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
+1.
I'm not sure I agree with all of this, @suavejmf.
1) Woody Allen films are an acquired taste but the man still puts out interesting material IMO.
2) Concerning the lack of fresh ideas, that's entirely our fault. We say we want to cover new ground yet we often shy away from it and pick safe films in the theatre instead. Tons of brilliant filmmakers out there with great projects on a shelf never find any work because no one wants to fund them because we rarely dig up money to see their films. IT (2017), the sum total of nothing but been-there-done-thats makes 700 million against a 35 million budged because we're conditioned to pick the prophesied blockbuster rather than the underdog showing in mostly empty rooms for a few nights before ending up in Nowhere. We're also afraid that it won't be good as, indeed, it mostly isn't. But the occasional gem also eludes us that way and people with a great albeit unconventional idea don't even try to get it made anymore. If "alternative cinema" became the new hipster thing, cinema output might change. But throughout history, we have rarely shown the capacity to open our minds for new things. We're creatures of habit, and that's reflected in our film choices too.
3) Voice actors, yes, although there are a few, like John DiMaggio and Kevin Conroy, who do make a career out of voice acting. I agree that half the Pixar / Dreamworks / Disney animation films are filled with "branded" names, cool and hip actors and actresses you might otherwise not cast, although some of them do well. MOANA, for example, greatly benefited from Dwayne The Rock Johnson. In some cases, a famous actor can be the best voice for the part. So what if Luke Skywalker became the Joker; I have yet to hear anyone else do it quite like him. And sometimes "that voice" we all know so well simply is the one that fits the filmmaker's intentions. So while I'm with you that it shouldn't be mandatory to squeeze out the Hollywood orange during the voice casting sessions of an animated film, I'm not against a good voice when it really works, nor am I so ignorant as to assume that the name certainly isn't a marketing tool... ;-)
4) CGI... ah well. CGI has evolved tremendously since DAD. I will concede though that bad CGI is still worse than the oldest and most rudimentary practical effect in the book, but bad CGI has become, at least in my opinion, less common. ROGUE ONE did the thing with Cushing and Fisher that I know upsets a lot of people, but by the same token, the space battles are spotless, "real", sensational. The actual real thing still is better, of course, like Craig's great stunt work in CASINO ROYALE, e.g. when he actually is running up a crane and fighting on top of one; my audiences were holding their breaths. They did that in 2002 too but it was more like one of those "really? they expect us to like this?" kind of moments when Pierce was doing the ice surfing. Still, a little CGI can go a long way; even in animation, when done well (e.g. by Japanese animators) CGI can serve a purpose. Again, bad CGI: no. Good CGI... well, let's just say that over the years I have grown into it.
-Americans attempting an English accent.
My controversial opinion: Hamill is a far better voice actor than actor and truly strived as a voice acting.
Double-taking pigeons. It is just so overdone these days. ;)
And Woody Allen can rot in hell (truly).
So please, unless the main character isn't from Earth, or has been bitten by a radioactive spider, do understand the actual effects of impact trauma in future... ;)
When characters get coffee you can always tell there's no liquid in the carryout cups because as actors they have to emote, moving their hands all over the place when it would spill the coffee everywhere. Either that or they are down to their last sip.
@BT3366 re cups, it's not a little thing, it's a big thing. Its remarkable they do things and just insults us movie fans
That always bugs me, too. It's the same thing when a character is carrying something that is stacked, i.e. a tray with several items atop it. The tray will sway left and right while the objects atop it are obviously glued on and unmoving.
Never thought about these things before, really. With the coffee cups, it's such a common item to carry in film/tv, that I hardly ever look directly at it.
The dead not staying dead ("Let's kill this guy to make money! Then we bring him back cos money!")
The very reason why noticeably fake CGI in live-action cinema is such a massive peeve of mine.
The hero having a personal connection with the villain.
The hero having a traumatic past so the film sets up his vengeful journey with inconsolable rage.
Shaky Camera cinematography.
Hans Zimmer style incidental sounds and echoes they label as "soundtracks".
Remakes and more ardently the Reboots.
Miscast actors that "try to break their own image".
Piece meant for pure entertainment injecting political statements.
Political correctness (i.e. feminism).
Trying to be Oscar-worthy wannabes.
+1
That is so annoying, your waiting for the titles so you can settle into the film…and the f––krs aren't there! A trend started, I do believe with Coppola and Apocalypse Now, although I have to say that it doesn't really bother me on that particular film.
It has escalated in recent years.