy Hamilton didn't find that croc-farm then what? Moreover, this Ross Kananga was sheer insane.
Now compare croc's with komodo's. Both are deadly, but komodo's even more. They have poison inside their jaws that can massively clot blood. Moreover, there simply are no "komodo dragon farms". They are way more endangered than croc's. So zoo's simply wouldn't allow EON Productions to use these animals for real filming. Hence why I think the CGI-solution was the most elegant one. And also there I need to say again: At first I simply did not see that these komodo's were fake. Their motorical movements, the way they "grab" with their jaws to a victim. Simply wunderful work:
Now I do agree that there was one obvious CGI-scene that caught my attention the first time I saw Skyfall in cinema. It was this image:
But despite this being more obvious CGI, I was still....."grabbed" by the impact of this scene. I remember my mum saying: "Ughhh, I can't look!", turning her face away with waving hand gestures :-).
By the way, I'm only....only responding to this element of CGI in the film. On the whole....the "CGI criticism" for me has been completely overblown and overrated by a lot of fans. For me it was nothing compared to this:
Not exactly, it was a perfect example of a combination of CGI, foreground miniatures and real-life scenery.....being combined together in a wunderful product that was utterly believable. And also let's not forget the Oscar-winning sound editors Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers, whose sounds of this gripping explosion made the impact work even better.
The explosion of the MI6-building in TWINE....now thát was I think mainly miniatures, like the Octopussy-explosion. Compared to the scene in "Skyfall", the one in "TWINE" sounded and looked like a fart :-P.
Well, we can find some examples from older Bond films, that we nowadays would find utterly ridiculous. Back in the 1960's people didn't complain about these kind of scenes....these terrible bad backscreen projections :-P. I guess nowadays we simply scrutinize the heart out of a film:
Hell, I think from what I know "Casino Royale" did it as well. And that scene didn't get any....criticism:
(Sorry, I forgot, @RC7 commented on this picture yesterday ;-))
And @Murdock said it looked like foreground miniatures. I guess the scene worked out perfectly ;-).
Wasn't their a featurette on it?
The bottom line is that many of us here were disappointed with elements of CGI in the film. People can go on until the cows come home about how they 'didn't see it', but others did. The solution: do it for real. Then no one has a problem. If the scene cannot be done for real, question it's relevance, impact, necessity. Did they need Komodo Dragons simply because the script called for it? Or was it Mendes wanting to do a LALD. Did they need close ups of Craig on the bike to be done via facial replacement? Did they need to use CGI choppers instead of real or model versions? Budget constraints or no budget constraints they made some debatable decisions last time out.
I know that image very well. Lot has changed since OP. That one only had miniatures. The scene from SF is using CGI as well. Hence the green cover. But also CGI to narrowly make the slight CGI enhanced explosion fit into the real-life scenery of M looking at the real MI6-building.
Indeed. Some good, some bad. One thing I would bet good money on not happening in 2015 is the quite brilliant foreground miniature shot of the Acrostar squeezing through the closing hangar doors. Today that would almost certainly be done using CGI and from a completely different angle. Plus they'd never do the interior shot where it's rigged to a Jag, that too would be CGI.
And my biggest critique of SF, is that the movie is far too pleased with how smart a film it thinks it is.
SP though I think will relax that attitude.
And the Clash momemt in DAD works real well. Wonder if there is a way to get a Sex Pistols song into a Bond movie too?
The tsunami ride was just bad due to BAD CGI and just pure nonsense. :P
But I agree on CR...I'd have to go back and research it, but it makes no sense, after some of the elaborate staging on the construction site, that they'd end that sequence with a bad sound stage scene. Greg Williams's Bond on Set: Filming Casino Royale offers no clues. There are no stills of the set or that filming. This makes me wonder if that scene was re-shot, hastily shot, or moved to the studio due to problems with the original set.
