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
<font color=blue size=7><b>MR features the best special effects work of all the Moore Bonds.</b></font>
Agreed. For 1979 the FX department put in a 110% job. Same with the stuntmen involved with the cable car stunts.
Would agree. The salt in the MoonRaker models to give the vapour effect when going into orbit? Simple and brilliant!
It's the simple effects which are often the most impressive.
I agree with the thesis. I suppose I'm old fashioned but I miss the days of working with models and miniatures as opposed to the CGI overload of today's films.
The first Star Wars is still absolutely breathtaking 35 years later.
The shot of the shuttles rising into the upper atmosphere with the vapour trails is the best effects shot of the series.
RIP Derek Meddings - there will never be another because his art is dead now, replaced by some geek on a computer. But your eye knows the difference between something on a screen and something that is real.
Couldn't have said better myself. No matter how state of the art CGI is it can never, ever, match special effects involving models and miniatures. A great example is the Star Wars Special Editions released in '97, in particular the assault on the Death Star. The CGI inputs look fake and completely out of place compared to the original model work.
Absolutely. The Millenium Falcon entering the Death Star hanger is still my favourite shot. Your eye can actually tell its a real object with a physical presence. Theres nothing in the prequels that comes near it.
What chance Disney using model shots rather than CGI do you think? Probably less than England winning the World Cup.
With Downing scoring the winner by beating 5 men and smacking a 30 yarder in the top corner.
Brilliantly said!
"We're looking at what the early Star Wars films did; they used real locations with special effects. So [for Episode VII] we're going to find some very cool locations, [and] we're going to end up using every single tool in the toolbox" ... "I was amazed yesterday, looking at what the fans are doing," she said. "Using model makers, using real droids, taking advantage of the artwork that you can touch and feel – we want to do that in combination with CG effects."
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jul/29/star-wars-episode-vii-cgi
Bang on the money SirHenry.
Have you heard the directors commentary on SF?
I couldnt believe how much CGI there was just for simple things - M looking out of a window, Skyfall burning in the background all added in afterwards.
Seems like the attitude was any element of a scene apart from the actors face can just be shoved in later with CGI so why go to the effort of even attempting to do it any other way?
If Mendes' commentary is Blu-Ray format only no I haven't, as I don't have that version. I will be upgrading to that for the holidays. But I can't say it's a surprise either given I've read the same regarding many Hollywood productions these days. Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if the almighty dollar, euro, etc and rigid production schedules weren't at the root of it all.
@TheWizardOfIce, Meddings was a genius. He even made the Thunderbirds exciting despite the puppetry. His Bond legacy lives on, and MR owes a lot to him.
Agreed, @SirHenryLeeChaChing, and often all this CGI results in not so much mimicking nature, but creating unnatural movements and such. Suddenly cars, people and bullets move in weird ways. In a fantasy film, I have no problem with that, but some films try to sell us on the 'reality' of the situation yet bullets turn around corners and limbs twist in mechanically gruesome ways that would in any other case leave the person dismembered.
CGI has also become a tool for creating 'cool' stuff that is about as unnatural as a monkey explaining Einstein's theory of relativity to a banana.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Of all the Bond films, TB would benefit most from a shorter cut.</b></font>
Anyway, I never thought of TB as boring. If any Bond film might benefit from a shorter cut, it would IMO be TWINE.
Yes. There should have cut 20-25 minutes, made it the short Bond movie ever with 112-107 minutes till QOS in the case of 107 and be in more in the regio of Dr No and GF who be 110 minutes.
With 132 minutes, the screentime of the movie now is same as LTK and DAD. Lucky be the DVD on Regio 2 is 127 minutes because of pall system.
Besides a lot of the water scene's there also can have consider to start in Paris/Blofeld meeting and at the maintitle after the scene with car/motor bike chase. Bubbles of the motor bike in the water the can lead it to the maintitle. After the this chase originaly Bond return to Mi6 and then that will be the first scene after the maintitle. In Moonraker and Octopussy this happend too. As bonus we not get that flying jacket remember in DAD.
This.
And this. Agreed with Murdock on both counts.
Edit - Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with slow pacing in general as long as the story and characters are interesting and compelling enough. FRWL would be a great example of this.