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
No. He's mentioned it in the Sunday People during an interview far more recently since then. @Germanlady posted about it.
Oh i see! ;)) My mistake although i see the comparison that is being made.
Usually a couple of things...
Editing during filming reduces editing time in post production.
Most of a bond film is practically shot so it means less cg work.
Doesn't give the studio much of an opportunity to make changes to the film.
Post production costs money. Shorter post means more money spent in production.
Bond probably has a very large post production crew so can be quicker.
I suspect.
That is what modern film does, takes old characters and changes them so that they are the same in name only.
Which is exactly why I don't want Blofeld to return to the modern films. Bond doesn't need Blofeld to be a good movie.
....and they dont f*** up badly and need significant reshoots like UNCLE.
No it's not. It's a French giant of an actor called Robert Maillet (6ft 10 plus) who I believe injured RDJ during this particular sequence. He would have made a good Bond henchman imo.
I agree; he is a massive, imposing man but can look quite refined when the occasion demands. I like the idea of henchman who can be a sophisticated beast.
Yeah, you'd think people would laugh at the suggestion of a former wrestler being in a Bond film, but he does seem to fit. He can hold his own as an actor as well, which is more than we can say about some actors to grace the bond franchise. But I certainly do like the idea.
Ummm....they don't f*** up?
If there was ever a film that needed reshooting it was QOS. Had Forster delivered that film and a more typical lengthy post-production period was available to the producers they could have ironed out some of the problems with the film. However, due to the compressed period of time they had to work in their hand was forced and they delivered a mediocre product. Also the last three Brosnan would likely have gone into re-shoots. The production timeline on the Bond films are ridiculous, so much time is spent in pre-production and then they take 6 months to film (even the Marvel moves only take 3-4 months and then spend a year in post), followed by 12 weeks to edit the thing. The production schedule is crazy.
I agree I wish QOS could have been redone a lot, but the director was going for that particular style and I feel he didn't want to change that.
I did not know Uncle was plagued with many problems. I'm still looking forward to it.
I think Bond films have kept crews and the producers know their way around (generally speaking) in order to get a Bond film done in a timely manner, with quality. Many years of experience certainly lend itself to being able to have shorter post production time.
But a marvel movie will have anywhere between 1500-3000 visual effects shots. With half of those probably being primarily CGI and containing very little live action, if any at all. Bond is 99% live action, meaning every single shot has to be set up for real, not in a computer at a VFX house. That takes time, but it also means it's 'in camera' and thus the post schedule is reduced.
Indeed @RC7.
CG saves money. And even more than you think (because of the tax-cuts of the VFX house that some movie producers want to receive in exchange for choosing them, believe it or not). So we will have more and more in movies alas. I hope Bond will stay away, but SF had lots of CG in place where Bond movies never used them before.
FYI, here's a live action "Bondian" ad, followed by a CG version. The first 20 seconds are 30 years old. And IMO still far more entertaining than the DAD-like CG festival that follows.
Second: Fully agree about the movement toward CGI in the Bond films. I get that CGI is something of a necessity these days and can be handled well in the Bond films (for example, if you watch the behind-the-scenes you'll notice that Tomorrow Never Dies has a fair amount of CGI yet it blends virtually seamlessly with the live action), but I wish it was being handled more subtly and with greater reserve these days.
The moment the digital komodo dragon showed up I sank in my seat and groaned inwardly, thinking, "Well, that's it, we've finally gone there as a series. CGI animals in the Bond films just like the ****ing gopher in Crystal Skull." And it actually wouldn't even be a problem if you couldn't tell that they were CGI, but that's just the thing: it was obvious, plain as day, what you're seeing threaten Bond and the other guys simply wasn't real. And that's what kills it. Same thing with the parasurfing in DAD. Same thing with the freefall in QOS.
That said, I am still glad, really, really glad, that for the most part the Bond films are still filmed with practical, in-camera effects, and I hope the series stays that way for as long as possible. I'm hoping that the CGI we do get in Bond 24 is more seamless than what we've had recently.
In all honesty? I think the CGI discussion is a good one. But in my opinion, the CGI in "Skyfall" never really bothered me. That's because the film's characterization was done so perfectly.....that I never really realized the extent of CGI use in SF. Also, after (over)analyzing the film for the past 2 years, my only conclusion can be that the CGI was so damn good, that as of today I'm still impressed by the sheer realism of it.
CGI for me only works if it can enhance the story and if it can do things to a movie that probably could not have been achieved in reality.
An example. The explosion on the MI6-building. If you are so incredibly conservative about the use of CGI, then you would have liked the "fart" explosion from TWINE more than the huge destructive attack in SF. Well, frankly, that's not the case for me. The combination of models with extensive use of CGI made that explosion look so damn incredibly real for me. A shock moment in the film really.
Another more obvious example is Silva's mutilated jaw. Yes, it's slightly more obvious CGI after having seen the movie several times. But Bardem's insanely good acting really helped the scene work for me. And not only that, Silva's cheek and jaw looked thoroughly fucker up, we're thoroughly mutilated. That hanging piece of skin on the cheek.....it could not have been achieved in real. You had to typecast a person in real with such a large extent of mutilation, and that can be done ethically. For me it was about the total package of that entire scene. And combined with Silva leaking so much saliva.....it worked. It turned the whole scene into a memorable one. A scene that combines elements of nuanced gore, with drama and superb acting. A highlight in the Bond franchise. Blofeld and Dr No could have learned from that. Sadly, in 1962 it wasn't possible to put more gravita to a scene by actually showing your chopped off arms. Dr No would have dreamt from a scene like the one Silva had.
