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
We've certainly not got anything quite as bad as para surfing tsunami's in this era. Possibly the fact they rarely use it compared to other films makes it more glaring to some maybe they should use it more and it wouldn't be so obvious to some of you but then we'd have whole new issue to moan about then but then some of you will never be pleased hence threads like this.
I assume you're being sarcastic when you suggest they use more of it? They should be attempting to achieve as much in camera as possible. For those of you lucky enough to not notice it, that's fine, but some of us do notice it and it can jar what is an otherwise solid scene. There have been a few notable moments from the last two pictures in particular.
For me personally I'd plump for the Siena fall between Mitchell and Bond plus the aerial sequence. In SF, the notable bike shots from the PTS, the shots atop the train when they pass through the tunnel, the Komodo dragons and the establishing shot on Hashima island. There are plenty more.
In all fairness the worst is the QoS aerial scene, but it is the only one on that list which would be incredibly difficult to achieve without substantial visual effects. That said, it certainly doesn't stand up against the intro to TDKR, which contains similar elements.
Absolutely. TDKR basically ripped the pretitles of LTK for their pretitles so it can still be done without CGI (in the sense that it's not completely cost prohibitive). John Glen directed some great aerial sequences. If they do that today and just fill in the face with the actor via CGI I'll be pleased.
Yes, miles better. The problem lies in trying to do too much. Sometimes simple is more effective, dramatically also.
So for example you end up with the superfluous sequence with the plane disintegrating in QoS rather than a genuinely cool chase and escape stunt.
Absolutely.
Or may be it was the music...?
In the Marvel films it doesn't matter, as you're essentially wathcing a glorified cartoon. But for Bond, that cartoonish unreal quality that CGI brings is a real no no.
Absolutely, I mean this is a real tragedy and no amount of crowing from studio execs about budgets can take away from the fact it was, and should remain, an art. Imagine the MR Control Room in the Amazon being built today? No chance and it's such a shame. If there's one thing I'd like EON to do it would be to once again build a set that completely fills the 007 stage. Screw the budget, they could spin it into a positive bit of marketing. A finger up at the CGI-laden blockbusters. The sets of old were so damn good I bet a lot of viewers didn't, and still don't realise they were straight sets. I remember when I was a kid having an argument with a guy at school who insisted the AVTAK finale was filmed in a real mine. Kids today won't have those conversations because they can see that most of it has been produced in a computer.
No matter how much we say that dieing in the name of movie making or sports or whatever is now unacceptable, the fact remains the most iconic, famous and popular stuff will have been made when it was dangerous and people risked their lives.
The aerial sequence from TLD is probably the best of the series, although the bar was set high with the opening of TDKR, I don't rate that film but Nolan can't be faulted for it's staging, if Bond was to go down this route that would be one area of inspiration I wouldn't object Bond taking from Nolan.
I would say SF will be one of the films as far as the use of CG is concerned that time will be allot kinder too, the likes of The Avengers & Man of Steel might not be so lucky.
Just look how awful the Star Wars prequels look now.
Anyone would think SF is soaked in it, it's used sparingly and EON still pride themselves on producing as much real sets and stuntmen to stage sequences. I don't think people probably realise the cost of staging some things real is, if they use I'm sure they considered it before utilising it.
Look the majority of us are just fans and although some of us fancy ourselves as the next Terence Young the reality is that we aren't and most of us are legends in our own bedroom or lunch break.
The likes of Colonel Sun know what they are talking about and have proved that many time but some of you are just bitching with no context what so ever at all.
:))
We are a small minority no one cares about our little gripes, those who say that about Skyfall are having wishful thinking because they don't like the film.
SF's action scenes were ok, but did not have the same impact as both those scenes in the Bat movies.
That point might have some validity if practically the same sequence hadn't already been done for real in 1979.
When making QOS it seems they've just gone 'we can do this with CGI' without first giving BJ Worth a call and for the Bond series that's a disgrace.
I've heard it all now - ethical film making to prevent cruelty to stuntmen. 'I'd rather watch CGI than wear fur?'
Given the Bond film industry has been going 50 years and is a multi billion dollar business that has pushed the envelope in stunt work I think their safety record is pretty good. Only three serious incidents of note and only one of those fatal.