Trying to justify our dislike of Skyfall by saying it won't age well, bollocks this film is the first billion dollar gross of the series, it was a game changer mark my words it's reception will have a big influence on how the series moves forward and those hoping SPECTRE is a huge departure are going to be disappointed.
Some who weren't fans of Skyfall seem to convince themselves that SP is going to be so much better, do you really think Sam Mendes is going to deliver a completely different type of film, I guarantee the same group are complaining about SF will same old crowd wining like babies about Bond 25's short comings and I'm quite looking forward to it.
You guarantee nothing, other than you are desperate for a SF part 2 apparently, in order to make god knows what point.
SP script is fully leaked. I won't comment of course, but suffice to say we know what's coming, but you keep it up with the guarantees.
Btw, it is allowed on these boards to have critiques of the Bond films, any of the films, including SF, but if it's all just whining to your precious ears, well I guess it takes all kinds.......
Suppose I was just too caught up in the movie, too easy to please or too dull to see what's right in front of me. I definitely understand if you noticed some CGI that you found poor that took you out of it, and that sucks! But I have found amongst friends and others who are big into movies, it seems more and more people are eager to pick things apart.
Now mind you, I am fairly certain the Craig films will always remain popular among the Bond fans, since we cannot be more different than the general audience. So yes, if mi6community still exists in 30 years time, I am sure the Craig films will still be well liked on here, but who know what direction the franchise will he headed to in the 2040's and what the general audience will demand.
1.) the most obvious reason is that a lot of people simply have different tastes when it comes to film.. film is art, and art is subjective - not everyone is going to get the same things out of it... Look at The Shawshank Redemption.. it's the highest rated film on IMDB along with The Godfather, but there are people who may not agree with them being rated so high... it's all opinion, and it's hard to argue opinion.
2.) the next reason, is that we as fans sometimes hold the films to much higher standards than the rest of the world does. The way some fans (not all, but some) talk about these films - especially the old ones - you would think they were all nominated for Academy Awards... i think sometimes those people need to take a step back and view things from a slightly different perspective... which leads into my next point..
3.) i think often times as fans, we tend to want to nitpick details and scenes apart.. but this is also a trend i see more common among this generation than in years past - and not talking about just Bond fans, but moviegoers in general.. instead of judging films on the whole, they'll pick out a couple scenes they didn't like, or a plot point that doesn't make sense, and they'll chastise the film based on those small details, rather than sitting back and taking everything in... i've noticed a lot of people will go into a film and be like "if this film doesn't have this, this, and that" well then that'll piss me off.. and the film could be wonderful, but if it fails to meet those special requirements, people will dismiss it as being terrible, or awful - and yes, i've seen it happen first hand.
4.) then, there is also the fact that SF was heaped so much praise, and made so much money, and was viewed as the best thing since sliced bread - that people will sometimes develop an abrasive attitude to it.. and the more people talk about how good the film is, the more said person will gradually grow to not care for it, to dislike it, to then hating it.... along with this, there is a trend i've noticed that it's "hip" or "the cool thing to do" to go against the grain - to not only try to be the one person who has a different opinion, but to openly bash and mock and be overly judgmental to something that is highly successful.
on the whole.... i try not to get into arguments over people's opinions (unless they try to be like some former members, and use their opinions in a fact based argument)... I personally love SF, i think it's terrific.. the fact is, it made a boat loads of money - set new records in doing so - was critically praised (plot holes and all) - and the general public seemed to really love it as well, but they are the 'silent majority'... people who don't like it represent a very small minority - and they tend to beat their drums very loud and be much more vocal.
bottom line... it just is what it is... not everyone is going to agree on everything - no sense trying to figure it out or rationalize it... if you like it, that is all that matters, move on..
Skyfall had impact that no Bond film has had in decades, a game changer it is. Not just my opinion this is fact. From the moment Craig appeared on the screen we were building up to this, call it whatever EON hit on the formula here and by 2012 despite some bumps along the away BB & MGW from a success point of view knocked it out the park.
