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
There are quite a few movies I need to get around to seeing. That is no doubt one of them. It does look a lot better than Gravity. That movie really disappointed me.
Wow, I didn't think Desplat was capable of something awesome like this soundtrack - thank you for that! Just enjoyed it in its entirety. Just listen to these songs and imagine them incorporating the Bond theme! (sorry, I know this is a little off-topic, but so are about 95% of the discussions going on in this thread)
This one has an "Arnold vibe" to it - but better, somehow ;)
This reminds me more of Newman's Jarhead score:
I don't know how to categorize this - but it is very atmospheric and awesome:
Some mixture of Newman's Jarhead, Zimmer's Batman and a dry spy thriller - just imagine Bond preparing for the big end battle of the movie!
Listen how he is tying all the different styles together in this last track
Alltogether Desplat manages to make the soundtrack seem as one piece, different styles but not an assortment of completely different themes. It is its own, whole, thematically linked thing, something maybe lacking from Newman's Skyfall score (although I still like that one).
Then, Bond 24's vanHoytema is DOP of a movie full of CGI (Interstellar) : some of the same above now : Wow, his cinematography is incredible, look at such and such 100% CGI scene...
I know it's a Bond fan forum, but some coherency is okay sometimes. In particular if it means we could have avoided to read so much trash on Life Of Pi's Claudio Miranda last year. Now some people realize at least that CG doesn't mean you can go away with zero talent in the photography department...
Come on Suivez ;-)? A bit more....positive attitude. I think nowadays DOP's, editor's and special effect supervisors work so closely together, that in essence it's this total package that makes it work. And the DOP did have a part in it.
Moreover, many scenes, shots are combinations of CGI and real camerawork. And that combination worked tremendously. Think of the beautiful gletsers from Iceland (DOP), which afterwards were then combined with CGI (horizons). Also, don't forget that many shots are actually based on real NASA-footage, like the shots from Earth and Saturn. So, I don't understand your negative attitude towards CGI.
Back in the old days (Die Another Day) CGI was dodgy. But in the case of Interstellar, but also other sci-fi movies like Oblivion and Gravity, in the end it's about the effect it has on you. I'm a space-geek. And as I never have the chance to be the first astronaut landing on Mars, I'm so so happy these talented movie-crew members, from DOP to CGI, give us such immensely realistic shots of our universe. There's nothing wrong with that.
Thanks @xolani for including some tracks here for us to listen to. He has skills. Notice how none of the tracks are too noisy/busy....it's that noisiness that just grates me about Arnold's action scoring, but he has got much better with QoS & CR so who knows.
I also always thought Wojciech Kilar (Ninth Gate & Death & the Maiden are excellent scores - especially 'Corso' or 'Plain to Spain' (Bolero style) from the former & 'the Confession' from the latter.....you have to see that confession scene by Ben Kingsley to that film with the score playing in the background....chilling) would have been outstanding for Bond, although he was a little off the beaten path, and he recently passed away so it will never be. Very atmospheric & layered scores.
I think for me CGI works best when in a fantastical universe, like Gravity or Interstellar (which I've not seen) for instance. Since I've not been to space, I have no benchmark to compare against so I'm more likely to believe what I'm seeing. I think it works less well in real life type scenarios, where one's ability to suspend disbelief is harder -so it has to be done better or used judiciously.
As an example, the QoS & DAD plane sequences had CGI which I could notice, and I was not happy about it. The TLD & OP finale sequences in the air did not, and having recently watched them, I was in awe at how those sequences were filmed in comparison (I recognize that they are likely cost prohibitive to do today).
QoS's boat & car chase sequence did not seem so CGI driven to me, but I just could not really make out everything that was going on, sadly.
CR's parkour sequence on the crane did not seem to have any CGI and that's why it's one of the most brilliant action sequences I've seen in some time. If they had CGI in that, they hid it well.
Interstellar is a sci-fi but it had surprisingly few CGI shots. Do you know how many times they used green screens while shooting that film? The answer is 0 (yes, zero!). This is what I love about Nolan, he does things for real.
As for Alexandre Desplat: god no! I really don't want David Arnold to return but Desplat would be an even worse choise. Newman or Hans Zimmer please!
Which will be fun as most other composers have only had one shot at
Bond like Conti etc.
Here someone is speaking. Good remark. I think all the extra attention for detail, all the rewatching, all the in-sight articles about filming (How Roger Deakins filmed, how in the end CGI was applied) made many Bond fans rather spoiled, negative and cynical.
Just look back on the very first time you saw "Skyfall"....and that time when you left the cinema after seeing SF for the first time. And compare it with how you feel about the movie after all these rewatches and extra insight.
