CGI In Bond Movies

Stawaz

What is your opinion on the topic? Personally, I'd rather CGI be used for background effects only (Like the lodge in Skyfall and the MI6 explosion) rather than create whole scenes with it (The parachute surf from Die Another Day or take a look at any of the Star Wars prequels). I had no problem with the CGI in Skyfall, as it was used sparingly and used as CGI should be - To touch things up and make things look a bit better. CGI, at the moment, doesn't look real. At least to me, it doesn't. It may look really really good (Eg. Life of Pi), but not real. Skyfall and Prometheus are the only two movies I've ever seen where I couldn't tell if they were using CGI or Models, and in both of those cases, it was a combination of the two, which, in my belief, looks the best. Thoughts?

hehadlotsofguts

I prefer old school stuntwork in the Bond films myself as it is realistic. CGI however simulates scenarios which would be too dangerous to involve stuntpersons or cast members minimalising the chance of serious injury which is an advantage of CGI. I on both sides of the fence on that one.

The CGI in DAD was really unrealistic looking, it was made in 2002. i thought visual effects were a little more advanced but to me it looked cheap and blatantly obvious the scenes using CGI were shot in a soundstage.

Number24

I prefer real stunts where CGI is used to touch things up. For example a real daring jump where the cables are removed with CGI. I tend to dislike movies where most of the action scenes are made paractically entirely with CGI. I remember Iron Man 2 being badin that respect, the sequel looked better.

Blackleiter

Stawaz wrote:

What is your opinion on the topic? Personally, I'd rather CGI be used for background effects only (Like the lodge in Skyfall and the MI6 explosion) rather than create whole scenes with it (The parachute surf from Die Another Day or take a look at any of the Star Wars prequels). I had no problem with the CGI in Skyfall, as it was used sparingly and used as CGI should be - To touch things up and make things look a bit better. CGI, at the moment, doesn't look real. At least to me, it doesn't. It may look really really good (Eg. Life of Pi), but not real. Skyfall and Prometheus are the only two movies I've ever seen where I couldn't tell if they were using CGI or Models, and in both of those cases, it was a combination of the two, which, in my belief, looks the best. Thoughts?

I am in general agreement with you about how and when CGI is used in Bond films. However, I'm not a fan of the CGI Komodo dragons in SF. They looked too fake to me, and actually took me out of the casino scene for a few moments.

Thunderbird 2

I remember reading an in depth interview Derek Meddings did back in the early nineties when Thunderbirds was back on BBC2. He was asked if he was worried CGI would replace miniatures, matte paintings and other special effects. He replied no, because the best technicians know you always use all of the different techniques to get the best result, as no one of the is good for everything. Never rely on any one alone.
I think the Star Wars prequels, Lord Of The Rings films and Bond have all proved his point.
SW is overloaded with CGI. Entire planets, cities cultures, that only exist in the computer. It overloads the synthetic feel, so even in a scene where actors are talking (The Jedi Council scenes, all the battles in Attack Of The Clones, Revenge) it ruins the illusion.
Lord Of The Rings is a bit different. A pure legendery fantasy it gets away with the CGI more, has fewer CG characters so those that are CG (Gollum for example) still seague and blend with the illusion. Andy Serkis's excellent motion capture helping a lot, and good editing means only in the big battle scenes does the digital stand out.
Bond is a very different animal. Esp in the Craig era, Bond lives in our world. I dis not realise there was any CGI at all in CR-06 till I liatened to the auidio commentary, it is so minimal, to the film's credit. I like DAD, but the parasailing scene does not work. - In part because of the CGI style, but also because we were given great REAL surfing at the start of the film. Oops! SF CGI error for me is the MI6 explosion. I was mentally comparing it to TWINE, with the use of a miniature. Perhaps Thunderbirds has spoilt me over the years!

CGI is a useful film effect tool, but like the others it has limits. I think the effects wizards on Bond have understood this for a while now and have shrewdly realised real stunts, real locations and real set pieces are what we want, with CG as and when in small doses. Something Lucasfilm is learning the hard way!

Thunderpussy

I agree CGI has its place, But then so do the older skills. Foreground miniatures
still work and still fool many people. )

ZorinIndustries

Hmm that's a tough question. I prefer the real stunts opposed to CGI. For example, the GE bungee jump was amazing because it was real. TSWLM jump, real. Falling out of a plane in QoS, just didn't have the same effect. The CGI can help a scene, but when it's excessive, it can potentially ruin the scene for me.

Barbel

Number24 wrote:

I prefer real stunts where CGI is used to touch things up. For example a real daring jump where the cables are removed with CGI.