First of all a director who had won an Oscar, a first, an entry where we saw the death of such an established character within the series, yes the actors changed but actually acknowledging their death, making it one of the main drives of the film and also the whole 50th Anniversary, not forgetting Adele & Epworth's Oscar and the other nominations it garnered.
This film reached more people than Bond had in years and I know some of you are going to mention Thunderball but Bond is in a far more crowded market place now and it's not only competing with other franchises it has the likes video games the internet etc to deal with. With the exception of the Bat series Skyfall is the only film to hit the billion dollar mark without the assistance of 3D in recent times.
Now SPECTRE may well deliver a far more Bond fan friendly film and it might even gross more but I doubt it will have the cultural impact that Skyfall did. It's footprint is out there in other franchises, TV shows etc. I'm not even suggesting that makes it better than any other entry, that comes down to personal opinion but threads and now we have more than a few downplaying it are just sour grapes because some of you don't like it and don't get it.
In the same way I'm sick to death of seeing GF measured as the benchmark of the series by critics (although the tide is changing somewhat to SF). I can't deny it's impact it's stamp on the series, it pretty much guaranteed the direction that the films would go in and whether I and others liked it or not, it's the reason we are here debating this now 50 year old film series that continues to endure.
It's also ridiculous to say that it will be remembered as the film where Bond gets his boss killed and nothing else like one of the more not so well received entries. Yes maybe by the fan base but by the general public where films either get forgotten about or endure, critics and fans can have an influence but if you don't have the masses getting on board forget it. The plot holes and changing of iconic moments or the use of the DB5 yet again that have wound some of us up has been lapped up by the rest of the world I'll say it now SF is the modern day equivalent of GF.
Skyfall was the most Bond friendly film that Craig had been in and yes obviously going forward it's returning to some other traits of the series with SPECTRE but the tone we have with SF and the emotional resonance isn't going to be abandoned. I don't care some of you have read the script, it's not the film, Mendes is not going to forget the formula that gave him such a resounding success, no it won't be as heavy as SF as killing off M was a big deal.
The films will more than likely change in decades time back to a more lighter tone but while these directions pay off and deliver these big box office rewards there is no reason to think they will for sometime yet. The next actor who signs on won't be looking to play the role like Moore or Brosnan played it, the next Bond will looking for more of what Craig delivered, he's changed what people expect from the role now.
I can't speak for the general public explicitly, but in my social circles, family, friends, colleagues etc the Craig films stack up as - CR - A stone cold classic, QOS - lacklustre, with the odd person finding it underrated, SF - Split down the middle, some really like it, others think it's wildly overrated. My instinct says that SF will be well remembered by those who were around for it, but CR will cement itself as one of the very few genuine classics in the franchise.
As for how long this trend will last, who know, it may continue for a while as you say it will, but it will end one day, and that is a certainty.
I think M reciting a bloody poem when she should be ordering an evacuation of the building due to the imminent arrival of a crazy terrorist in Skyfall is by far the most ridiculous scene in Bond movie history.If M had survived the climax of the movie she should have been charged with criminal negligence.
I think the intent was that she didn't want to show fear and cower away from Silva. She was prepared to take the risk and, if anything happened, face him head on (hence why she stares at him when he's pointing his gun at her).
I personally saw CR as much more of a game changer (and not just because it was a reboot - rather because it finally did away with the cliches and still retained its Bondian essence). To me it set the benchmark - something that SF built on.
FRWL as well (since it's a movie they still try to hark back to but who's essence they can never properly recapture).
I'm also in agreement that down the line the rules of the game will change again and EON will tilt towards whatever point of view is most successful at that point. EON tilted towards Bourne since CR. Then they tilted towards the Bat. In the past they've tilted towards Indie, towards Star Wars, towards blaxploitation, and towards Kung Fu. They will tilt again. It's inevitable.