I think the latter at times makes our initial "fun" fade away. Because for me, no matter how much I read all the criticism of CGI, it really. did. not. take. away. my. fun. At all. Period. The CGI in SF for me has for more than 90% an "enhancing quality", not a "quality degration". It supported many scenes IMO, even did wonders to realism, replacing those old backscreen projections from the old days (No one is commenting about that. Because before CGI you saw Roger Moore hanging on a helicopter or Lazenby scratching his head on a bobsleigh track. Now THAT looked fake!).
I am aware of the shortcomings of CGI. But really, sometimes our orthodoxy and conservative views really cloud the many positive things CGI has given us. I say it again. I welcome CGI as applied in "Skyfall". It helps the Bond films.....it adds realism.....it doesn't make them flawed. Again, that's my opinion.
I get both your points, but the thing about the backscreen projector is that it was used for closeups of the hero in the folds of the action only in those older movies.....most of the distance cinematography was done on location or using models that were, for the most part, very difficult to decipher.
The problem I have with CGI is when it's used for those distance shots, like the planes in DAD & QoS & the infamous surf.
When used for closeups it's ok (like Craig's CGI face on the bike in SF).
However, when used for distance shots it can be too obvious.
CGI is getting better though, so soon we won't notice it.......I hope.
I wrote about how funny it is to remember that Life Of Pi was trashed here for being "too CG" and being awarded an Academy Award instead of Skyfall... Now the tides has turned for some here, but we could have been avoided that in the first place. It is the anti-Life of Pi crowd here who was very negative and cynical (many simply did not ever watch the movie and yet keep criticizing it because Skyfall lost to it !). At least, here, those who like Casino Royale far more than Skyfall have watched both movies several times :)
About CG and face replacement in an action movie, be careful what you wish for : don't forget that in this case now you're not watching the body language of the actor you like, but you're watching the body language of a stuntman you probably will never know the name of, on which they put a plastic face. Are the days of Bob Simmons so obsolete, really ?
Just look again at the scene in the "Shanghai" building : first we have Craig really jumping and catching the lift. Then it cuts to a CG Bond under a lift in a huge CG building. Do you really feel any sense of danger really ? Do you really feel it's like Rick Sylvester hanging in the void in FYEO ? Me, I feel nothing in that SF scene. And I don't care that John Glen has a less stellar CV than Sam Mendes. In FYEO, the scene is breathtaking, in SF, it's a video game cut scene.
On the other hand, the few seconds of Craig really jumping and catching the lift conveys to the audience the feeling that Bond starts to be back in action instantly...
Note : For those who are afraid that Bond 24 will be SF again, note that Deakins himself explained they went for digital because of the low light scenes they had planned to do. Now if Bond 24 is done on film, maybe we'll avoid another silhouette fighting, or a final action scene in the night... :)
If you can't do it for real then don't do it at all! Bond movies are not Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, they always should feel real.
Nice nuanced, empathic set of arguments @bondjames. Really, I appreciate them. You put certain elements of CGI in perspective.
Still, "we" nowadays, we "nerdy young Bond fans", "we" find these backscreen projectors rather cute....and rather an element of its time. Back in the 1960's though, people didn't even pay attention to these backscreen projectors, because there wasn't much more blockbuster escapism in cinema back then. So overall, there has NEVER been criticism about these backscreen projectors.
Look where we are now and how we criticise an element of film, CGI, that in essence makes things more realistic than those days of the backscreen projectors. Yet we only scrutinize CGI to death, we get angry over a computirzed face of Craig, which in all honesty I ONLY noticed after getting on this forum, and we dare to compare the enhancing quality of the CGI in SF with the dodgy CGI in DAD.
I sometimes don't understand all the cynism from certain posters :-(. Let's enjoy our Bond films a bit more...Like those people who got thoroughly entertained back in the 1960's. Our society, nowadays, is so full of spoiled twats. Myself included :-(.
I don't see no CGI face.
I think Craig was sitting in front of a green screen considering these fans did the same effect for nothing.
Christ I miss 80's cinema.
The point made above by @Suivez_ce_parachute about FYEO vs SF is an important one IMO. The FYEO stunt on the mountain was much more chilling to me because I knew it was real. I say the same thing about the parkour scene from CR on the crane. That scene was absolutely amazing. Someone tell me that had CGI and I will become a full fledged convert.
I'm sorry but that bike picture post above from SF does look fake and it looked fake in the movie to me. Not in a bad way, but it took me out of the moment. The CR parkour did not. Neither did most anything in CR that I can remember.
While I want our hero in the most dangerous environments, to some extent I want to ensure that I believe he's there. I believed the CR crane scene and was in awe. I did not believe the SF bike.
RE: the QoS museum fall: again, I could tell that scene was fake when I saw the movie, but I remember thinking at the time that it was well done and the fast editing masked it to some extent. However, it did again take me out of the moment momentarily. If they had left that bit out, I may have preferred the scene.
