Prior to CGI, fakery was still used in films to various levels of success. Artist rendered matte paintings for backgrounds, various in-camera tricks, blending of shots, models, etc, ect. The early Bonds have some really tacky real projection work and other scenes which were obviously shot in-studio of exteriors day for night. When we watch those films today, it's all part of the charm. Ironically, some of the minor effects in those old Bonds were done on the cheap and look bad while the big stuff generally looked great. Good CGI has its place.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
edited January 2017
CGI is just another form of technology that can help the efforts of the filmmakers. Case in point is the comparison between The Empire Strikes Back and MR, which were made around the same time. George Lucas' Industrial, Light and Magic had the advantage of its optical printer technology that allowed them to combine multiple effect elements like miniatures, starfields, explosions and lasers that were otherwise practical or old school effects (like animation for laser blasts) with the use of computers, the percussor of CGI. Whereas for MR, poor EON lacked this technology and the critical difference was the necessity of sequentially capturing those same effects elements of miniatures, laser blasts, etc. on the same strip of film that would have been disastrous if something happened to the film midway of the sequence.
As I've pointed out in another, distantly recent thread, CGI is deemed as standard nowadays and is used in even what we'd consider as a mundane scene like the landscape behind a car going down the road, e.g., scenes that we wouldn't think they were used in. Modern cinematographers consider computer technology as a staple that they can longer do without, even at the absolute minimum of adjusting hue and color temperature to look more natural than nature itself. Nowadays, a film's visuals determines whether it was a nicely done movie or one that is of a straight to video quality.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
It's pretty amazing what can be done these days. Director Robert Rodriguez did most of the special effects for Spy Kids on his home computer. While vacationing in Santa Monica, CA a few years ago I was amazed to see that some of the smaller special effects houses were located on the second floor of small storefronts. Technology is always evolving. I'm not a big fan of 3D, but not long ago post production 3D conversions were a cheaper, but inferior alternative to 3D filmed with a special 3D camera/aka "Native 3D". Now with improved technology, post production 3D conversions look as good if not better than "Native 3D" and has become the preferred medium for most filmakers as it gives them more control over the finished product.
The press is making news out of nothing again (as they have been doing for over a year concerning this topic now..) Still though, it's nice to see Hardy actually making small comments on this ! Also naming Christopher Nolan for a potential Bond director. I would personally be up for a Hardy - Nolan combination! Shame Hardy is so well known and is already turning 40 this year...
The press is making news out of nothing again (as they have been doing for over a year concerning this topic now..) Still though, it's nice to see Hardy actually making small comments on this ! Also naming Christopher Nolan for a potential Bond director. I would personally be up for a Hardy - Nolan combination! Shame Hardy is so well known and is already turning 40 this year...
The press is making news out of nothing again (as they have been doing for over a year concerning this topic now..) Still though, it's nice to see Hardy actually making small comments on this ! Also naming Christopher Nolan for a potential Bond director. I would personally be up for a Hardy - Nolan combination! Shame Hardy is so well known and is already turning 40 this year...
The press is making news out of nothing again (as they have been doing for over a year concerning this topic now..) Still though, it's nice to see Hardy actually making small comments on this ! Also naming Christopher Nolan for a potential Bond director. I would personally be up for a Hardy - Nolan combination! Shame Hardy is so well known and is already turning 40 this year...
All three of them are very talented in their profession. You may dislike their style or think their style doesn't fit the Bond movies, but I don't think their skill can be denied.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
So is the 1967 Casino Royale for that matter.
Yes it is.
On the other hand, the 1954 TV show Casino Royale isn't really James Bond because "Jimmy Bond" is an American.
The press is making news out of nothing again (as they have been doing for over a year concerning this topic now..) Still though, it's nice to see Hardy actually making small comments on this ! Also naming Christopher Nolan for a potential Bond director. I would personally be up for a Hardy - Nolan combination! Shame Hardy is so well known and is already turning 40 this year...
Yes, much ado about nothing. But at least Hardy was respectful and didn't put his foot in his mouth or say something demeaning. It's more than can be said for some others who have been asked the Bond question.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
So is the 1967 Casino Royale for that matter.
Yes it is.
On the other hand, the 1954 TV show Casino Royale isn't really James Bond because "Jimmy Bond" is an American.
In that show, he **never** calls himself Jimmy Bond. Other characters do. But the one time he speaks his full name he says, "This is James Bond." Also, in the end titles it says, "Barry Nelson as James Bond."
