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
It's never a good idea to look to far into the future my friend, you'll go cross-eyed. ;)
+1. I wouldn't watch it.
No. Nope, No way. Unh unh. Non. Nein. Nyet. I trust I made my point clearly enough.
Nei.
As long as there is an emotional connection to the character, nothing else reallymatters.
Not that they are mutually exclusive but I would rather have a full CGI movie with a great script rather than a "real world" movie with a poor script.
Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean you have to be in favour of it. I don't care whether its going to happen, I'm not watching it. That's the only part I am sure about. I watch cinema because it is a collaborative process. There are certain things out of your control, and you have to work around these limitations. That's literally the definition of being creative. When you can conjure something effortlessly and without risk on a computer the "magic of cinema" is gone.
PS another example, the original King Kong, basic special effects but the final scenes when he dies? heart wrenching IMHO.
PPS Is Rise of the Planet of the Apes a lesser emotional experience due to them not using a real chimp rather than CGI? We all know the chimp is CGI but our brains dont care. We quickly immerse ourselves in the story (as long as the characters and script are good), Ceasar for me was a wonderfully written character.
If we can ignore that fact that its not a real chimp, we can do the same for humans.
Of course. We can do that to books, which are just symbols on paper. It s all in your head.
A related discussion is going on in the dubbibg scene. If it would be possible to bring back lost voices through technology it's still not that actor's performance. I don't need that.
Yes, there is also a Chinese whispers effect, where the most iconic aspects of our favorite actors will become exaggerated over time. They will become caricatures.
But all of those are original CGI characters. It is harder for people to invest in CGI recreating real actors.
No, no, no, no, no etc. etc. etc.
Awful, awful idea.
If that's your first post...
Hopefully you'll improve from this though!
Now, Connery being agreeable, if it could be done to perfection, would I not watch a Bond film that features a CG'd, In his prime Connery Bond? I can't say I wouldn't.
Goldfinger Sean Connery is prime Sean Connery and to see that in the 60s would be pretty cool
How is that worse than real actors recreating cartoon characters?
Go to your room, there'll be no dessert for you tonight.
now this doesn't mean I want to see real , flesh and blood actors replaced by digital performers but for a one off or a side project, when the technology is ready, it's intriguing.
Rogue One having Peter Cushing was an interesting concept. But he's still CGI Peter Cushing. And as @Birdleson says above, he can never play a scene as an actor. He cannot play a scene, other than the way he is programmed to. There are no sublte nuances to his performance. It's too controlled, and ultimately just doesn't look real.
Interesting idea, but not one I hope to see gain popularity with film makers.