99 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

Does anyone else feel this shot kind of goes against the "serious reboot" thing? A friend pointed this out to me. It does seem to come across as something copied from a Bourne (or even Spider-man) film, albeit poorly with obvious digital work. It is very intrusive and show-offy technique wise, which I thought was something they wanted to avoid by rebooting the series? Reminds me of Halley Berry diving off the cliff (if not the tidal wave scene). I do not believe they would let something like this into CASINO ROYALE.

Opinions?

[00Twelve]

I'm dumbfounded as to how this shot looks in any way obvious (as a CG composite) or bad at all. It thrilled me to death, and I thought it took balls to attempt it. I don't see anything there that I find distracting. IMO, this is how CG should be used for action scenes. Didn't find it cartoonish in the slightest, nor did it remind me of one little crumb in DAD.

Just me, tim. I respectfully disagree.

[Bondian]

I assumed this shot was Craig and Brosnan arguing over who's round it was.

Have to say that I see something, but my old eyes ain't what they used to be.

Just think that neither actor really wanted to get roped into doing their own stunts in this scene.

[Captain Tightpants]

Does anyone else feel this shot kind of goes against the "serious reboot" thing? A friend pointed this out to me. It does seem to come across as something copied from a Bourne (or even Spider-man) film, albeit poorly with obvious digital work. It is very intrusive and show-offy technique wise, which I thought was something they wanted to avoid by rebooting the series? Reminds me of Halley Berry diving off the cliff (if not the tidal wave scene). I do not believe they would let something like this into CASINO ROYALE.

Opinions?

You're wrong: there's actually CGI in Casino Royale. If you've watched the documentaries on the making of the film, you'd know that the sequence where the police car is thrown over by the jet's backwash is CGI, and it's a very similar technique to that used in Quantum of Solace. The car was attached to a tow cable, which was then thrown through the air to meet the requirements of the scene. It was then digitally edited into the film for the seceion where the plane lands, and the cable was edited out. It's a very common CGI technique.

The difference in Quantum of Solace is that the camera angle make things a little noticeable. In actual fact, there's only really minimal CGI in it. Like the car-thorwing sequence, it was filmed in two halves: th actors fighting and then falling down onto a crashmat was filmed in Siena, and then the fall was filmed at Pinewood. If CGI was used, it was used for a handful of frames to bridge the two together and line the falling actors up digitally. Otherwise, they appear to jump around mid-fall, and then you'd be bitching about that.

But bitching about it isn't going to do anything other than give me a headache, which I really do not need. If EON are happy with it, you should be happy with it, so it's a case of put up or shut up.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 19 September 2008 - 05:26 AM.

[CamExam]

I'm dumbfounded as to how this shot looks in any way obvious (as a CG composite) or bad at all. It thrilled me to death, and I thought it took balls to attempt it. I don't see anything there that I find distracting. IMO, this is how CG should be used for action scenes. Didn't find it cartoonish in the slightest, nor did it remind me of one little crumb in DAD.

Just me, tim. I respectfully disagree.

To me, its pretty obvious thats its CGI. I mean the second I saw it I knew it was CGI

[SecretAgentFan]

Isn´t it wonderful that anybody these days can argue about filmmaking technique as if he were an expert on it?

The shot is totally fine. Only if you watch it close up on your computer screen again and again and again you might think that it could have been tinkered with.

But... c´mon, does one really believe that two actors wanted to fall down through this glass pane - and the camera operator attempted to jump right behind them and film everything?

This is the magic of movies. The shot could not have been done without CGI. It´s totally fine with me.

[Trident]

Isn´t it wonderful that anybody these days can argue about filmmaking technique as if he were an expert on it?

The shot is totally fine. Only if you watch it close up on your computer screen again and again and again you might think that it could have been tinkered with.

But... c´mon, does one really believe that two actors wanted to fall down through this glass pane - and the camera operator attempted to jump right behind them and film everything?

This is the magic of movies. The shot could not have been done without CGI. It´s totally fine with me.

I'll second that. It's obvious CGI because we all bloody well know that this kind of stunt is beyond what actors, stuntmen and camera can usually show. We've learned to mistrust what we see on screen, no matter, how convincing it may look. To me, the glass roof and the fall looks pretty convincing. I don't intend to watch the whole film in quarter-second intervals to maybe catch a split second where the CGI becomes obvious.