Technically speaking, it's always official when somebody pays for the rights (no matter how little, not matter how much). Once they've paid for it, they can make changes concerning nationality, race, etc., of characters.
The same also applies to objects that play a key role in a story. When L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz, they were the silver slippers. When MGM acquired the film rights and made the movie, they became the ruby slippers. The change was made to take advantage of Technicolor.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
On the other hand, the 1954 TV show Casino Royale isn't really James Bond because "Jimmy Bond" is an American.
In that show, he **never** calls himself Jimmy Bond. Other characters do. But the one time he speaks his full name he says, "This is James Bond." Also, in the end titles it says, "Barry Nelson as James Bond."
Still American though, that's quite an important point. You failed to address that elephant standing blatantly by the bar.
.................................
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,541MI6 Agent
Because of the Sony hacks, we know some of the details. 1) There was a version where the villain was an African warlord who used Blofeld as an alias 2) There was a version with a woman Blofeld 3) There was a version where M was the traitor but Fiennes refused to do it 4) Tanner was a traitor, eventually commits suicide while Bond watches 5) Leiter was in one version, eventually meets up with Moneypenny and calls her a "foxy lady."
That's all BS apart from the female Blofeld being briefly considered, even then it was his daughter ) You shouldn't believe everything you read online )
That's just the usual Bond chitchat. Nothing more than the hypothetical chatter and discussion that goes on here at the AJB.T This person who claims "inside" info says that Barbara Brocolli's top choices to replace Craig were Jack O'Connell and Sam Riley. Jack O'Connell would be fine except he's barely 5'8" and IMO, Riley is just missing something.
Because of the Sony hacks, we know some of the details. 1) There was a version where the villain was an African warlord who used Blofeld as an alias 2) There was a version with a woman Blofeld 3) There was a version where M was the traitor but Fiennes refused to do it 4) Tanner was a traitor, eventually commits suicide while Bond watches 5) Leiter was in one version, eventually meets up with Moneypenny and calls her a "foxy lady."
That's all BS apart from the female Blofeld being briefly considered, even then it was his daughter ) You shouldn't believe everything you read online )
They come from emails from Eon, Sony, etc. WikiLeaks set up a searchable database so you could read the emails for yourself.
Comments
When done badly, it simply looks awful.
As I've pointed out in another, distantly recent thread, CGI is deemed as standard nowadays and is used in even what we'd consider as a mundane scene like the landscape behind a car going down the road, e.g., scenes that we wouldn't think they were used in. Modern cinematographers consider computer technology as a staple that they can longer do without, even at the absolute minimum of adjusting hue and color temperature to look more natural than nature itself. Nowadays, a film's visuals determines whether it was a nicely done movie or one that is of a straight to video quality.
http://screenrant.com/james-bond-25-tom-hardy-christopher-nolan/
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
I'm against this because it would not be a James Bond film with these guys, and Hans Zimmer would bring Bond music to a new low.
I agree. A Hardy-Nolan-Zimmer combination would make another Craig-Mendes-Newman effort look appealing!
A James Bond film is one with a protagonist who is a British spy named James Bond.
Roger Moore never come close to what I thought James Bond should be like, but his movies were still James Bond films.
Good point! Moore is not my cup of tea as Bond either, but as a Bond movie fan I still find some enjoyment in watching his entries in the series because they are indeed James Bond films.
So is the 1967 Casino Royale for that matter.
Yes it is.
On the other hand, the 1954 TV show Casino Royale isn't really James Bond because "Jimmy Bond" is an American.
Yes, much ado about nothing. But at least Hardy was respectful and didn't put his foot in his mouth or say something demeaning. It's more than can be said for some others who have been asked the Bond question.
Wait, now let's not get carried away!
In that show, he **never** calls himself Jimmy Bond. Other characters do. But the one time he speaks his full name he says, "This is James Bond." Also, in the end titles it says, "Barry Nelson as James Bond."
The same also applies to objects that play a key role in a story. When L. Frank Baum wrote The Wizard of Oz, they were the silver slippers. When MGM acquired the film rights and made the movie, they became the ruby slippers. The change was made to take advantage of Technicolor.
Still American though, that's quite an important point. You failed to address that elephant standing blatantly by the bar.
That's all BS apart from the female Blofeld being briefly considered, even then it was his daughter
Reddit User claims that Craig, MENDES, and Purvis and Wade are returning.
reliable source I presume?
They come from emails from Eon, Sony, etc. WikiLeaks set up a searchable database so you could read the emails for yourself.
http://thebondbulletin.com/bond-25-production-acquires-bell-helicopter-germany
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage