SPECTRE: It grossed $880 Million Worldwide (..and 2015 was the biggest box office year so far)

1146147148150152

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps it's because I saw many of these films first as a child and internalized them, but green and backscreens do not bother me unless they are overused in a film. I noticed it in recent Bond film viewings (MR on the cable car and FYEO on skis and on the helicopter) but it didn't annoy me at all.

    It did bother me in Airport 1979 - Concorde, where it was overused. Same goes for Jaws 3. Those were disgraces, given the live action and brilliant models used in Airport 75 & Jaws respectively.

    There is something about CGI which is terribly contrived in my view.

    For me, I always believe it's because the precedent is set in the medium. Back projection and primitive green screen were/are photographic tools created to service film. It's an accepted standard. CGI, on the other hand, is intrinsically tied to the video game medium, so I think it's much harder to separate that in your subconscious.

    Still, on the whole one could make the case that today's CGI is very much like the 1960's primitive backscreen projections. For me it feels like that. Perhaps furthermore, external critics have changed tremendously as well? Standards in the 1960's were much more different. Films on the whole were much more 'accepted', whereas today everyone has become its own expert and doesn't leave criticism to others anymore. Perhaps therefore we criticise much more.

    The point I was making is that the execution of certain shots was for a time only achievable in a certain way. For that reason it's subconsciously accepted.

    These days CGI has complicated matters because it's one of a number of options. If it's 'obvious' in its execution and the viewer is subconsciously aware it's achievable in a more realistic manner, or with a better shot selection, then that registers negatively. Coverage can be much more expansive now. Back in the day mounting a camera on a car was not even possible.

    I agree @RC7. I do think however that CGI in a Bond film isn't that deplorable or obvious as CGI used in other bigger blockbuster productions, like the recent "Furious 7", "Transformers" or "Kingsman: The Secret Service".

    I also think it's mainly a criticism that lives here in the Bond fan community, as we discuss each and every film to such great detail, that many other generic movie lovers would feel a bit surprised about.

    I do agree however for instance that the skydive sequence in "QOS" failed to register. Simply because for all its so called 'realism' of the film, we actually know it was done in real, far more realistic, in Bond flicks like "Octopussy" and "Moonraker". So with that I agree. It's too 'obvious'.

    But I doubt that generic movie audiences really saw that mouse in "SPECTRE" as a CGI-effect, or those Komodo dragons in "Skyfall" as fake. At least not on first watch.

    I think in a nutshell my arguments still stand as well though. I think people are right about many action sequences in "QOS". But really, in the last two Bond films that was done much much better than, let's say "DAD" and "QOS". So, I do find it a bit exaggerated when people lambast CGI-experts for that in "SF" and "SP". But it's also a matter of taste.

    Take for instance the PTS in "SP". You can obviously see the surroundings are backscreen, but Daniel Craig is truly giving his best in that action sequence. It really depends how you look at it. CGI is way more diverse than only action sequences.

    It's really because of articles like these that you start noticing certain CGI effects. And not many people in here are willing to admit that:
    http://tom-i-butler.tumblr.com/post/134800730986/spectres-incredibly-subtle-cgi-before-and-after

    Perhaps it's a feeling of being fooled so tremendously well? :-)

    Of course, CGI has its place. They've been dropping in elements for decades. TND has some great use of 'unnoticeable' CGI. Where it becomes a problem is when they use it as a cheap alternative and that is more and more prevalent. I have mates who work in post and the workload is getting ever bigger, with costs being constantly squeezed. CGI is fantastic for augmenting reality, but not replacing it.

    Rick Sylvester or CGI Bond?
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps it's because I saw many of these films first as a child and internalized them, but green and backscreens do not bother me unless they are overused in a film. I noticed it in recent Bond film viewings (MR on the cable car and FYEO on skis and on the helicopter) but it didn't annoy me at all.

    It did bother me in Airport 1979 - Concorde, where it was overused. Same goes for Jaws 3. Those were disgraces, given the live action and brilliant models used in Airport 75 & Jaws respectively.

    There is something about CGI which is terribly contrived in my view.

    For me, I always believe it's because the precedent is set in the medium. Back projection and primitive green screen were/are photographic tools created to service film. It's an accepted standard. CGI, on the other hand, is intrinsically tied to the video game medium, so I think it's much harder to separate that in your subconscious.

