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
Incredible, isn't it? Since 2013 Marvel have been releasing 2 films per year. None of them grossed below 500 million, and 3 of them crossed the billion mark. As you say, after 13 (!) films in 8 years, the box office should have diminished.
I disagree with all of you who think Transformers wasn't worth it's salt. Talking about the first one here. The reason is that it did exactly what one would expect. For those growing up in the eighties - early nineties the Transformers were grotesque, moralistic cartoons which we all loved, for it fit the times. And no doubt in Asia they loved it for it's manga like action and storytelling. So sitting in the cinema I got all that I wanted: grotesque action, moralistic storytelling in a manga-like style. That's why it's a memorable film for me. The thing is though, it's the only film that should be like that.
DAD was indeed a huge succes when it came out, but it was very much a product of a time which was just ending. The real world became grittier at a fast pace and Bourne was it's cinematic reflection. There allready was some criticism on the way the film was made and on the fact that it took Bond beyond the boundaries of 'this-might-just-be-possible' in the same way Moonraker has done. The CGI, Madonna's cameo, the invisible car, the cringeworthy dialogue, it's all part of nineties filmmaking pushed further and further. Within a year people were questioning the story, the execution, and it's director who'd gone off his rocker and was arrested crossdressing and drunk.
The problem with CGI i think is that we see it, and then our subcontiousness tells us this means because it's CGI anything goes, so all tension is gone. We instinctively know that there's no real danger. Check out Shymalan's films like 'the village'. He never uses CGI, only props. The results are very, very scary. It is 'real perceived' danger.
Danger only exists when there's a way for the character to die/ get seriously wounded. One of the reasons BvS could never work is that the man of steel is indistructible. So Batman would never ever stand a chance. No matter how many buildings collapse. And as we also allready know he won't die either there can be no tension at all.
One aspect, by the way, which was interestingly taken up in Captain America Civil War. But is that film memorable? I'm not quite sure it is. Maybe because of the interaction between Iron Man and Captain America. The argument is interesting, but that's about it. And the fact that the film questions the immense destruction standard in these films.
Quite depressing to be honest.
Too true. It's sadly the world we live in as of now. :(
Unfortunately it is true that there is an audience globally for this special effects driven nonsense, and it's growing. As long as the North American and European audience shrinks as a % of the total, Hollywood will come up with another language other than English in which to communicate with the masses. For now, that 'language' is cheesy special effects.
I agree that the 'gaming' populace is potentially to blame as much as the new foreign non-English speaking element. Sadly, the two go hand in hand imho.
Regarding CGI - if it serves as 'augmentation' and is done subtly, then I'm ok with it. When it's too obvious (and I'm quite discerning) then I can't stand it, and I agree that this is because I notice it right away and therefore am taken right out of the experience.
In the Craig era, my first notable experience with this was the fall from the church tower in QoS, followed by the plane disintegration (I remember thinking: haven't these clowns learnt anything from DAD?). Fortunately, I couldn't make out much of the action in this film anyway, and I was already so impressed by the opening Aston chase & the intensity of Craig's performance throughout that nothing else really mattered. Yes, I know that the CR Venice building collapse happened earlier, but for some reason that didn't bother me as much - perhaps because we didn't see people interspersed with the building. The worst offender by far in the Craig era has been that building collapse at the start of SP, a film which has far too much of this stuff in it - not so much in the action but more in the 'scene augmentation' which impacts the realism and the colours used.
One of the best uses of CGI that I can remember is T2. I have not seen that film in ages, and forgot to do so for the 25th anniversary. I look forward to watching it again to see if the CGI will take me out of the experience now. I recall being completely engrossed and in the moment whenever I watch that film.
Did we see the same version of the film??
The collapsing building looks frighteningly real !
How can you tell that's CGI? Only because it's obvious they couldn't do it for real.
More than that I thought it was a bit too long.
I think it's the filter. I get the impression that's people's main gripe with the PTS of SPECTRE. For me it was very much real, I don't understand why it's mentioned so little. I found it exhillerating and very, very Bondian.
As I mentioned, my first experience with this during the Craig years was the fall from the church tower in QoS. I realize that the fall may have been done for real, but the 'augmentation' gave the game away to me, as always. The same applies to the face mask in the SF pretitles.
With the SP building fall, there is a lot of grain, a monotone filter, and that is definitely not Craig running to catch the ledge (he doesn't run like that). This led me to conclude that it was a stuntman with Craig's head superimposed on him behind green screen.
If you watch any 'real' sequence, the colours are sharp, there is limited grain and everything has clarity - like the 'real' Guiness book explosion in SP.
Ok, now I understand better what you mean. In that case it's more a question of visual style.
I didn't like the colour filters too much, but to be honest, I have grown accustomed to them in all those movies that used them in the past, not that I would support that.
Personally I find John Glen was the best Bond director.
You always know what's going on, wide camera angels, no hasty editing, colourful, well lit scenes etc.
If anything I would put Martin Campbell on the same level.
Those 7 movies are the best of the series direction wise. Closely followed by some others of course.
The only direction work I didn't like was TWINE which is truly the worst and SF in which Mendes obviously didn't know yet how to properly direct action (only saved by Deakins really who wrapped a shabby directional job into nice glossy paper).
Also I absolutely despise the boring direction of TB and the idiotic sped up sequences which more or less ruin the finale.
@bondjames The Shallows was great wasn't it? The cinema was pretty dead when me and my wife went to see it which I thought was a shame because it was really well done. I think the best film I've seen in the cinema this year though was Conjuring 2 (actually while the blockbuster output this year has been terrible it seems like a great year for horror, haven't seen them yet but Don't Breathe and Lights Out are meant to be really good and while I actually wasn't much of a fan of the original Blair Witch Project, the praise for the sequel and the directors behind it give me faith that it'll be worth the trip to the cinema, would have been cool if they'd kept it secret until release though). Actually do we have a best of 2016 thread yet? I mean we are past the halfway point now so we may as well start one if not.
yes, I should have mentioned Hunt and OHMSS. Because that one is perfect as well.
I just can't rank Hunt with only one movie, as I can't rank Lazenby with only one movie.
So I have to correct myself and say Campbell's, Glen's and Hunt's films are the 8 best directed Bond movies.
I've seen Don't Breathe and recommend it. Tense with excellent performances by Stephen Lang and Jane Levy.
I wanted to see The Conjuring 2 and have heard good things, but unfortunately have not seen the first one yet, so will wait for a double bill on blu ray (I'm a big Vera fan btw).
Speaking of Horror/thrillers, I've heard that 10 Cloverfield Lane was good too (I've yet to see that as well).
TWINE, as seen on the big screen looked a bit like an old television where the settings were muted and the colors a bit off. SP, not so bad, but certainly not lavish.
I agree especially on TB. I always feel like I'm on a vacation when I watch that film.
Yes, it does- especially the dessert scenes. CR has a beautiful color palate as well. One of my favorite shots is Craig coming off the plane in the Bahamas then the cut to him driving. That is a pure classic DN/TB look.