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
I don't think the MI6 explosion is bad at all really, I was just disputing where you said "It was one of those moments that created an unexpected shock." I assume you had avoided all the trailers then; but even so, it could have been lingered on a bit more, with a couple of different angles or something to give it a greater sense of realism, rather than just one shot cut to a few times.
http://www.awn.com/articles/visual-effects/bond-gets-cg-komodo-dragon-skyfall :-B
There's a kneejerk reaction even IN the industry to get everything done with one-stop shopping, but as SF/CR vfx supe Steve Begg often notes, it is the right tool for the right job that is the way to go.
Somebody mentioned fogging things up to cover the model mansion deficiencies. Not likely - the copter and mansion were built in 1/3 scale, which, coupled with state-of-the-art techniques for construction and detail and stressing of materials, conveys a ton of realism and you usually don't need to do much sweetening after the fact, except maybe to extract wires or in the case of water, scale-blowing droplets.
It's truly a shame that the Bond people and Nolan and Scorsese seem to be the only people remembering that you can get GREAT looking stuff by doing effects principally physically in miniature whereas otherwise you will get ordinary looking stuff (meaning, crappy to pretty good) doing it ALL in CG.
There's some stuff toward the end of this piece with Begg:
http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/features/secret-agent-man.html
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/skyfall/
CGI is too easy though and creates a lot of lazyness in films. Even though the shark in Jaws looks pretty poor, I still find it more effective than a CGI creation as I know the victims are at least being chased by something and not a sock on a stick.
I thought the rest of the CGI was fine.
What did you think made the helicopters look fake? My first screening was in Imax and I never even thought about them; it was only afterwards that I heard people complain that they looked fake. Then when I saw it a second time - not in Imax - I was looking at them more carefully and still thought they looked fine. What am I missing?
Actually, the helicopter that Silva arrives at Skyfall was also not real. Whereas the ones above his island were CG, the helicopter at skyfall was actually a minature. This is because the location of Skyfall lodge was actually in Surrey not Scotland, and was not by a lake, so they created the lake digitally and composited the minature helicopter on top. Otherwise they would have had to film an actual helicopter and then rotoscope (trace around the edges in every frame) and place the lake underneath and that is alot more work.
There was a short up close shot showing them from above, it only lasted a few seconds but I thought they looked fake and it just sort of bugged me, especially after the finale.
I feel the same way about the PTS. People keep going on about the CGI during the bike chase but I never noticed any at all.
Firstly when Bond is shot by Eve and he falls, the first two seconds you see him falling are the actual Daniel Craig. When it gets far enough that you won't notice, it's actually switched to a CGI version of Craig. This is the one we see when he goes over the edge of the waterfall.
When Bond chases Patrice up the building in Shanghai, the real Craig is there until he grabs the bottom of the elevator. It's then switch to digital double.
They tend to use this for distance shots because as advanced as CGI is nowadays, they can't quite move the same as humans and tend to look a bit rubbery... you'll notice this with the Spiderman films and Matrix Reloaded (such as the Burly Brawl sequence etc)
The bike chase had some close up shots pasted onto another body and that didn't look great. The debris seen when the train got 'chomped' by the tractor was also CGI.
I think you're confusing CGI with grading.
As for this chat about 'realistic' CGI - there are more than a few people getting a bit carried away again. 'Realistic' CGI as you're calling it has been around for ages. It was used in all the Brosnan movies. As much as some people would like to believe, Skyfall didn't herald a new era of everything. Personally I thought some of the visual effects shot were quite poor. Not enough to put me off, but enough to make me wish they'd do more physical work. I didn't find the compositing and grading at SF lodge particularly great. It looked slightly LOTR or DAD PTS.
The less CGI reptiles or mammals the better IMO. I want to see a Bengal being told to 'Sit!' by Daniel.
Personal preference, but I'd rather see CGI Komodo dragons rather than a rubber snake.
I don't think you need to worry about the use of rubber reptiles in 2012. As for CGI Komodo dragons, I'd rather homages to old Bond films were more subtle, preferably non-existent and didn't have to rely on CGI. They should leave that kind of stuff to Star Trek/Wars, LOTR etc.
Me too. It's one of those things you deal with but afterwards I think, don't bother next time. Wholesale CGI creatures are not something I want to see in a Bond film. Neither are CGI Helicopters. Even the models in the TWINE PTS look better. I know some people can't see it but for those of us who can it is jarring.
I found it strange that lots of users on here who hate the Moore era were praising the Macau fight, because I thought it felt straight out of a Moore film. Which isn't a bad thing, I love most of Rogers Bond movies, but I thought it was a bit out of place in SF.
I thought it was alright, the one liners were pretty good, but I didn't think it suited the rest of the film or Craigs Bond. There was no danger to it (especially since the dragons looked fake) and the whole sequence was just played for laughs.
It's something I would've enjoyed more in a Moore film but in SF, I thought it felt a bit out of place.
Totally agree with you mate. I love Rog and you're right, it was very Moore era. I also agree that there was absolutely zero jeopardy given that they were CGI. Completely at odds with the very dramatic moment between Bond and Severine.
I think the tube jump was a nice nod to the Moore films and since it lasted a second or two, it didn't feel too jarring. I think since the Macau fight was longer and had the Severine scene before it, it felt much more out of place.
SF actually disappointed me fight wise. One thing I'd loved about Craigs films up until now is that the fights were always really brutal. SF had some fights in cool locations (train, skyscraper, etc), but none of them felt as brutal and dangerous as CR or even QOS.
I think CR and QOS had some of the best fight scenes in the series so SF did leave me feeling let down there. I felt like they'd taken away the brutality of Craigs Bond, and that was what made him stand out with the other Bonds imo.
Connery was the iconic all rounder, Lazenby was sort of the everyman Bond, Moore was the comedy Bond, Dalton the dark Bond, Brosnan the cool and flashy action hero Bond, and Craig was the brutal, hardman Bond. But they sort of ditched that in SF, which I thought was a shame.
For Bond 24, I'd like more violent fights. Like the stair fight in CR. More of that please.