Bottom line: they were much better in SF compared to DAD no doubt but you could still tell. There's a reason Tom Cruise was actually hanging out of the Burj in Dubai during Mi4. Because CGI, no matter how good it is, is still not quite there yet.....but it's getting closer. For now, I'll take Ben Hur over Gladiator any day.
A modern genre film can be pulled off perfectly successfully without CGI, however. The director of the Evil Dead remake, Fede Alvarez, chose to use practical effects exclusively in a film that called for a TON of visual effects shots and that normally would have been packed to the gills with CGI. In a behind-the-scenes doc, Alvarez said that most filmmakers will simply go for CGI or just not shoot something and say we'll fix it/add it/remove it in post because it's less expensive and easier to do things digitally. Well, he certainly had the right approach with Evil Dead. The visual effects immerse you in the film completely because they look completely real—because they ARE completely real! There's just no substitute for the real thing.
Did Skyfall's komodo dragons really bother me that much? When they clearly looked like digital effects, kind of, yeah. Where's the reality? Where's the suspense in that? Weak CGI puts more of an onus on other elements of the experience (the music, the atmosphere, the characters, the story, the audience's imagination) to sell the scene. I don't see the point in working against your own film like that. Especially when you're dealing with relatively small elements like an animal—or a face, which really bothered me the most about Skyfall's CGI choices (Silva's deteriorating face that is) especially when you have so many brilliant makeup artists who were doing this kind of stuff regularly and much more convincingly 30 years ago.
What would I have done instead of 100% CGI-ed komodo dragons? A tasteful and convincing combination of the real thing (handled by professional animal experts of course; deadly animals have been used in films before, after all), animatronics, and CGI. This is how they pulled off the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 20 years ago and that film still looks absolutely stunning. (And real dinosaurs are far more difficult to handle than komodo dragons, just ask dinosaur supervisor Phil Tippett. ;) ) Alas, CGI is easier and it's here to stay. My hope is simply that, as I stated before, CGI will be used more judiciously with the Bond films. Accomplish real stunts, build real sets, employ makeup artists and SFX artists for real practical visual effects and use CGI for cleaning up and those very few shots where it's absolutely necessary and you'll have yourself one helluva film.
So Craig - or whoever it is playing Bond - really doesn't need to set his foot outside Pinewood or London ever again. Yeah, CGI, and a lot of green screen, surely helps ;-) Update on those crazy Tom Cruise on location stunts, here's him last week, 5,000ft above the British countryside:
This gentleman talks sense, always.
You must have a hard time liking recent Bond films. Again, I think most of the criticism is a lot of cynical nitpicking. And it is grounded in rewatching films too many times, comparing films in a grotesque way, and over-analyzing articles that explain a lot of behind-the-scenes work.
Those stunt pictures from Tom Cruise? They indeed look impressive and amazing. But so far you don't have any context....where to place these stunts in the storyline. Bond films like "MR" and "AVTAK" had wunderful stunts too. Did it make them become particularly good movies? Did these stunts support the story and characters? Or were they just "there"?
I just hope Bond continues in the way that we saw in CR, QOS and SF, despite some minor flaws. Because sometimes in here we sound like with Daniel Craig the Bond franchise has become as good or as bad as the Brosnan-era. I hope we also keep some focus and look on the total outcome, the total package of a Bond film. Man, then the Craig era gave us some damn fine films. Despite or thanks to CGI, they have more soul, depth and more multilayered characterization than those formularic Bond films from the 1990's.
And if I loose myself in positivism on many occasions, then surely @Suivez_ce_parachute looses himself in complete cynicism. I wonder if he really enjoyed watching the recent Bond films. For me it looks like he, and many others in here, left cinema very very disappointed when they saw either CR, QOS or SF for the first time.
And back then they were far less watchful when it came to security with animals or indeed animal cruelty. Stanley Kubrick's daughter kicked a fuss about the snakes in Raiders of the Lost Ark because she thought they were not treated properly, but that was the exception. The scene in LALD would not be done with real alligators anymore.
Do you have an issue with everyone who doesn't share your taste? And that's coming from a guy who in the other thread wrote that For me - it's not a contest. Please.... take a deep breath and relax, guy. I was just adding to bondjames' example. And now you want me to analyse MR and AVTAK? Yeah, I think MR back in the day was wonderful, for many reasons, if you must know. But it was set in a different era, without CGI, so I find comparing it rather pointless.
I hope that I will enjoy both Bond 24 and MI:5. As of now I know a lot of things about MI:5 to get my hopes up, because they have been shooting it and documenting it for months. I know almost nothing at all when it comes to Bond 24. We are almost completely in the dark here.