    Still, on the whole one could make the case that today's CGI is very much like the 1960's primitive backscreen projections. For me it feels like that. Perhaps furthermore, external critics have changed tremendously as well? Standards in the 1960's were much more different. Films on the whole were much more 'accepted', whereas today everyone has become its own expert and doesn't leave criticism to others anymore. Perhaps therefore we criticise much more.

    The point I was making is that the execution of certain shots was for a time only achievable in a certain way. For that reason it's subconsciously accepted.

    These days CGI has complicated matters because it's one of a number of options. If it's 'obvious' in its execution and the viewer is subconsciously aware it's achievable in a more realistic manner, or with a better shot selection, then that registers negatively. Coverage can be much more expansive now. Back in the day mounting a camera on a car was not even possible.

    I agree @RC7. I do think however that CGI in a Bond film isn't that deplorable or obvious as CGI used in other bigger blockbuster productions, like the recent "Furious 7", "Transformers" or "Kingsman: The Secret Service".

    I also think it's mainly a criticism that lives here in the Bond fan community, as we discuss each and every film to such great detail, that many other generic movie lovers would feel a bit surprised about.

    I do agree however for instance that the skydive sequence in "QOS" failed to register. Simply because for all its so called 'realism' of the film, we actually know it was done in real, far more realistic, in Bond flicks like "Octopussy" and "Moonraker". So with that I agree. It's too 'obvious'.

    But I doubt that generic movie audiences really saw that mouse in "SPECTRE" as a CGI-effect, or those Komodo dragons in "Skyfall" as fake. At least not on first watch.

    I think in a nutshell my arguments still stand as well though. I think people are right about many action sequences in "QOS". But really, in the last two Bond films that was done much much better than, let's say "DAD" and "QOS". So, I do find it a bit exaggerated when people lambast CGI-experts for that in "SF" and "SP". But it's also a matter of taste.

    Take for instance the PTS in "SP". You can obviously see the surroundings are backscreen, but Daniel Craig is truly giving his best in that action sequence. It really depends how you look at it. CGI is way more diverse than only action sequences.

    It's really because of articles like these that you start noticing certain CGI effects. And not many people in here are willing to admit that:
    http://tom-i-butler.tumblr.com/post/134800730986/spectres-incredibly-subtle-cgi-before-and-after

    Perhaps it's a feeling of being fooled so tremendously well? :-)

    Of course, CGI has its place. They've been dropping in elements for decades. TND has some great use of 'unnoticeable' CGI. Where it becomes a problem is when they use it as a cheap alternative and that is more and more prevalent. I have mates who work in post and the workload is getting ever bigger, with costs being constantly squeezed. CGI is fantastic for augmenting reality, but not replacing it.

    Rick Sylvester or CGI Bond?

    Which Bond films to you failed miserably then with regard to 'deplorable CGI'?

    Everything post-TWINE. DAD is the worst culprit, but QoS, SF and SP all have terrible moments. CR cuts it fine with the sinking house, but the model work saves it. The skydive in QoS is abysmal, the Hashima island lead in is crap and the collapsing building in SP is also a waste of time. Scenes where CGI swallows the frame.

    I've got nothing really to add. @RC7 is smashing it out of the park.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Perhaps it's because I saw many of these films first as a child and internalized them, but green and backscreens do not bother me unless they are overused in a film. I noticed it in recent Bond film viewings (MR on the cable car and FYEO on skis and on the helicopter) but it didn't annoy me at all.

    It did bother me in Airport 1979 - Concorde, where it was overused. Same goes for Jaws 3. Those were disgraces, given the live action and brilliant models used in Airport 75 & Jaws respectively.

    There is something about CGI which is terribly contrived in my view.

    For me, I always believe it's because the precedent is set in the medium. Back projection and primitive green screen were/are photographic tools created to service film. It's an accepted standard. CGI, on the other hand, is intrinsically tied to the video game medium, so I think it's much harder to separate that in your subconscious.

    Still, on the whole one could make the case that today's CGI is very much like the 1960's primitive backscreen projections. For me it feels like that. Perhaps furthermore, external critics have changed tremendously as well? Standards in the 1960's were much more different. Films on the whole were much more 'accepted', whereas today everyone has become its own expert and doesn't leave criticism to others anymore. Perhaps therefore we criticise much more.

