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
All Rietty, then.
A very cool thought, @cwl007. I never really thought about this. I guess it's hard to, considering that I've long forgotten what my initial experience with YOLT was like, or if I was initially under the impression that Bond was meeting an enemy or even Blofeld himself. That being said, I think that just how early that moment happens in the film (almost minutes into Bond's time that we see in Japan) would pretty much disqualify him meeting Blofeld so soon, so I think most viewers would be led to believe that Bond isn't meeting the big bad just yet. The moment would assuredly make you at first doubt the nature of Tanaka, and if he's working on Bond's side, especially when Aki's behavior with Bond (running away and trapping him) could be seen as enemy actions and not those of a future ally.
That part of the film at the very least does a nice job of making Bond feel like a fish out of water, surrounded by people he can't trust right off.
Welcome to Japan, Mr. Bond. (Satanaka)
I cant stand that guy ,terrible actor.
I agree with you, I've never liked him in the past, ever. It was the trailer of the Unabomber that intrigued me. I was a teenager while this story was unraveling-- it scared the s*** out of me. So I gave the Netflix series a chance-- it's not bad. Worthington, in these early episodes, is also not bad (first time I'd say this).
I don't know what it is, though-- the lighting, make-up-- but he does look like Brosnan in many scenes.
About 90% of the back projection in the films looks goofy, so it's just something you accept. Which is why I'm often amused by how upset people get about CGI. Every era has an effect that is divisive, but I'll take computer effects any day.
With regards to CGI, I have no problem with it generally in superhero films, although even then I expect a certain degree of quality. As an example, I find the original Avengers film to be really well done, but Age of Ultron for some reason seemed not so good (it was noticeable on a back-to-back viewing). Something to do with the graininess. I'm not too keen on how it's done in the DC films. Still, it's a fantasy larger than life environment and so I can accept it.
Where I have real problems is when this approach is taken with films which are supposed to be grounded in reality. For me it just jumps right out and bites me in the 'you know what'. In Bond films in particular I'd prefer not to notice it. If they can seamlessly incorporate it, then fine, otherwise I'd rather they take the old fashioned route. As an example, I know there must have been CGI used during the building collapse in CR (I didn't think they demolished a building for the film). For some reason it seemed real though. Not sure how they did it, but it was seamless to me. I can't say the same about the building collapse in SP however. It stood right out for me. Perhaps again it was the graininess that accompanied such scene. Not sure.
In CR, I know they had a stuntman representing Craig up on the crane. It's noticeable in some shots. It's also noticeable in the staircase fight if one really looks. However, I have no problem with it. I can still believe it's Bond there fighting even though I've noticed the stuntman recently. It's like the older films.
Ideally though, I'd just prefer if they lay off the CGI enhancements in grounded films and just keep it real to the extent that they can, even if that means less outlandish action sequences. Failing which, just use a stuntman and shoot it in a way that it's less noticeable (like in the old days & like in CR).
CGI isn't my base problem, it's an excessive use of poor CGI being injected into action sequences. I'll take back projection over that any day. I can forgive back projection from the 1960's/70's, it's understandable given the tech at the time, but bad CGI in 2018, I cannot. It's a time issue, and if they don't have a proper amount of time and manpower to make it look as realistic as they can, then they should be resorting to more practical measures, I say.
CGI can be an excellent tool--as Brady notes, it's better to have green screen than back projection. But many action movies nowadays, especially superhero films (Nolan's were the exception, bless him), are now little more than CGI animation with occasional live action interludes. For me the appeal of action films is watching incredible things actually performed (or cunningly faked; no cunning is involved with CGI ) in front of the camera. I love wondering "how did they do that?!" when I watch a good stunt.
Over-reliance on CGI can blind filmmakers into forgetting a great truth: action is spectacular because of how it's filmed. In OHMSS the action consists mostly of fistfights, ski chases, and a bobsled chase--on paper none sound very spectacular. But the way they were filmed and edited resulted in some of the best action sequences to ever appear in a Bond film.
America-set films were very much the favor of the month by 1970. Easy Rider and all.
Yes. Also Gilbert's framing of the women's legs was copied by Eon for the FYEO poster. RIP Lewis Gilbert.
I am with you on this @bondjames. It is my primary beef with TLD, which had the script and cast to be great film and seemed undone by silly art direction. (LTK, meanwhile, plagued by the same horrible set design and backlighting, seems intentionally campy--thus, it worked for me. )
The worst shot in the series for me is everything regarding Helga jumping out of that plane in YOLT. It's looks breathtakingly bad, worse than the car stuff in Dr No, and they just didn't need to do it.
I have watched the film numerous times, admittedly it's very low on my ranking, I may have seen the painting and it did not register previously. I often wonder if Robert Brown and Lee are the same M. Dench for me plays two different M's in two different Bond Universes.
Likewise I often zone out watching certain scenes in TWINE It's quite a drab/dull looking film.
Scrooge McDuck today is the same guy who participated in the Klondike Gold Rush, so why not?
Didn't the late Stephen Hawking publish an article on how black hole radiation bends quantum gravity to the extent of allowing Bond to straddle the space-time continuum? Or am I on mescalin again?
I make it a policy to only do drugs mentioned in the Bond novels. My medicine cabinet is full of Benzedrine, in case I ever need to make a midnight swim to the Isle of Surprise.
+1.
There's no way they can all be the same person.
And there's no way that they can't all be the same person either.