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
You know, it's strange, but I actually don't mind the blue/green screen in comparison to bad CGI. I thought about it, and I think it's because at least with the screen, you know it's the actor present (e.g. Connery sitting in a Sunbeam in front of a screen in DN). The problem with CGI for me is it's some punk sitting behind a computer drawing up all this 's'. If I want a computer game, I'll buy a computer game.
There is something terribly off about that building collapse in the trailer that takes you out of it right away (we've only seen a few seconds at most of that scene and yet people are talking about it.....which is not good). The CGI Craig is moving funny as has been mentioned, and the wall collapsing just seems off......like Avengers or San Andreas.
I suppose EON has to be make the stunts more extraordinary to satisfy some audience demographics/foreign markets, but I'll personally take that toilet fight in the CR pretitles (including black and white) over the falling SP wall (based on what I've seen to date) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
I'm going to try my best to persuade y'all to focus on the positive too instead if all the negative if it kills me.
Y'all have got me at the point now that I just want this movie over with.
I have watched all the Connery movies and the Moore movies and the back projections in some of the Connery films are really not looking good in High Definition. Sadly they used it quite a bit.
Goldfinger may be the worst of them in that regard. The whole Miami scene is a mess, you clearly see that neither Connery nor Fröbe have been there. The sequence is masterfully edited so you would never know except for that VERY visible back projections.
I'd take bad CGI any day over that.
Having said this, those things belong to the classic Bond movies. It doesn't hurt the movies it's just a bit annoying when Domino or Bond suddenly clearly are standing in front of a projected image in Thunderball.
Seeing this almost gives some feelings of nostalgia.
I bet in 2042 we will watch Die Another Day and have nostalgic feelings about those surfing scenes :))
You're always an optimist @BondJasonBond006......and with a sense of humour too. I'm sure 'll have feelings for DAD in 2042, but it won't be nostalgia.
=))
Potentially the camera move. It's unnatural. There's a habit at the moment for having multiple roaming motion control shots that are stitched together. The building collapse shot doesn't do this, but it's from the same school. It's a floating camera. In some cases I find I can be taken out of a shot not only because of what's in front of the camera, but also what's behind. A floating cam can subconsciously register. There's also something off with the physics for me.
And before anyone says, no, *This isn't going to ruin the film for me* and I don't see how us discussing it can ruin it for anyone else. If you can't see it, that's bloody great, I wish I was you because I'd very much like to not see it either.
This. I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned it but it's like 2012 when we saw the omega sky fall ad with the awful closeup of bond on the bike. Was convinced it wouldn't be in the film and it took me right out of it during first viewing at the bfi. Some shots aren't needed sometimes not if the audience is watching thinking well that looks fake. We all knew bond was in the grey suit doing the chasing anyway.
Good point about the floating cam. I didn't notice that before but when you mentioned it I took a look at the trailer again and that could definitely be having a subliminal effect. Also, I noticed this time that the CGI Craig runs like an ox......very different from Craig running in SF.
On an unrelated note, another part I noticed this time was Craig's delivery of "I came here to kill you!" . It's delivered with real feeling...like he means it, although it's very similar to "Some men are coming to kill us. We're going to kill them first!"
Sometimes, though, they get little choice. Very often the people insuring the actors in the movie will rule (and it is their right to do so) that a particular stunt sequence cannot be performed with real people because the risk factor is too great. On these occasions, CGI is the only resort aside from re-writing the script.
This means that CGI is something we have to accept in the movies from time to time, much like we have to accept death and taxes in real life. I, for one, am glad that CGI is here so that filmmakers can do what's needed without undue risk to the lives and safety of those concerned. I would much rather see a CGI stunt than learn of the death of the latest actor to play Bond in a stunt gone wrong that never should have been attempted in the first place.
I think it's necessary to be able to suspend one's disbelief above CGI these days, especially in a movie franchise that's under pressure with each outing to out-do the last.
Providing it's added as a seasoning rather than a main ingredient, CGI is okay with me.
You hit the nail on the head. My wife, not a Bond fan. She enjoyed Skyfall, she tries her best to try to embrace the films for my benefit and I love her for that. I took her to see Skyfall at the cinema and at the end of it I said "what did you think" and she said, "I liked his blue jacket in the escalator scene" yeah she is a tough customer!. We got tickets for Spectre. I told expected running time is 2Hrs 40 Mins she sucked through her teeth at the prospect of sitting through another Bond film.
My wife however loves disaster movies, she loves going to the Cinema and seeing films with Tornados, Buildings collapsing, aeroplanes dropping - Godzilla, 2012, San Andreas. Not my ideal movie but I appreciate why she likes them.
I bought tickets for the first showing opening night at the Glasgow Imax. For weeks my wife has been trying to convince me to this time take my Brother, Take a friend because she is scared of sitting bored for nearly 3 hours.
BUT THEN! - this Spectre final trailer came and I saw her face light up with Plane crashing in to the log cabin in Austria, and then at the end with the building falling she shouted out loud "RUN! Woah that's cool! what happens?!, will he live?!, of course he will live, he's Bond". My wife is now as equally excited about seeing this movie and for that I accept CGI.
I suppose CGI and Imax come hand in hand.
I completely agree. In my opinion if CGI draws attention to itself then it's not doing it's job. I rewatched the final trailer again last night to see what I made of it and the wall collapsing in Mexico actually didn't look as bad as I remembered it - although I was wathing it on a much smaller screen. Interestingly I didn't notice that about the dialogue in the hall between Bond and Oberhauser on first viewing, but now I've watched it again they are clearly superimposed on a CG set. There may be a variety of reasons for that. If they needed to pick up the shots for eg., they had to do this a bit in the LOTR films where they needed to go back and shoot extra things. A scene between Aragorn and Leglolas against a CG night sky comes to mind - but they did that very effectively.
And thank god I don't have a CGI eye because I think the collapsing building looks fine, although the initial explosion bothers me. From what I've heard (I haven't read/watched any behind the scenes stuff) all the action sequences were done for real, and from the brief glimpses in the trailers it looks fantastic.
As an audience, we usually don't know the reasons for the substitution of CGI, but knowing things like this certainly helps me make the necessary allowances for the use of CGI.