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
I'm sure we can all agree we would like to see less CGI in Bond 24, and to utilise the locations as best as possible.
So anyone got any news?
There's no overanalysing - it's just poor, the same as Roger's doubles. Both 'clearly visible'. Personally I'd take a double that is shot from the correct angle, over facial replacement, any day. It makes DC look like a video game character at points.
I disagree. I prefer the CGI-replacement, being done perfectly. And mostly that will happen, as CGI is improving through the years.
Well, I can also agree to disagree no @Benny :-)?
It it was perfect no one would raise it as an issue. Perfect facial replacement is a long way off - it's an incredibly tricky process. I'm sure they'll use it in B24, hopefully in a less obtrusive way.
Compare "Skyfall" with "Die Another Day" please. It has improved a lot.
I didn't say it hasn't improved - but it's a long way from perfection. It'll get better, but the fact is, unless they absolutely have to use it, they shouldn't fall back on it. Most compositing is almost unnoticeable these days, but stuff like facial replacement is much more complex.
http://www.kleinezeitung.at/tirol/lienz/3751118/bond-film-flugzeug-nimmt-kurs-osttirol.story
Were you also bothered by Silva's mutilated jaw (also a CGI-job)? Personally it really didn't bother me. I found it so good, that the overall effect, being horrified by this face, worked for me.
I do have to agree with the Wiz here. As much as the Shanghai scenes worked in their own way, the realism was lost. The Blade Runner vibe was indeed present.
No, I thought they actually did a very good job with it. The bits that I'm not a fan of are the facial replacement shots in the PTS (I don't think it's been mastered in any film, not just SF) and the first shot of Hashima where they're being led to Silva. The choppers and Komodos are also pretty shoddy, as is Patrice's fall. These things are never going to effect my overall enjoyment of the film, but as we're talking B24, I'd like to see as much as possible being executed physically this time around.
Your idea of "perfectly done" and mine are certainly as far apart as possible. Don't you sometimes think you are overdoing your fanboy mantra? This CGIed face of Craig is really a perfect example of this. There is almost no way of not seeing it (and I'm not particularly sensitive in this regard, since a films story and its development is my main interest) In my cinema people were laughing too ( just as in the parachuting scene in QoS, DADs surfing scene and when Bond jumped behind the plane in GE.) There is only so much one can take with a straight face!
Bottom line is that neither are real. Neither film involves actual apes and we know and can see it.
The CGI apes worked, but I still prefer the 1968 take. Maurice Evans as Dr. Zeus and Roddy MacDowell as Cornelius, that was great stuff.
And Bond had a CGI Craig face pasted on!!!! That should not be done. Craig on bike in front of green screen, yes would have been preferable.
Now we are getting cartoony, but the komodo dragons were pure CGI too, were they not.
Maybe its time to minimize the CGI and get back to Bond basics ie model work, green screens, stunt doubles and maximim location and/or back-lot shooting when circumstances require eg Fort Knox, St. Petersburg tank chase.
Uh, @Gustav, I'm not tired or irritated by you. Believe me if I was then I wouldn't bother acknowledging your comments let alone responding to them. I'm not disrespecting you, I'm being frank and honest. How you couldn't notice the obvious cgi on first viewing is staggering and if that offends you, then tough. I appreciate you're a fan of SF and you need to appreciate we're all Bond fans here and as such it's out of a personal and genuine care and endearment that we scrutinise where apt and justifiable. No amount of attention invested with the excitement of seeing a Bond film for the first time will blind me personally and others it would seem from noticing glaring technical deficiencies.
Two aircraft huh? Interesting, whether two will actually feature in the story or not is another matter!
That stuntman might as well have worn a Daniel Craig mask. That is how bad it was.
Yeah saw SF three times and never heard the CGI laugh... still can't find on the blu ray... didn't come up in reviews?????? Not saying wrong or arguing ..just don't see it.
I found an interesting article about CGI after I have seen the movie two times. The only CGI that struck me, and didn't even bother me, was Silva's mutilated jaw. One discover certain things after having seen the film in cinema first you know? Especially about Craig's face in the motorbike chase.
Yeah, what the hell could that be :-S. Perhaps a Bond villain tries to create a crash in mid air between an Airbus A380 full of passengers and the US president's Air Force One :-O. Perhaps on the border of Russia and Norway....
For Skyfall they used two helicopters, one was Silvas attack chopper and the other was used for aerial filming at the Scotland set.
However I can't imagine them using one plane to film the other; at those speeds I dont think its viable...
Time will tell. They'll have to use a public airfield I'm sure..
Or it's a back up. Assuming they are going to physically rig the impact, they'll need some insurance in case it goes tits up. Or then again they may have one for impact and one for set dressing, post crash.
I've read two articles and one mentioned they'd both be flying (so not just a set dressing). The one I linked on the OP mentioned something about needing an airfield for two aircraft.
Does it mention what kind of aircraft? I think I had it in my head that it would be a commercial airliner, but that may have just been a biproduct of reading all the speculation.
That's what I'm picturing too, but there is no mention yet. Perhaps its more of a smaller, private jet. Having planes fly so low in close proximity to civilians will not go unnoticed. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.
There are reports of 2 planes being used to film
Can we please leave the CGI arguments for another thread? In fact, I suggest starting up an entire thread on that very subject. I don't think we have one. A CGI pro and con thread. Anybody up for starting that? I hope so. I think it would go 100 pages easily and I'd chip in a little. But I'm not up to starting it. Somebody else, please go for it. :D
I am interested in the planes, yet don't want to know complete details re the plot. But I don't think we shall know that for a good while yet.
By accident, of course. If they lost two, that would just be careless of them.
ROYALE has the worst location work in the franchise. Madagascar looked exactly like Bahama. "Miami" looked like a back alley in the Czech Republic. Open up your mind and your eyes.