    The point I was making is that the execution of certain shots was for a time only achievable in a certain way. For that reason it's subconsciously accepted.

    These days CGI has complicated matters because it's one of a number of options. If it's 'obvious' in its execution and the viewer is subconsciously aware it's achievable in a more realistic manner, or with a better shot selection, then that registers negatively. Coverage can be much more expansive now. Back in the day mounting a camera on a car was not even possible.

    I agree @RC7. I do think however that CGI in a Bond film isn't that deplorable or obvious as CGI used in other bigger blockbuster productions, like the recent "Furious 7", "Transformers" or "Kingsman: The Secret Service".

    I also think it's mainly a criticism that lives here in the Bond fan community, as we discuss each and every film to such great detail, that many other generic movie lovers would feel a bit surprised about.

    I do agree however for instance that the skydive sequence in "QOS" failed to register. Simply because for all its so called 'realism' of the film, we actually know it was done in real, far more realistic, in Bond flicks like "Octopussy" and "Moonraker". So with that I agree. It's too 'obvious'.

    But I doubt that generic movie audiences really saw that mouse in "SPECTRE" as a CGI-effect, or those Komodo dragons in "Skyfall" as fake. At least not on first watch.

    I think in a nutshell my arguments still stand as well though. I think people are right about many action sequences in "QOS". But really, in the last two Bond films that was done much much better than, let's say "DAD" and "QOS". So, I do find it a bit exaggerated when people lambast CGI-experts for that in "SF" and "SP". But it's also a matter of taste.

    Take for instance the PTS in "SP". You can obviously see the surroundings are backscreen, but Daniel Craig is truly giving his best in that action sequence. It really depends how you look at it. CGI is way more diverse than only action sequences.

    It's really because of articles like these that you start noticing certain CGI effects. And not many people in here are willing to admit that:
    http://tom-i-butler.tumblr.com/post/134800730986/spectres-incredibly-subtle-cgi-before-and-after

    Perhaps it's a feeling of being fooled so tremendously well? :-)

    Of course, CGI has its place. They've been dropping in elements for decades. TND has some great use of 'unnoticeable' CGI. Where it becomes a problem is when they use it as a cheap alternative and that is more and more prevalent. I have mates who work in post and the workload is getting ever bigger, with costs being constantly squeezed. CGI is fantastic for augmenting reality, but not replacing it.

    Rick Sylvester or CGI Bond?

    Which Bond films to you failed miserably then with regard to 'deplorable CGI'?

    Everything post-TWINE. DAD is the worst culprit, but QoS, SF and SP all have terrible moments. CR cuts it fine with the sinking house, but the model work saves it. The skydive in QoS is abysmal, the Hashima island lead in is crap and the collapsing building in SP is also a waste of time. Scenes where CGI swallows the frame.

    For me the PTS of GE was too much for my conscience to handle. I mean, Brosnan 'catching' that airplane while at the same time a very unconvincing rolling backscreen is projected, to me looked more deplorable than CGI-image of Hashima island.

    I do agree with you that CGI shouldn't replace action sequences. Fully agreed with that. But that's a bit besides the point if people start complaining about a CGI mouse or a CGI Komodo dragon.

    For me personally, and I'm obviously in the minority in here, it feels like shitting over the great work of Steve Begg and his team. Obviously, the director in the end has the final hand in it.

    But you are right that "Die Another Day" still is the worst ever example of deplorable CGI. Seeing Bond surfing fake CGI-waves to me is way way more worse than witnessing a tense CGI-terrorist attack on MI6-headquarters in "Skyfall". Not to mention some deplorable backscreen projections, which CGI nowadays can do much better.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The GE plane catch was disappointing, no doubt. Especially in comparison to the fantastic work that was done by Cameron and team in the prior year with the Harrier jump jet in True Lies.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    The GE plane catch was disappointing, no doubt. Especially in comparison to the fantastic work that was done by Cameron and team in the prior year with the Harrier jump jet in True Lies.

    True Lies! Man, what a wonderful film that was :-). Fully agree on that one...
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    bondjames wrote: »
    The GE plane catch was disappointing, no doubt. Especially in comparison to the fantastic work that was done by Cameron and team in the prior year with the Harrier jump jet in True Lies.

    Cameron always had the biggest budgets in cinematic history. So this comparison cannot be made in my opinion.

