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 used to be a street named after Chuck Norris, but it was changed because nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives!
The key phrase 'Skeete attained a level of fame that was out of proportion to his quite modest achievements as a showjumper. This was partly due to his status as a dreadlocked black competitor in the overwhelmingly white, comfortably middle-class world of British showjumping'.
He was a minor celeb for a brief time back then (I think he also embarrasses himself in an episode of Brasseye) and I've always kind of thought his appearance was Tamahori's (who is part Maori after all) two fingers to colonial Britain and the stuffy culture of gentlemens clubs.
Maybe that's why he decided to turn in a horrendous Bond film - as Bond himself is emblematic of colonial Britain.
I think the one in TWINE worked, with the 2 guys from the TV programme The Clampers - that was quite funny - although audiences who see the film in the future (and now even) won't get the joke. Come to it, I'm guessing that that joke would have been lost on US and international audiences outside of the UK at the time.
Ah, that was a funny moment, but as you mention, lost on audiences outside of the UK and anyone who hadn't seen the programme.
I must admit I had a genuine dislike of Skeete back then and to see him turn up in a Bond film (Along with his naff acting) really pee'd me off!
Are you not keen on Marvel or DC movies?
No.
You say that like it's an impossibility that people could possibly be bored with the tedious churning out of creatively moribund, CGI overloaded mediocrity?
It was just a simple question for Birdleson as I remember his liking of Superman.
Today we just get the kids together, run around a bit in front of a camera and then spend six months letting the technicians (many of whom I will admit are artists in their own right) add all the backgrounds, foregrounds & fight scenes. 8-|
Absolutely. It's very sad.
[Superman catching up to the rocket (1978)] "OMG that looks so REAL!"
[Superman taking off straight up breaking the ground beneath him (2013)] "That looked so COOL!"
CGI isn't even for making stuff look real anymore. It's for making stuff look beyond what real could look like. It's the crack cocaine of visual FX. It's acceptable for stuff here & there imo, but when every shot is filled with the stuff, part of your brain either switches to dim mode, or loves it to the point where a sunrise or reflections in a pool or water during rain in real life just become boring without the visual tweaking. Both suck.
Rant over. ;)
For me the cinematography of real locations in The Revenant was far more visually arresting than anything in The Avengers or Man of Steel.
Having said that, I recently watched the 4K blu ray copy of Total Recall (the remake). Although the film is useless compared to the charismatic Arnie original from 1990, the CGI is superb. Very realistic, especially the night scenes. From about 1:10 onwards in this clip below:
The perfect example of how it should be done is SPECTRE. Beautiful cinematography, good directing and CGI where necessary but never to an extent that it is obvious.
Meh. Just a poor mans CR parkour isn't it? (A scene which incidentally used CGI perfectly)
It's very impressive stuff to be sure, but the problem is that you'd need an astronomical budget to have guys tweaking all the visuals for potentially years to cover every visual problem I can detect here at first glance (please don't ask for a laundry list- I have work early tomorrow morning). This level works best in superhero movies where there is already a suspension of disbelief joined with an expectation of an art or anime style of visual motion.
It's very impressive stuff to be sure, but the problem is that you'd need an astronomical budget to have guys tweaking all the visuals for potentially years to cover every visual problem I can detect here at first glance (please don't ask for a laundry list- I have work early tomorrow morning). This level works best in superhero movies where there is already a suspension of disbelief joined with an expectation of an art or anime style of visual motion.
I agree here too, CR showed how CGI can be integrated perfectly to augment live action rather than to recreate.
I dunno where the CGI was in Spectre, and I don't know if it's because of the yellow filter, but the Spectre PTS helicopter fight looked fake to me, as bad as the latest Mission Impossible special effects. The building wall collapsing didn't look too convincing in the movie either
That was for real. The trick in that scene was Craig s face plastered on a stuntman. More impressive than the similar SF stunt, wasn t it?
It's not for real. They shot the explosion (briefcase detonation) for real, using a facade, but the building collapse is CGI.