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
"Mad Max" and perhaps "Star Wars" you're right yes. But saying that "Jurassic World"and "Fast & Furious 7", even script-wise, were better than "SPECTRE"? I can't believe what I'm hearing here....
Flying cars from one building to one building is hardly attributing to exquisit screenplay writing.
Neither is a stumped secret agent who takes cues from a computer-generated mouse.
I don't think any of those movies particularly excelled in the script department, save for 'Fury Road' (which is even a stretch, as there are long periods of silence). Can't comment on the Jurassic movie - haven't seen it, nor will I.
I think it's sheer nitpicking. I'm very sorry, but upon first watch in cinema I thought the komodo's were real.
Saying that Sam Mendes has an obsession for CGI-animals has the same credibility and strength when uttered when we say "Jurassic World" is full of real dinosaurs.
In this social media environment......the world of forums.....we have grown accustomed to nitpicking. If "SPECTRE" or "Skyfall", with it's carefully applied, almost invisible CGI, was competing as a non-EON film in 2002 with "Die Another Day" and its blatantly visible 1990's CGI, we get a much better understanding of the very definition of nitpicking.
That statement has a ton of credibility, and your comparison makes no sense logically - saying that Mendes enjoys using CG animals (which he does - of the four or five computer generated animals used throughout the series, they're all found in either SF or SP) is equivalent to saying 'Jurassic World' uses real dinosaurs? Absolutely not.
Isn't nitpicking pretty much the entirety of what we do as Bond fans, anyway? We praise things that general audience members don't really care for or notice, and we nitpick the slightest things that many of those same people would never notice. No competition needed, but I like to dissect everything, from the best Bond movie to the worst.
Well, let me put it differently then. I think you exaggerate. You also have rather 'bold' statements, like "Sam Mendes enjoys using CGI-animals". He never said that. Regarding Komodo dragons, there was a short discussion to use real Komodo dragons, but I don't know if you know but those 'dinosaurs' are incredibly dangerous and cannot be held in a farm like crocs. Their behaviour is entirely erratic. So I don't mind using a good CGI-model for that.
Frankly, I think the CGI-crew on Bond films recently are doing a much better job as compared to, let's say, 17 years ago. That means: No too obvious bad CGI surfing scenes, but apply CGI only when necessary and make it look as realistic as possible.
Obviously, we won't agree. You are one of the most dominant critics of Sam Mendes' Bond films. They are consistently in your Bottom 3 in your rankings. So, that also explains a lot :-). And that explains that we disagree anyway :-).
Don't get me wrong, the last two movies did have some rather good moments of CG (which throws me off when there are terrible moments of it, too), particularly the MI6 explosion in SF - incredibly well done. However, I'd have no hope for the future of Hollywood if CGI of today wasn't better than it was 17 years ago. Still doesn't excuse it when it looks rough or out of place.
However, who is to say all of the CG is "necessary" in these past two, though? Why was Patrice's fall in SF changed, when the teasers showed off a beautiful, realistic, slow-motion fall? It wasn't necessary there.
And no, we won't agree at all, hence the discussion. I said the same thing last time - there's no harm in not agreeing, and if the entire forum agreed on everything, this place would be beyond dull.
Yes, they are in my Bottom 3. At this rate, I'll be surprised if they escape being down there.
Could be. But as of late my gut feeling tells me you have become fairly irritated by me. So while I discuss this with you, I can't help but feeling...bad :(. Perhaps this place would be more dull if we all agreed, but I have to say that the overall atmosphere has become a little grim in return.
I sometimes feel that I'm only counterproductive with my words. I can't place my finger on it....You're a bit distant, while we did chat in a more frivolous way.
What I personally don't find understandable or forgivable is the augmentation work which was incorporated into many scenes in SP, including in the pretitles, and which resulted in a blurriness & dullness to some of the shots that always tips me off (such work was apparent during the rooftop bike chase in SF as well). The Patrice fall in the trailer was better imho (not sure which is the CGI one, or if both were), and more importantly, was calling out for a 'Glen scream'.
Regarding the script: I think most of us can agree that SP's script was far from optimal, and certainly not up to the level of the best Bond films, let alone the last three Craig efforts.
If we're going to pick at such an inconsequential aspect of SP, or other equally inconsequential moments from that same movie (as it's trendy to hate it now), then excuse me while I chuckle in my corner. I sense a pattern here. This week people were actually moaning about how there weren't enough passengers on the train during the Hinx fight. Really. Christ almighty, no other era but Dan's would receive this kind of bullshit nitpicking, even though the majority of them contain far lesser films.
=D> I will serve you as your butler @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 .
No outrage caused, you've stepped into the conversation at an incorrect angle. It was only brought up since someone mentioned "exquisite screenplay writing" of 2015, which SP (nor any of the other aforementioned scripts) is not. It may be competent and get the job done, but "exquisite"? Absolutely not.
For those of us who take a lot of issue with what Mendes brought to the table, it appears there are also some who refuse to discuss his work in any sort of negative light. There's good and bad found in all of the Bond films, and the discussions should go accordingly. There is no perfect film, and we're Bond fans, after all.
As for screenwriting, I see nothing wrong with SP, as it's a character driven piece that does its job to continue to develop Bond, brings back White interestingly, features a great SPECTRE debut in Rome, and overall enables the film to convey an uneasiness and sense of isolation and quiet danger to me through how it tells the story, helped immensely by the visuals. But that's a whole other discussion.
Me and the rest of the SP supporters aren't incapable of discussing negative aspects of the movie, as we've done it numerous times before, especially in regards to how Mendes and co. produced it by recklessly burning money every which way on throwaway moments or the let down of the torture scene's aftermath. It's just that we choose to critique things with far greater consequence than a computer effect or the ratio of extras to the confines of a set at Pinewood. I don't mean to be prickly here, just stating how I see it.
perhaps it's also the society we live in these days. There were days, like 20 years ago, when people 'accepted' and 'swallowed' much more. I strongly support freedom of opinion, and criticism keeps us sharp. But sometimes, and I'm to blame as well, we go into a negative downwards spiral when discussing and that removes the soul and the fun from the film.
People act like SP is the spawn of Satan. Which is amusing as I said, considering the nonsense that has come before in this franchise, and with much greater embarrassment to the series overall.
Also important to note: Just because it's a CGI mouse doesn't mean it lacks real feelings, lads. Remember that next time.
I think 99% of all people who watched both SF and SP for the very first time in cinema, didn't leave the cinema with complaints like "FFF-ing hell, what a load of CGI-garbage this film is!"
Agreed...I never gave them a second thought until I saw the comments on here tbh.
In SP, all of this CGI work was more apparent because I just wasn't as engaged with what was transpiring on screen, and the yellow hue made it all the more apparent that some augmentation had taken place. I'm sure that those who enjoyed the film and the story more than I did probably didn't think too much of it.