The komodo dragon's? You know these dinosaurs can't be held in a farm like crocodiles no? They actually bite with poison that can make a wound rot for weeks before you die. And they move way faster, more athletically than crocs. You might watch some documentaries about komodo dragon's before you decide how "fake" they looked. Personally, I was really surprised when I read an article about these Komodo's that they were entirely CGI. They looked 100% real for me. Their movements, their skin. A feast for one's eye.
No, I think CGI nowadays can do wonders to films. Even in Bond films. As long as it's being used in such a way that it looks totally convincing, it enhances story/plot and it needs to be used because similar scenes can not be filmed in real without CGI, then I welcome CGI in Bond films with open arms.
Editing starts day one of the shoot - as soon as the first material arrives in the editing room - on the second day of principle photography - the editing team get going. The film is cut as the material continues to be delivered each day, so this means everyone involved in making the film can see exactly how it is coming together and how well it is working on all levels (acting, photography, staging, stunt work etc. etc.). Editors will also suggest extra shots or cut-aways if they feel a scene is missing details or will play better with extra material - Frequently a 2nd Unit or Splinter Unit will grab these extra shots.
When I worked on LTK we had about 6-7 months post - which includes the full sound mix and neg cutting, timing/colour grade etc. of the final cut of the film. That was tight.
4-5 months, which the present Bond films have, is very tight indeed. A bigger crew helps but doesn't take away from the sheer amount of work the lead editor - in Bond 24's case, Lee Smith - and the director have to accomplish in a tight period of time with a deadline fast approaching. Long days. Six, seven day weeks. Can be very exhausting - but also very rewarding work.
Which accounts for several shots. I'd rather everything was accomplished practically, but with digital artists available for an absolute pittance it'll continue. Hopefully not too much, but we'll see.
Which gives the illusion one can do "anything" alas (= fixing "the shot with the best result, except for that thing in the background that hopefully the VFX team will remove/modify/add later")
Then look at the two SF examples I gave. IMO The digital Bond under the elevator looks like a video game, and I think we would have had a far better shot of a man really hanging from an elevator, conveying the pain he has in one shoulder, if it had been done with a stuntman. Just watch the FYEO rope scene to see what it really feels to show a stuntman actually in the void.
As for Patrice falling, everyone is still remembering how cool the image in the trailer was, compared to what we had in the final movie. The trailer shot looks like an homage to Hitchcock, the movie shot looks like a videogame. It's so weird that IMO Craig's reaction look like an actor saying a line, rather than Bond really reacting to the death of Patrice.
Yes, of course, and we all miss the dummies days each time they had to show someone falling to his death... Sheesh, do you really live in a world where anyone else's opinion is dead wrong ?
There's a digital Bond also in the PTS when he hits the water, but of course you could not ask a stuntman to fall that fast. And when he begins the fall from the train, that's a stuntman with CG face replacement, with yet another "plastic Craig face" on screen, but not long enough to be a problem (the worst CG face replacement IMO is on the motorbike in the PTS, and along with the green screen shots, it doesn't bode well for the future : this is a Bond PTS, and it's full of CG...). Here those worrying about the use of CG don't ask for dummies back, but we wonder if CG will stop or continue to invade the movies. And I'm writing as someone who worked a bit on that field !
Luc Besson produced a movie during which a camera operator died during the filming of a car chase, which may explain why the car stunts use lots of CG in Lucy, and you can understand that. But if we have full CG stunts in Bond, in particular for the PTS that were known before as the "real live action stunt you don't see elsewhere", something will be lost IMO. In another thread, you put videos of real skiers doing incredible things, seen from cameras they had with them. You seem to like it a lot when there's no CG after all... (as long as it's not in Skyfall, in which "everything is so great that most fans still can't realize it" :) )
I do - of course - agree with every word of yours, but the sad truth is,that this "trademark denying"
(for lack of a better term) started with GEs Plane diving "stunt" ( which was just as laughable as Craigs Face projected on the bike rider) and has stayed with us ever since. Ironically it's the so called realistic Craig era that is taking its use to new heights.
I'm seeing a comma after December...there's already a confirmed date @JamesPage? Many thanks in advance.
Yeah, but isn't there someone who can look up all of MarkMonitor's registered domains for 2014 (MarkMonitor is the company providing domain registration services for Sony Pictures)?
By doing so the title "Skyfall" was already more or less leaked around August/September 2011. Waiting until December 6th is just.......way too long for me :-o. And.....MI6-HQ could use a nice scoop during this month October.
All @JamesPage's stories have been spurious at best. Remember his 'big announcement...we're all been waiting for' which turned out to be a comic no one was anticipating.
I think it's painfully obvious a press conference is coming in December regardless os Page's unnecessarily leading message. My advice keep an eye on Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Deadline and ignore @JamesPage.