And to answer your question: yes I want to see a stuntman up there 'risking his life' even though he is surrounded by safety measures which are double and triple checked so the actual risk is fairly minimal. These people are not forced to do this; they choose to do it. If being a stuntman was so dangerous and badly paid then no one would do it. They are showmen who enjoy the thrill their job brings and if you asked any of them if they would prefer to work in a nice, safe, stifling office every single one would answer a resounding no.
If you don't mind me saying, it's a little pompous to insinuate that people advocating stunt work done for real over CGI should be ashamed of themselves as a human. I suggest you look into the conditions into which the trainers or jeans you are wearing or the computer you are happily typing this on was made before you start equating stuntmen with some sort of forced labour for the entertainment of us decadent westerners.
If Tom Cruise (I wonder what he's insured for) can hang out of a hotel in Dubai (and a moving plane reportedly in Mi5), surely an anonymous stuntman can be asked to do the same for James Bond, that has set the benchmark for so many years.
For those who think CGI is worth it, please view the QoS aerial sequence and then immediately put on a copy of TDKR and watch the opening sequence (filmed in IMAX no less) in that film. To me, it's night and day. I'm thrilled and excited by TDKR because I know that's really being done. I can tell that the QoS sequence is CGI and am momentarily taken out of the experience. For any other franchise that's ok I suppose. Not for James Bond that is the standard bearer (or at least should be) in these matters.
I was referring to the disintegration of the plane Wiz. The skydiving is obviously unforgivable. I mentioned, perhaps in another thread, about the TDKR intro as a comparison to this scene. That was executed excellently imo.
Agreed. Why anyone would argue otherwise seems ludicrous to me. I think people need to understand that when many of us complain about CG shots and elements we are not slating entire films, merely expressing a wish to reverse the trend in the future.
(Paid for by the Computer Generation Lobby)
As for the QoS aerial scene, I just don´t get those complaints. I never was taken out of the experience for a moment, because that scene is so obviously CGI that it is obvious that the director went for that visual style deliberately. And I could watch those two film scenes one after the other and still like the QoS one better, because regardless of the degree of realistic look I prefer the bright colours of QoS over TDKR´s bleak looks any time, and I think QoS is visually very beautiful, said scene being no exception. Perhaps I´m the only one, but I can assure you in the mentioned case I´m fully voting for QoS. Yes, the DC3 ascending does look anything but real, and yes, I can see that the opening scene of TDKR was done for real, but the shot of the ascending DC3 is bloody beautiful.
I guess this is where we differ. I can't truly be in the moment in a scene that is obviously CGI.
Up to that point it looked to me like they were doing it for real. So I was really enjoying it (although it still had the choppy editing that the film is notorious for). When the climb came along all I thought of was DAD (the similar CGI plane crapfest at the end, which in itself was embarrasing compared to amazing stuntwork in a similar scene at the end of TLD) and was completely taken out of it. Then the fall was even worse (particularly for a franchise that did what it did in 1979 for MR - a scene that has been copied endlessly and done worse in other movies - including Eraser).
I agree completely that the colours look so much better and are more vivid in QoS compared to TDKR.
I just can't be in the moment in an obvious CGI scene.
At the end of that scene in TDKR my mouth was open in awe because I hadn't seen anything that good since CR's crane scene.
The CGI in QOS was less problematic for me.
That's very true, given what they were trying to achieve. However, I just remember being so happy because it seemed like they had learned their lesson and were returning to form without CGI - given that the immediately preceding film had the surfing scene.
For me, it just brought back memories of the TSWLM jump, the MR jump & the GE opening jump. Stuntwork at its best courtesy of the franchise that brought us some of the best work in movies.
That's why some of the stuff in QoS (including the fall in the Siena tower), while really fast paced, seemed a bit of a let down comparatively to me. If they can do CGI in a way that's not obvious, then I'm all for it, but I'm quite discerning in this regard.
I feel sorry for Cruise actually. Since there's so much CGI junk out there these days, I was actually doubting that he did that scene in the Dubai hotel in Mi4. I had to look it up because I thought to myself -- no way did he do that! Every time I rewatch the movie now I'm more impressed with that scene, knowing he was really up there.