Need Help!!! Special effects and bond films
flysinpurplepie
Posts: 1MI6 Agent
Any help and information is greatly appreciated. I am making a script for a documentary for my Film and Lit class final. I am to write about The Effect of special effects on bond films over the years. Any thoughts and opinions are welcome!!!! Have advancements in technology and special effects taken away from the quality and story of these films or only enhanced them? Thank you!
Comments
Comparing a film such as "From Russia With Love" (1963), a film that has very little special effects, to for instance "Die Another Day" (2002), a film containing a lot of CGI, I much prefer "From Russia With Love." Stunts and effects are just simply more spectacular when you know they have been done for real.
In sum, I am not suggesting that special effects be eliminated from the Bond films. However, when a Bond film relies too heavily upon them, it definitely affects the quality. Just my humble opinion.
-Roger Moore
As a result of the horrid (in terms of both execution and overuse) CGI in DAD it seems we tend to slam computer graphics in general relative to Bondl. I think CGI can serve a purpose if applied assiduously. For example, there's actually quite alot of CGI in TND but used in place of model work/backgrounds (like the battleship dive) and to enhance to physical effects (like the helicopter chase); in these instances the CGI goes essentially unnoticed because it's well integrated and not a primary element.
On the other hand, is there danger of something being so well-integrated, so "invisible" as to become deceptive? For example, though I think a good many fans recognize it as an obvious set-up for a stunt, audiences also seem to find the crane chase in CR genuinely exciting. But if they were aware of just how much CGI that sequence involves (and it is extensive), would they still find it so thrilling? I think at the very least they'd be dissappointed to find that whereas we'd been lead to believe the stunts had been done "for real," a good measure of what's on screen is CGI.
I'm not clear what you mean here- they did it for real but were on safety harnesses; that's not a big issue, is it?
The CGI is far more extensive than simple harness removal; the cranes themselves are largely CGI and only a few feet high for shots actually involving Craig. Yes, there were real cranes scaled by real [harnessed] stuntmen; my point is that critics have praised Criag, et al, for the sequence when those bits where the actors are recognisable are heavy in CGI. I'm among those who would concur that Bond stunts should be CGI-free and the filmmakers have seemed to avoid any mention of CGI here.
Well, obviously! I didn't think that the close-ups were actually up high- I'm not sure that anyone would. That's just how they would have done it back in Sean Connery's day. But the big jump stunts are real- that's what we're talking abuot. And I'm not sure what you mean by CGI cranes; I don't think that's right. Where would they need CGI cranes?
I don't really know what you mean. The bits he did (like the run up the crane) are quite impressive. Yes, he was wearing a harness, but I'm not sure that anyone would actually want him in danger. It was all done for real by stuntmen, with closeups of the actors in a safe place... I'm not sure what more you want?