    GE was made in 1995 for Heaven's sake, and that one second long image of Brosnan and a back projection is no problem at all.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    @Gustav_Graves

    If you have a problem with a one second long scene where Brosnan is obviously in front of a back projection then I guess your conscience doesn't allow you anymore to watch DN, FRWL and GF.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The GE plane catch was disappointing, no doubt. Especially in comparison to the fantastic work that was done by Cameron and team in the prior year with the Harrier jump jet in True Lies.

    Cameron always had the biggest budgets in cinematic history. So this comparison cannot be made in my opinion.

    GE was made in 1995 for Heaven's sake, and that one second long image of Brosnan and a back projection is no problem at all.
    We are being a little critical of course, but that is the nature of such conversations here. This has moved onto a discussion about CGI /special effects and its problems, and the GE scene is a notable offender, even for 1995.

    It's disappointing even within the context of the same film because it was put to shame just a few minutes earlier by the brilliant classic jump by Wayne Michaels in Switzerland (standing in for the Soviet Union).

    I am aware that Cameron had a much larger budget to work with than Campbell, but that is not relevant in this case imho. If one has a smaller budget, then one should work with it and not try to do things with special effects which will look cheap in the future. Bond films are forever and are viewed by generations of viewers over time. At the time of GF, FRWL & DN, EON probably wasn't aware of that. By the time of GE, they should have been.

    Again, this is a contextual discussion about CGI - not about GE as a film or as a saviour of the franchise.
  • @Gustav_Graves

    If you have a problem with a one second long scene where Brosnan is obviously in front of a back projection then I guess your conscience doesn't allow you anymore to watch DN, FRWL and GF.

    It's not that really......I think subconsciously I know that DN, FRWL and GF were produced in the 1960's. So timetravelling back makes me perfectly understand those backscreen projections. I mean, there wasn't anything else than James Bond blockbuster-wise in those days. People swallowed these technicalities, because the total finished product basically always went on satisfy....in those days. Until YOLT and OHMSS.

    GE however I saw in cinema in 1995 with my mum, dad and my 2 year younger brother. I remembered my dad going insane from laughing when seeing that PTS sequence. But I was like "Sjee dad, you really have to scare mum like that? It's so fake" :-P. Maybe it's because my first ever Bond film in cinema was "Licence To Kill", in 1989. And that experience....basically set the standard for me :-). The PTS from LTK felt more 'real' than the cheesy GE PTS.

    But that's my opinion off course.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Oh I love the PTS of LTK and GE.
    I don't think at all it's cheesy. What is cheesy about it? Alex seemingly getting shot in the head? Also it features the greatest stunt ever in a Bond movie (except the TSWLM PTS of course).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2016 Posts: 16,351
    It was mostly done for real. Someone did drive a plane off a ramp and BJ Worth (I think) drove off a ramp on a motorcycle too. I don't see a problem with the insert shots.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Murdock wrote: »
    It was mostly done for real. Someone did drive a plane off a ramp and BJ Worth (I think) drove off a ramp on a motorcycle too. I don't see a problem with the insert shots.

    Absolutely. The money shot of that sequence is the bike going off the cliff and the stuntman launching himself after the plane. I think it's one of the must underrated stunts of the series, probably due to what followed with the ropey effects.

    I think if they'd timed the shot better so that the plane wasn't quite as far out of reach and the bike had been going a tad faster the stuntman could've caught up with the plane enough to get a hand on it, or even just get level with the tail before they cut (obviously it's tough though as you're asking a guy to do that as part of a BASE jump so there is very little time for him to actually do anything before he pulls the cord. But this was to show Bond is back after 6 years so they needed to really push the envelope to the limit). And then we could have cut to an insert shot of Broz (I'm fine with those shots from inside of him hanging onto the outside) getting a hand on it and then cut back to a stuntman hanging onto the outside of the plane which is just basically nothing they didn't do in OP.

    It's still one of the great PTSs though. Two epic stunts even if one is a bit dodgy.

    Barry Norman's review has always stuck with me which went something along the lines of, 'Bond is definitely back and it starts with two stunts that are so outrageous you simply have to applaud.'