In this context, this CGI is not obvious to me. Only logic tells me it was the only way to achive this kind of effect.

[stamper]

These aren't stuntmen, they are the actors in this shot. It's not CGI, they tracked the same camera movement, once with the guys falling, and once with the glass crashing, and combined both of them. You wanna see bad SFX, watch any Connery Bond or Moore Bond, they are way beyond awful, including all those rear projections shots during the car chases or ski chases.

[SecretAgentFan]

These aren't stuntmen, they are the actors in this shot. It's not CGI, they tracked the same camera movement, once with the guys falling, and once with the glass crashing, and combined both of them. You wanna see bad SFX, watch any Connery Bond or Moore Bond, they are way beyond awful, including all those rear projections shots during the car chases or ski chases.

Have some mercy. In those days CGI was much too expensive.

[Captain Tightpants]

These aren't stuntmen, they are the actors in this shot. It's not CGI, they tracked the same camera movement, once with the guys falling, and once with the glass crashing, and combined both of them. You wanna see bad SFX, watch any Connery Bond or Moore Bond, they are way beyond awful, including all those rear projections shots during the car chases or ski chases.

Have some mercy. In those days CGI was much too expensive.

Oh yeah? How, in You Only Live Twice, did they manage to film all the little Nellie sequences so well, but for the bobsleigh chase in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, they made the decision of rapidly rotating a backdrop behind Blofeld to give the illusion of speed but was so obvious that the udience would have been vomiting?

[Gri007]

I'm dumbfounded as to how this shot looks in any way obvious (as a CG composite) or bad at all. It thrilled me to death, and I thought it took balls to attempt it. I don't see anything there that I find distracting. IMO, this is how CG should be used for action scenes. Didn't find it cartoonish in the slightest, nor did it remind me of one little crumb in DAD.

Just me, tim. I respectfully disagree.

I agree. I thought it looked awsome, and maybe it's what we'll get in future Bond films. It makes the action more real.

[NATO Sub]

I'm dumbfounded as to how this shot looks in any way obvious (as a CG composite) or bad at all. It thrilled me to death, and I thought it took balls to attempt it. I don't see anything there that I find distracting. IMO, this is how CG should be used for action scenes. Didn't find it cartoonish in the slightest, nor did it remind me of one little crumb in DAD.

Just me, tim. I respectfully disagree.

I agree. I thought it looked awsome, and maybe it's what we'll get in future Bond films. It makes the action more real.

+1

It looks great - the only way you know it's had any work done is that nagging thought in the back of your mind... "they wouldn't really let the actors do that and force a camerman to follow them would they"

[Renard]

***IMPORTANT MATTER***
Sorry guys, there is something I wanna clear up:
the so called term 'CGI' in this special roof tumble shot is definitely NO CGI (there is no frame/image which is computer generated).
CGI IS NOT the same like compositing of blue/green screen, it's a entirely generated/created computer creature/character/building/vehicle,...
So in this case it is just a compositing of blue/green screen (a real shot of Sienna roof tops, the actors and the real life model of the glass dome built and shot in Pinewood Studios). So relax it's just a common instrument used in almost every (bond) film out there WITHOUT CGI. So it's been done for real with one little detail: in front of a blue/green screen and mixed together the shots (compositing) afterwards. Is it really that worse guys?

Believe me it would look much more obvious if it would be a real CGI shot (ex. with CGI characters)! - Why should they cheat? They don't have to!

[dinovelvet]

Does anyone else feel this shot kind of goes against the "serious reboot" thing?

Eh? Its a stunt, with two men fighting, and it looks great. If you see Craig driving an invisible Aston Martin around an ice castle while being chased by a death ray from space, then its time to call the Bond police.

[Zorin Industries]

Film isn't real. Film making isn't real. I understand the concerns (and we are all haunted by that CGI iceflow) but a shot like this is less about CGI and more about the thrill of the chase. It's not a stunt that could be achieved in live action - though I imagine more components of it than not were done for real then fused together in a digital context.

