No more grand stuntwork in Bond movies- the CGI Infiltration

chrisisall

Apart from some rousing fisticuffs, Bond movies (like all others) have replaced real life death-defying stuntwork for safer, cheaper (and IMO more cartoon-like) CGI.
Do you miss the days of old when a real man skied off a mountain top, or a real car did a jump or a two-wheeler, or even when a location was a real location and not a cut-N-paste pastiche with 'camera movement' reminiscent of a video game?
Superhero movies & Sci-Fi extravaganzas have always NEEDED the possibilities CGI can now give them to tell a fantastical tale, but Bond was traditionally a series rooted in (though not limited to) reality.
Brosnan's first three flirted heavily with CGI, but his last was fully laden with it. Now Craig's films seem fairly riddled with it.

Thoughts?

BunsenPPK

Yeah I like it when they have all those interesting facts about the locations they go to film at. Like the TMWTGG special features talking about them looking for Scaramanga's little island. It really was fascinating, now... it doesn't happen too often. I guess the CGI cuts the cost of travelling anywhere, which is somewhat understandable, but it just makes the film seem even more fake and trashy.
I miss the old movies when the actors saw being hurt on-set was part of the deal, and wouldn't have some silly hissy fit over it

James Suzuki

Stunts still happen....
Like in SF on the rooftop....
But I do miss the 'golden age' of Bond movies for which we're not in....

Firemass

Does the Die Another Day blu-ray still have the special feature about the making of the ice surfing sequence? I remember watching it on an older DVD release and felt embarrassed for the female CGI employees who were interviewed about how great the CGI looked.

chrisisall

BunsenPPK wrote:

I guess the CGI cuts the cost of travelling anywhere, which is somewhat understandable, but it just makes the film seem even more fake and trashy.

Now we will be forever seeing constructed images of places, not the places themselves. X-(

Thunderpussy

I can't see them stopping the real "In Camera " stunt work.
The Bonds are known for them, they may be helped a little
as in Skyfall ( Putting in Tunnels where none exist ) that
sort of thing.
Where I can see GCI working would be in helping to make
a villain's Lair, seem Bigger or more impressive.

Thunderbird 2

chrisisall wrote:

Superhero movies & Sci-Fi extravaganzas have always NEEDED the possibilities CGI can now give them to tell a fantastical tale, but Bond was traditionally a series rooted in (though not limited to) reality.

I have to partially disagree with this aspect. Yes the advent of CGI has expanded the options in Sci Fi and Superhero films, but there are many that succeeded without it, indeed look better compared to those with a modern CGI overload. Superman I and II, Close Encounters, The Original versions of the original Star Wars, Forbidden Planet, War Of the Worlds, Batman (1989) and countless others that succeeded without the Digital toolbox!

As to 007, as with all modern films, it is how it is used. CR-06 had very subtle CGI aspects to it for the most part, which worked. I still hold my breath when Mollaka and Bond do the crane jump! QoS's CGI was poor in places, and DAD had a complete CGI overload. - It is not something Bond has ever needed. Of course, the good old argument of the £ or the $ comes into this and I suppose it can be cheaper to do things digitally these days, and certainly safer as far as the physical risk is concerned. (Health and Safety prob cramps the style too!) However to me if I can see the CGI, it shortchanges the cinematic experience.
I am confident that the Bond films will keep the physical stunt aspect too. Its something the reputation of the Bond films is (partially) built upon. How much? That is the aspect that has a question mark over it.

Silhouette Man

This thread rather reminds me of this Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle stand-up (or sit-down) skit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdAnDZ0QbY

)

Mr Beech

My problem with it is that its almost always noticeable. Kudos to Ridley Scott who has avoided it through Alien, Blade Runner, all the way to Prometheus as much as he can.

We all know how obvious CGI vs. fully practical set effects look thanks to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCps1JT-OAU

chrisisall

Mr Beech wrote:

My problem with it is that its almost always noticeable.

Imagine a movie shot entirely with old-style glass matte paintings.
Over use of CGI is the problem, not the tool itself.