My point of view entirely. +1

Thunderpussy

"Safety Cables", Todays Stuntmen are such Wimps. )

DelicatessenInSteel

Its when I'm watching an action scene where I can tell its cgi I'm out of the movie..just saw world war Z and the excessive silly cgi scenes pulled me out of it..when I see older Bond movies now, like say For Your eyes or OHMSS only they seem epic more violent and out of control..where me & the crew are yelling damn and whoa!!! excitedly because we know its for real. Plus some of the miniature work in Bond I had no idea til seeing the making of's. -{

hehadlotsofguts

Thunderpussy wrote:

"Safety Cables", Todays Stuntmen are such Wimps. )

Yes they are. Stuntmen in the old Bonds were solid

Number24

BTW, has any stuntmen lost their lives working on a Bond movie?

hehadlotsofguts

A stuntman was killed filming the motorbike chase in FYEO

MooseWithFleas

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

A stuntman was killed filming the motorbike chase in FYEO

Really? I don't remember hearing about it in the Inside Documentary.

Just looked and found that the man's name was Paolo Rigon and he died during the bobsled chase scene. Thought for the longest time that no person had died on set during Bond films. Poor guy was only 23

hehadlotsofguts

That's the one apparently he died when the sleigh he was in overturned

screename

I agree with most of you. I think the only excuse for CG in Bond films are when you don't know they're using it. The reason being the films take place in our world and we know what it looks like. I think the CG use in the prequel trilogy was completely justified as it didn't look cheesy and it looked like republic was prospering before the Empire when everything would be run down. The same goes for LOTR. We don't know what Middle Earth looks like, so why should it look like our world?

chrisisall

CGI is an easy & cheap alternative to real work. )

It's a useful tool, but like Meddings said, overuse ANY tool and it looks *meh*.
Bottom line: if it looks fake, it was badly used.

Mr_Osato

Bond films used to be groundbreaking with their stunts. Think of the Eiffeltower jump, The PTS of TSWLM, The GE PTS jump, The crocodile escape from LALD....Too many to name, all classics, all a once in a lifetime stunts that you cannot imagine anyone doing now.

I guess it is simply not affordable to do stunts that way, with insurance claims and all that. But the real stunts are soo much more 'romantic' than the stuff that comes out of a computer.

chrisisall

Mr_Osato wrote:

But the real stunts are soo much more 'romantic' than the stuff that comes out of a computer.

The good old days. :007)

CmdrAtticus

Was the MI6 attack in SF done with CGI? I thought it was done with a real minature only inserted digitally.

The Komodo's didn't bother me too much because the way the scene was lit and constructed was appealling for me personally. What bothered me was they made them as big as the largest crocs when in reality they are nowhere near that size. It would have been more real for me if they had them the correct size but just had more of them.

I also agree lots of CGI is fine in fantasy films where we expect it, but in the Bond films it should be only used to eliminate flaws in scenery or safety equipment or to enhance certain effects.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Was the MI6 attack in SF done with CGI? I thought it was done with a real minature only inserted digitally.

That was either bad CGI, or a REALLY badly photographed & clumsily inserted model shot.

Number24

I think MI: Ghost Protocol is a good example of good CGI/bad CGI. The scene where the Kremlin is blown up and Tom Cruice runs away looks fake because the explotion looks computer-made. The scenes on the outside of the skyscraper looks fantastic because the stunt was done for real with only a wire removed. CGI should support real stunts, not be the stunt.

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Was the MI6 attack in SF done with CGI? I thought it was done with a real minature only inserted digitally.

That was either bad CGI, or a REALLY badly photographed & clumsily inserted model shot.

Found this info at FX Guide website:

Exterior views of the MI6 blast featured a quarter scale model of the central office area which was constructed against greenscreen at Pinewood. Special effects and miniature effects supervisor Chris Corbould exploded the model, which was then composited by Peerless Camera Company (which also contributed the Golden Dragon Casino exterior approach and the Macau balcony love scene shots later in the film).

“A large number of elements – falling debris, exploding dust, rocks et cetera – were also shot at various speeds,” says Peerless visual effects supervisor Paul Docherty. “Finally, high speed flame elements were filmed on a closed stage, again at Pinewood. The main artist live action plates were shot on location early one Sunday morning at Vauxhall Bridge in London.”

I've watched this sequence a number of times and it doesn't look like a clumsy insert to me personally. I remember seeing in on the big screen the first time and even though I knew it was coming from all the previous trailer viewings I had seen, it was still realistic, startling and a bit shocking to me and the friends I was with.

