9 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Blofelds Cat and myself were just discussing in a chat program Star Wars Episode 1 and all the fancy graphics used in it.

And I have to confess, when it comes to the SFX Episode 1 is impressive. So much technology in there, it's a great human feat and a step in the right direction.

But I still prefer the technology of A New Hope (Ep 4). Why? Because of the realism. Because they used real models everything looks mostly real. You really feel like you can reach out and touch everything.

While this old fashioned stuff has it's disadvantages and all, some of it still seems more realistic. Especially when you deal with something like a space ship in Star Wars.

That said, the reason I love Bond so much (or it helps anyway) is the realism. Most everything seems like it is really done, or is possible at least.

Take a look at the CGI effects in TWINE. I must admit the saw blades weren't perfect, and nor were some of the helicopter models. But they still looked real!

And Renard's head was fantastic, the hologram version I mean

Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

[Red Grant]

I have to say that I prefer the realism over the CGI but let's face it - when a new kind of technology comes along it is going to be exploited to the full has unfortunately become so over-used now that I tire of all the CGI used in almost every film of commercial I see. I also think that most CGI stands out a mile. It should be used sparingly and integrated with live action and model work if possible. The trick is to always change the type of effect shot by shot. Take a look at Jurassic Park - where you find real models/CGI/miniatures etc all blended in one sequence. This idea goes back even further - take Mary Poppins (the scene where they have tea at a floating table) that still stands up 40 years later because it is not just one effect but many changes with each shot. We seem to have got away from Bond a bit here but I'm sure you know what I mean. I think the best use of CGI is when you don't know it is CGI like the altered skyline in TND etc.

[Jim]

Frankly, I don't mind the CGI too much. It's better than the ropey back projection of the Roger Moore days. The cable car fight in Moonraker and the fight on the Golden Gate bridge are really underwhelming, because the background looks like it's been shot through treacle. That detratc from the fact that in both instances, there really were chaps up there doing it for real, which in both cases is ridiculously dangerous.

[jnDoubleshot]

Ditto.

While listening to the second audio commentary track on the TWINE DVD, I couldn't believe my eyes when Vic Armstrong pointed out some of the CGI/model shots, such as some of the shots when Bond arrives in Baku and the scenes on the dock outside the Maiden's Tower. The effects in Bond films still looks absolutely real. Kudos to EON for keeping it that way.

[Mister Asterix]

I don't think its a matter of CGI vs. Realism. I think it's just a matter of good effects vs. bad effects. It doesn't matter if it's CGI or not. Jurassic Park and others have proven that CGI can be realism. And Bond is about realism. With a bad effect you lose the realism and the excitement. The Goldeneye teaser proves that. If the effects in the Goldeneye teaser would have been realistic, it would in my mind be in at least the top 3 teasers, instead it is just a disappointment.

I don't care how they do an effect, just make it so I don't know it's an effect (at least on the first viewing), and I'll be happy.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I can remember when morphing was used in a Michael Jackson video for the first time, and now it's used in shoe commercials! It's gotten boring because you know what it is. This is an example of CGI that is supposed to be noticed.

But, like what Red says, what impresses me is a CGI, or modelwork for that matter, that is not easily detectable. Especially when it's not supposed to be.

I commend the EON team for resisting the overuse of CGI.

The giant door that opened to let the chopper into the underground cavern in LTK only required the use of a model placed close to the camera. A CGI would have been noticed, I'm sure.

Same with the astro jet flying through the hanger in Octopussy. Admittedly, a bit of roto-scoping could have been used to erase that stupid stand, but the gap of the closing doors was shrunken by having a model of one door close to the camera so as the gap could look uncomfortably narrow for Bond to escape through. No CGI was needed here, either.

Bond does not need CGI very often as it is played out in the real world, not in a galaxy far far away.

[DJ]

My personal favourite effect that really looked real, to me anyway, was in TWINE with the car sequence. I couldn't understand how they got a model car to swing round corners like it did and shoot missiles. I also thought that the hole in the front and back windscreen was brilliant.

Finally, to Mr. Asterix, do I have to die now?

[James Page]

I watched the classic (and one of my all time favs) "North By NorthWest" the other day, and even though the movie predates Dr. No by 3 years (1959), amusingly, most of the back-projection was a hell of a lot better than any of the Bonds!

I guess it's not the mony or the technology, it's just that you can't get the staff these days!

[Mister Asterix]

DJ (09 Dec, 2001 11:24 p.m.):(edited)
Finally, to Mr. Asterix, do I have to die now?

Yes, You must die now. Or you can have cake.

[LeiterCIA]

Mister Asterix (09 Dec, 2001 03:32 p.m.):
Goldeneye[/b][/color][/url] teaser proves that. If the effects in the Goldeneye teaser would have been realistic, it would in my mind be in at least the top 3 teasers, instead it is just a disappointment.

Thats the one I was going to say also. As I watched that movie, that was the moment when the spell was broken. And worse, I was thinking to myself "uh oh, are they gonna be using cheesy CGI from now on?"