›

The James Bond Debate Thread - 336 Craig looks positively younger in SP than he does in SF.

1…138139141143144…190

Comments

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I agree with this thesis. I do have a soft spot for the first half though. Despite it's breakneck pacing and shaky cam irritations it's just so much fun to watch Craig in action.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited August 2013 Posts: 24,256
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 245</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>MR features the best special effects work of all the Moore Bonds.</b></font>
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Yes I think this goes without saying. Although the third act of MR is utterly preposterous, it is visually stunning. Derek Meddings deserved an Oscar for his work on the film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    I would even say perhaps the best special effects work of any Bond film.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 245</b></font>

    <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.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    I suppose that goes without saying, though it does come across as quite dated to me. Though the cable car bit was pretty awful. Oh, and there's that horrible shot of Jaws going over the waterfall, the most obvious miniature shot in the entire series. I would say that TSWLM, though not "better" in itself, has aged better due to the simplicity of its' special effects.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 245</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>MR features the best special effects work of all the Moore Bonds.</b></font>

    Would agree. The salt in the MoonRaker models to give the vapour effect when going into orbit? Simple and brilliant!
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    RogueAgent wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 245</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>MR features the best special effects work of all the Moore Bonds.</b></font>

    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.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    I suppose that goes without saying, though it does come across as quite dated to me.
    Is there any movie from 1979 in which the special effects don't look at least a little dated? ;)

    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.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    pachazo wrote:
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    I suppose that goes without saying, though it does come across as quite dated to me.
    Is there any movie from 1979 in which the special effects don't look at least a little dated? ;)

    The first Star Wars is still absolutely breathtaking 35 years later.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    The first Star Wars is still absolutely breathtaking 35 years later.
    Which version are you talking about though? It has had the "benefit" of being enhanced multiple times. The original version looks dated in some spots.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    This is a no brainer.

    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.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    This is a no brainer.

    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.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2013 Posts: 9,117
    WillyGalore wrote:
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    This is a no brainer.

    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.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    4EverBonded wrote:
    I liked Honey a lot, and she was independent in ways, but she couldn't quite be termed really progressive. Pussy was a strong enough woman on her own, but progressive ... I don't see it. Unless one thinks a woman pilot in the early 60's was that unusual. Yeah, the "orthodoxy of the times" does show the datedness of the film - Goldfinger is a film of its time and yet was different from any other movies, which is why Bond took off into the stratosphere with Goldfinger. The iconic moments helped, including the theme song of course (and how it was presented).

    It still has to be Fiona because she was incredibly competent, given more responsibilities, able to not be swayed by Bond, and stood toe to toe with the main villain, Largo.

    Brilliantly said!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited August 2013 Posts: 14,680
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    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?
    There's a fairly new article on the net where they talk about the return of models. Exciting stuff, indeed.

    "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
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    Yes, i was just about to mention that @QBranch. It does look like Abrams is taking Star Wars back to the roots of what caused it to be the success it was in '77. I'm sure CGI will still play it's part but if they use models where and when possible, it could hopefully help to banish all memory of Lucas' shit prequels.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    CGI can be very useful and even necessary in certain mediums. It's the form called "virtual cinematography" (used to create scenes that would have been impossible, or exceedingly time consuming to do within traditional cinematography) that's become the issue. Once the proverbial "Pandora's Box" was opened with the Matrix films, too many have used it as a shortcut for stuntwork and models. Lazy film making.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    CGI can be very useful and even necessary in certain mediums. It's the form called "virtual cinematography" (used to create scenes that would have been impossible, or exceedingly time consuming to do within traditional cinematography) that's become the issue. Once the proverbial "Pandora's Box" was opened with the Matrix films, too many have used it as a shortcut for stuntwork and models. Lazy film making.

    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?
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    CGI can be very useful and even necessary in certain mediums. It's the form called "virtual cinematography" (used to create scenes that would have been impossible, or exceedingly time consuming to do within traditional cinematography) that's become the issue. Once the proverbial "Pandora's Box" was opened with the Matrix films, too many have used it as a shortcut for stuntwork and models. Lazy film making.

    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.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    TheWizardOfIce wrote:
    This is a no brainer.

    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.

    @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.
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    CGI can be very useful and even necessary in certain mediums. It's the form called "virtual cinematography" (used to create scenes that would have been impossible, or exceedingly time consuming to do within traditional cinematography) that's become the issue. Once the proverbial "Pandora's Box" was opened with the Matrix films, too many have used it as a shortcut for stuntwork and models. Lazy film making.

    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 246</b></font>

    <font color=blue size=7><b>Of all the Bond films, TB would benefit most from a shorter cut.</b></font>
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,256
    Though I launched the thesis, I'm in disagreement with it; I'm just interested to read the responses from our wonderful members.

    Anyway, I never thought of TB as boring. If any Bond film might benefit from a shorter cut, it would IMO be TWINE.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    For me it's not the length of the film that is the problem. It's the generally slow pacing throughout and the underwater sequences, which really bring this film down. I'm not sure had the film been cut any differently whether it would have actually improved it.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    No, for me the movie has just the right size.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    Agree. Cutting a fair bit of the underwater stuff would help the film imo. It looked pretty but after a bit those scenes just started to drag.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,359
    Disagree. Thunderball is a perfect Bond film in my eyes.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited August 2013 Posts: 4,537
    THESIS 246: Of all the Bond films, TB would benefit most from a shorter cut.

    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.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    Murdock wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    <font color=tomato size=4><b>THESIS 245</b></font>

    <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.

    This.
    Murdock wrote:
    Disagree. Thunderball is a perfect Bond film in my eyes.

    And this. Agreed with Murdock on both counts.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited August 2013 Posts: 7,314
    I would have to agree with this thesis. TB moves along at such a slow pace and I think that cutting ten to twenty minutes of excess fat from it would improve the overall experience greatly.
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.