    Although he follows it up with, 'Mind you nothing so spectacular happens again', which seems a bit hard on the tank chase.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    What exactly is spectacular about the tank chase?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    What exactly is spectacular about the tank chase?
    The music.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    It was mostly done for real. Someone did drive a plane off a ramp and BJ Worth (I think) drove off a ramp on a motorcycle too. I don't see a problem with the insert shots.

    Absolutely. The money shot of that sequence is the bike going off the cliff and the stuntman launching himself after the plane. I think it's one of the must underrated stunts of the series, probably due to what followed with the ropey effects.

    I think if they'd timed the shot better so that the plane wasn't quite as far out of reach and the bike had been going a tad faster the stuntman could've caught up with the plane enough to get a hand on it, or even just get level with the tail before they cut (obviously it's tough though as you're asking a guy to do that as part of a BASE jump so there is very little time for him to actually do anything before he pulls the cord. But this was to show Bond is back after 6 years so they needed to really push the envelope to the limit). And then we could have cut to an insert shot of Broz (I'm fine with those shots from inside of him hanging onto the outside) getting a hand on it and then cut back to a stuntman hanging onto the outside of the plane which is just basically nothing they didn't do in OP.

    It's still one of the great PTSs though. Two epic stunts even if one is a bit dodgy.

    Barry Norman's review has always stuck with me which went something along the lines of, 'Bond is definitely back and it starts with two stunts that are so outrageous you simply have to applaud.'

    Although he follows it up with, 'Mind you nothing so spectacular happens again', which seems a bit hard on the tank chase.

    That was text book.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    What exactly is spectacular about the tank chase?

    Every single frame.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Taking out the garbage must be spectacular for you people.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited September 2016 Posts: 16,351
    One person's trash is another person's treasure.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Taking out the garbage must be spectacular for you people.

    Feel free to furnish us with your list of top Bond action sequences then.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    There are quite a few, and you can find them in most of the films.I am off to work soon, so don t have the time to make a huge list now.

    The only scene that feels spectacular for me in GE is the bungee jump. That s a great start, and then it goes downwards.
  • Posts: 1,469
    I still love the PTS of GoldenEye! I think I can still remember the thrill I got the first time I saw it, when Bond spreads his arms and jumps off the dam. Then the motorcycle chase and dive for the plane. One of the best openings in any Bond film I think. I can live with some CGI...though I pay attention to detail, I can suspend belief (to a good extent) and just enjoy the movie action. I think the sequence hit it out of the park.
  • The entire diamond laser sequence in DAF is execrable.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    There are quite a few, and you can find them in most of the films.I am off to work soon, so don t have the time to make a huge list now.

    The only scene that feels spectacular for me in GE is the bungee jump. That s a great start, and then it goes downwards.

    Thunderfinger praising GE. I'll have to cherish this rare moment.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    There are quite a few, and you can find them in most of the films.I am off to work soon, so don t have the time to make a huge list now.

    The only scene that feels spectacular for me in GE is the bungee jump. That s a great start, and then it goes downwards.

    Thunderfinger praising GE. I'll have to cherish this rare moment.

    @Creasy47, and because you directly quoted him, he can't backtrack and delete the comment. Victory!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Of course I meant the General Electrics bungee jump, performed at their facility last year.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Of course I meant the General Electrics bungee jump, performed at their facility last year.

    Damn, I was so close to history, too! Maybe one day.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    What exactly is spectacular about the tank chase?

    Bond in a spiffy Brioni suit, driving a tank through Russia and giving zero fucks.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I guess kicking a football into a net is also spectacular?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Depending on angle and distance, sure.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I guess kicking a football into a net is also spectacular?

    You're embarassing yourself here son.

    I'm on tenterhooks for your list of Bond action sequences that are better than the tank chase but, like this morning, I suppose you're in too much of a hurry to rush off somewhere again to back this up with some coherent arguments?

    Granted the statue riding on top is wank (although from this we do get the tie, straightening which in GE is sublime - although in TWINE is shit) and the Perrier product placement I could do without but the initial crash through the wall, the handbrake turn in front of St Isaacs Cathedral and the general carnage are all superb. In particular the shot as the tank catches up the police car from behind and runs over the back of it is fabulous.

    I find this all a bit rich coming from the same guy who is happy to sing the praises of the tepid DAF PTS in 'The controversial opinions' thread.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @TheWizardOfIce, don't push him too far. Thundy's kryptonite is GE so he gets very sensitive about it. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.