I'm going to embrace the film and that scene for the context it comes in - a 2008 action film. Tricks and devices age, but right now I like the back projection of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and the modelwork of MOONRAKER or the editing tricks of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

[SecretAgentFan]

***IMPORTANT MATTER***
Sorry guys, there is something I wanna clear up:
the so called term 'CGI' in this special roof tumble shot is definitely NO CGI (there is no frame/image which is computer generated).
CGI IS NOT the same like compositing of blue/green screen, it's a entirely generated/created computer creature/character/building/vehicle,...
So in this case it is just a compositing of blue/green screen (a real shot of Sienna roof tops, the actors and the real life model of the glass dome built and shot in Pinewood Studios). So relax it's just a common instrument used in almost every (bond) film out there WITHOUT CGI. So it's been done for real with one little detail: in front of a blue/green screen and mixed together the shots (compositing) afterwards. Is it really that worse guys?

Believe me it would look much more obvious if it would be a real CGI shot (ex. with CGI characters)! - Why should they cheat? They don't have to!

Thanks for clearing that up!

[tim partridge]

***IMPORTANT MATTER***
Sorry guys, there is something I wanna clear up:
the so called term 'CGI' in this special roof tumble shot is definitely NO CGI (there is no frame/image which is computer generated).
CGI IS NOT the same like compositing of blue/green screen, it's a entirely generated/created computer creature/character/building/vehicle,...
So in this case it is just a compositing of blue/green screen (a real shot of Sienna roof tops, the actors and the real life model of the glass dome built and shot in Pinewood Studios). So relax it's just a common instrument used in almost every (bond) film out there WITHOUT CGI. So it's been done for real with one little detail: in front of a blue/green screen and mixed together the shots (compositing) afterwards. Is it really that worse guys?

Believe me it would look much more obvious if it would be a real CGI shot (ex. with CGI characters)! - Why should they cheat? They don't have to!

Have you seen how much space we get for subject headings?

FWIW, I would be suprised and frankly impressed if there are really no CG elements in that shot, principally concerning the rear end of the roof (for obvious reasons), the glass (for equally obvious reasons), those precision wood beams and even the actors end positions. Not to mention the 3D moving Sienna plate and integrating that with the lighting of the stage footage. It really jumped out at me on first viewing just how much the resolution of the image does not correspond with the low angle shot that follows. Did you work on this shot by any chance? If not, I'm sure the Cinefex article will shed some light on it with some official confirmation.

I'll second that. It's obvious CGI because we all bloody well know that this kind of stunt is beyond what actors, stuntmen and camera can usually show.

But isn't this what Eon were pushing to move away from with CASINO ROYALE though, after those CGI surf sequences, invisible cars and what not? Back to basics and Fleming ("the possible but not probable"), anyone? I Must admit, initially I thought Bond was having a squabble with Doc Ock in the shot I mentioned.

It's not just about technical merit; it's about the tone, too.

Edited by tim partridge, 19 September 2008 - 01:00 PM.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

But isn't this what Eon were pushing to move away from with CASINO ROYALE though, after those CGI surf sequences, invisible cars and what not? Back to basics and Fleming ("the possible but not probable"), anyone? I Must admit, initially I thought Bond was having a squabble with Doc Ock in the shot I mentioned.

It's not just about technical merit; it's about the tone, too.

You're saying two people falling through a roof isn't plausible? It is the shot being filmed in a traditional manner that isn't plausible. I don't think there's anything wrong with the scenario itself.

[honeyjes]

***IMPORTANT MATTER***
Sorry guys, there is something I wanna clear up:
the so called term 'CGI' in this special roof tumble shot is definitely NO CGI (there is no frame/image which is computer generated).
CGI IS NOT the same like compositing of blue/green screen, it's a entirely generated/created computer creature/character/building/vehicle,...
So in this case it is just a compositing of blue/green screen (a real shot of Sienna roof tops, the actors and the real life model of the glass dome built and shot in Pinewood Studios). So relax it's just a common instrument used in almost every (bond) film out there WITHOUT CGI. So it's been done for real with one little detail: in front of a blue/green screen and mixed together the shots (compositing) afterwards. Is it really that worse guys?

Believe me it would look much more obvious if it would be a real CGI shot (ex. with CGI characters)! - Why should they cheat? They don't have to!

Have you seen how much space we get for subject headings?

FWIW, I would be suprised and frankly impressed if there are really no CG elements in that shot, principally concerning the rear end of the roof (for obvious reasons), the glass (for equally obvious reasons), those precision wood beams and even the actors end positions. Not to mention the 3D moving Sienna plate and integrating that with the lighting of the stage footage. It really jumped out at me on first viewing just how much the resolution of the image does not correspond with the low angle shot that follows. Did you work on this shot by any chance? If not, I'm sure the Cinefex article will shed some light on it with some official confirmation.

