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 looks more real to you? This:
...or this:
Agreed.
A full CGI animal is incredibly difficult to pull off. When I compare the Komodos (and the scorpion) in Skyfall to some of the better attempts I've seen in other films, I ultimately am let down. But anyway, I think we understand each other and will have to agree to disagree.
IMO I think the perspective of the quality of the SF CGI or at least SOME of the CGI is influenced to some degree as to how much one likes SF.
Just saying NOT arguing or accusing.
Well I didn't necessarily mean you or anybody in general. Maybe should not have said. I really truly didn't mean offensive.
Also see how the actors laughed about the CG artists in the Academy Award ceremony. Or how Ang Lee never thought about thanking the CG artists for Life Of Pi. Mr Negativity here made once again his usual comments about how the stupid Bond fans are "whiners" and so on, he should have a look at that ceremony.
CG is here mostly for money, not for art. Hopefully, they put the money on screen with SPECTRE, and it means :
"Michael Wilson, producer: ‘[SPECTRE] is old-style film-making, the kind people don’t do now, as they rely on CGI."
Did you just describe the Komodo Dragons scene as gripping?
That was a combination of a model plane with computer generated wings and snow blowback etc. as far as I remember! I think you're right though - there was something off about it. However, I think it'll look fine in the film itself. They still had a bit to go in post when the trailer came out.
However, in defence of CGI, they would've used puppets/props in older films and that would be worse
In fact I thought that most of the SF CGI was far better than what we had seen from Bond before.
Glad to have got that off my chest lol
Same here, I know some on other forums nare shocked at the short length but.... It's not like the other films which had their theatrical trailer as their final trailer.
A lot of similar "final" one minute trailers released following a full length theatrical packed a lot.of punch for sure, and this should too.
If Smith's song is in it then at least we'll get an official glimpse of how it works with the action. Playing it while watching the existing bits hasn't really worked for me.
I am surprised by the runtime but it is fine by me. The less they show, the better. It's a final trailer, not a theatrical one. Not expecting too much new footage, either.
Given it's only meant to appear over the opening titles, not sure how that'll help? But yeah I get your point. I'm tempted to cut a short piece with existing footage together myself actually.
No - I'm quite surprised by that to be honest.
You say that as if I look for every reason to hate SF, which I dont. There are things and scenes in it that I love, but the bad CG just adds to what I don't like about it. It's my opinion, and it was brought up and discussed. I can't help that I don't like it; wish it wasn't the case, but it is.
I'm hoping the final trailer has a few more new lines, a few more new frames, but not much else. They've essentially reduced 2 1/2 hours worth of screen play into a concise 8 or 10 lines for a trailer campaign, and I'd like to see that stay where it is. So much dialog, so much content in the Skyfall campaign. I love what they're doing with Spectre.
And let me add that the frame of Bond in the white shirt and the pointed machine gun is a brilliant shot to add to a TV spot. Love it.