Stawaz

CmdrAtticus wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Was the MI6 attack in SF done with CGI? I thought it was done with a real minature only inserted digitally.

That was either bad CGI, or a REALLY badly photographed & clumsily inserted model shot.

I've watched this sequence a number of times and it doesn't look like a clumsy insert to me personally. I remember seeing in on the big screen the first time and even though I knew it was coming from all the previous trailer viewings I had seen, it was still realistic, startling and a bit shocking to me and the friends I was with.

I agree, until I found out it was done with miniatures/CGI enhancement, I had no idea how they did it. It looked really good to me.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

it was still realistic, startling and a bit shocking to me and the friends I was with.

Wow, I just watched it again now so I could refresh my memory... sorry, it still looks kind of amateurish to me. They were clearly trying to walk a fine line between cinematic spectacle & disturbing realism & achieved neither successfully IMO. The flame brilliance & cloud detail doesn't match the distance diffusion of the building... the bits fly in near slow motion... they should have gone for one or the other.
But I'm in the modeling & FX field, so maybe I just see stuff most don't.

CmdrAtticus

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

it was still realistic, startling and a bit shocking to me and the friends I was with.

Wow, I just watched it again now so I could refresh my memory... sorry, it still looks kind of amateurish to me. They were clearly trying to walk a fine line between cinematic spectacle & disturbing realism & achieved neither successfully IMO. The flame brilliance & cloud detail doesn't match the distance diffusion of the building... the bits fly in near slow motion... they should have gone for one or the other.
But I'm in the modeling & FX field, so maybe I just see stuff most don't.

Didn't know that was your field and as such, I can understand seeing it with more focus and a technical criticism when viewed with your experience. For most of the audience looking at it without this expertise, it looked real enough.

Since you are experienced in this, what FX in the series do you believe were done the most convincingly from your technical standards and what are at the bottom?
.

chrisisall

CmdrAtticus wrote:

what FX in the series do you believe were done the most convincingly from your technical standards and what are at the bottom?
.

Some of the most obviously impressive stuff was in TSWLM & MR- the tankers, subs & shuttles. But what freaks me is Meddings work in GE; the trains were nearly flawless, so much so that it takes really careful scrutiny to spot the models at all.
Carver's stealth boat in TND was also incredibly well executed.
OTOH Goldfinger's jet was pretty lame, but 90% of the CGI in DAD was much worse. Jinx's dive was one of the more horrific moments for me.

Here's a thing to consider: take a really striking CGI FX shot from a movie, say the first ship we see landing on Pandora in Avatar, then compare that to the drop ship from Aliens. The thinking part of your brain might be very impressed with the former, but it's just not as exciting to see as the latter. Even very good CGI just 'seems' wrong if pushed in your face for long. Your brain can tell the difference, even when you aren't consciously aware of it.

Look at the helicopter going through the town in TND, now they could have just CGI'd everything in that scene, instead they went practical for all but the blades, and the result was most convincing because we weren't looking primarily at the blades, but at the damage they were causing. CGI can assist in a magic trick, it just shouldn't BE the magic trick.

Colonel Shatner

chrisisall wrote:

Jinx's dive was one of the more horrific moments for me.

It was a very bad green screen effect, with most of the similar green screen effects in GoldenEye (seven years earlier) being much more seamless (with only Bond diving after a crashing plane being a genuinely bad SFX sequence).

Most of Skyfall's CGI effects are not the best, but serviceable and didn't really take me out of the movie (I liked the CGI scorpion and most CGI effects seemed quite subtle, including the MI6 explosion).

CGI doesn't date very well, but I notice that CGI movie effects in the past half decade or so have begun to catch up with good model effects (which were very widely used in the LotR trilogy and even SW prequels only a decade ago).

Colonel Shatner

chrisisall wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Was the MI6 attack in SF done with CGI? I thought it was done with a real minature only inserted digitally.

That was either bad CGI, or a REALLY badly photographed & clumsily inserted model shot.

Here's the video of the M's office getting blown up and I must say the "ignition" of the explosion at 01:49 looks suspect, but looks more convincing as the explosion progresses. I'd say it looks like a real pyrotechnic explosion digitally inserted on the real MI6 building and looks alright (I can see the gulf of smoke casting a shadow).

chrisisall

Colonel Shatner wrote:

(I can see the gulf of smoke casting a shadow).

Yes, that's a nice touch and looks very good. The debris spread seems to have more directions than needed, and lack of weight to the bits themselves. I guess it's a good thing they didn't cut to a tight shot of it.

Thunderbird 2

I can't put my finger on it, but there is something just not right with it from my perspective. There is something just "unnatural" about it.