I'll second that. It's obvious CGI because we all bloody well know that this kind of stunt is beyond what actors, stuntmen and camera can usually show.

But isn't this what Eon were pushing to move away from with CASINO ROYALE though, after those CGI surf sequences, invisible cars and what not? Back to basics and Fleming ("the possible but not probable"), anyone? I Must admit, initially I thought Bond was having a squabble with Doc Ock in the shot I mentioned.

It's not just about technical merit; it's about the tone, too.

Not sure what your getting at people do fall through roofs and glass, so this is not improbable, re-enacting and filming the sequence safely and realistically is the tricky part. I fail to see how any comparison can be made with the surf sequence & invisible car from DAD.

[BoogieBond]

I don't think the tumble goes against the reboot thing. And I think the scene is very well done. Its a very unique shot, and I for one think its great.

[tim partridge]

It's not the idea of two people falling through a glass ceiling, it's more about the impossible stunt movement and a camera following them, stopping on a dime at physically impossible angles like a self concious video game simulator/rollercoaster ride. Doesn't really strike me as in line with that "serious reboot" thing, and certainly not what CR promised.

[Shot Your Bolt]

It did look a bit fake the first time I saw it, but whatever. I like DAD, so what the **** do I care.

[Marketto007]

That shot, is one of the best (if not THE BEST), of the Trailer.

xxx

[Colonel Moon]

look at 1:56 in trailer its like 60s rear projection at worst

Captain Tightpants: "If EON are happy with it, you should be happy with it, so it's a case of put up or shut up. "

EON was happy with Dad, and You?

Edited by Colonel Moon, 19 September 2008 - 01:40 PM.

[avl]

I must admit I am a bit of a purist on this too; I thought the GE pre-title sequence was ruined by the dodgy "catching the plane from the bike" sequence for example.

Whatever they have done to this scene, it does seem a bit fake and takes you out of the action, momentarily. Hopefully will look less so on the big screen

[tim partridge]

I must admit I am a bit of a purist on this too; I thought the GE pre-title sequence was ruined by the dodgy "catching the plane from the bike" sequence for example.

Absolutely. I was going to mention this very shot earlier, actually. Particularly that horrid, obvious composite shot of Bond "flying" past the miniature plane's tail towards the doorway. Even if they had just cut from the live action descent straight to the interior shot of Bond grabbing his way in it would have at least looked convincing. That kind of motion control model work just looked off in a Bond movie, and obviously a special effect.

Edited by tim partridge, 19 September 2008 - 01:56 PM.

[Publius]

It's not the idea of two people falling through a glass ceiling, it's more about the impossible stunt movement and a camera following them,

What's so impossible about the movement?

And if your problem is the camera following them, why don't you have a problem with the rest of the movie's events, you know, being on film?

I'll tell you this. I've been in several car accidents and had close shaves with death, and there's a surreal quality to how it all looks. The way the camera follows those two as they fall reminds me of that.

[danslittlefinger]

Well blow me, I thought Dan and the other guy just jumped off a balcony and crashed through the glass roof.

You learn something new every day.

[tim partridge]

RE: PUBLIUS

They seem to make impossible split second movement, knowing exactly where to fall and what platforms to grab on to. However yes, I realise this is a Bond film, so that alone I can overlook (just) but it's this kind of heavily stylised, (even "surreal" as you call it) directorial approach that just doesn't seem in line with how the Bond films historically look or have been directed. With that physically impossible, flashy camera move that calls attention to itself. It most certainly doesn't communicate to me a gritty, non-fantastical, "back to basics" feeling of grit. Exactly the feeling I got watching DAD's many overly stylised action scenes, where the director became the star at the expense of Bond.

Bond films (not the bad ones) to me are about looking like they were physcially made in a no frills fashion for real, even when they are not, never drawing attention to the technique. Even MOONRAKER made every effort to look like it was shot by a film crew shooting for everything for real in space, even though it wasn't, as opposed to turning into the flashy spectacle of STAR WARS or STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE.

Edited by tim partridge, 19 September 2008 - 02:21 PM.

[avl]

For me its not the flashy camera move - I love flashy camera moves - but they don't quite pull it off seamlessly, at one point it seems just a fraction computer gamey to me. As I said, it just reminds me I'm watching a movie at a point that I want to fully suspend my disbelief!