99 replies to this topic

[Trident]

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.

No, don't think so. There is a difference here. Difficult to nail down. Let me try this way:

Had you, me, we all seen that very shot about 1977, I think there can be no dout that we all would have thought 'Bloody hell!!! What a daring stunt! Must have taken them years to shoot it!'; we'd just have assumed they had done everything we see for real. Highly improbable, but not entirely beyond physical reality. We wouldn't have known how in hell they did it, but we wouldn't have doubted it.

Now for the Goldeneye scene (or the DAD scenes). Seeing that, even back in 1977, no even back in 1877, we'd immediately have smelled a rat. Apart from bending the laws of physics and probablity, they were not only bended, you could even watch them doing it.

So what is it that makes us think 'CGI' or 'Bluebox'? In my book, it's the knowledge that you can create this kind of effects, these pictures with a hyper-real perfection to them. Without this knowledge? Well, I for one would probably wonder how in hell they've timed this shot, how daring the involved personnel would have had to be to even try it and how often they had to do it, to get their work done.

[Judo chop]

I love the scene. Falling through the glass is cool, but could have been just a 'meh' typical action sequence. What kicks it up a notch is that the camera follows Bond onto the scaffold and we see him scramble and grab onto the edge of the scaffold as he flips over the edge.

That's a great touch. It ups the ante. It’s a heartattack moment. I love it.

[col_007]

so am not the only one who's not bothered about it being CGI I think it looks OK I can't believe some people are still saying bond is copying Bourne bond was around way before Bourne am sure I read somewhere about apparently Bourne creating a new spy genre and what new spy genre would that be

Edited by col_007, 19 September 2008 - 02:46 PM.

[Judo chop]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

[danslittlefinger]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

me, he isn't??? Well that just about does it...

I'm writing a letter to EoN, I really am...

Edited by danslittlefinger, 19 September 2008 - 02:50 PM.

[tim partridge]

Yeah, and Dan Bradley and co were all doing Bond way before Bourne too... No bandwagon there.

I can't say I agree, Trident. Nevertheless, I do love the idea of an 1877 audience watching DAD!

[Trident]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

But you certainly won't suggest here that....



NOOOOOOO!!!


Does that mean, Craig hasn't had his balls polished by Mikkelsen?

And he didn't really kill all those people in 'Casino Royale'?

They are still alive?





I feel betrayed...

Yeah, and Dan Bradley and co were all doing Bond way before Bourne too... No bandwagon there.

I can't say I agree, Trident. Nevertheless, I do love the idea of an 1877 audience watching DAD!

LOL!

Hey, that's ok. This isn't about agreement, but about discussing. Just my fairly common two cents.

[danslittlefinger]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

But you certainly won't suggest here that....



NOOOOOOO!!!


Does that mean, Craig hasn't had his balls polished by Mikkelsen?

And he didn't really kill all those people in 'Casino Royale'?

They are still alive?





I feel betrayed...

No I think the bollock hitting was real as Dan has his arm in a sling now..(protecting the tackle aftershock)..




No..?? Too soon...?

Edited by danslittlefinger, 19 September 2008 - 03:02 PM.

[Colonel Moon]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

so what but scene where they shooting at dc3 looks like made in 50s or 60s, they can do much better job than this

[Trident]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

But you certainly won't suggest here that....



NOOOOOOO!!!


Does that mean, Craig hasn't had his balls polished by Mikkelsen?

And he didn't really kill all those people in 'Casino Royale'?

They are still alive?





I feel betrayed...

No I think the bollock hitting was real as Dan has his arm in a sling now..(protecting the tackle aftershock)..

Ok. Well, that's the very least one can ask of an actor to make a bit of an effort and show a decent dedication and commitment with his role.


Now, if he kills off the rest of the CR-baddie-cast, perhaps I'll refrain from writing a letter of complaint to EON and to the Times.

[Judo chop]

I have bad news. I just learned that Dan Craig isn't really flying the plane either.

so what but scene where they shooting at dc3 looks like made in 50s or 60s, they can do much better job than this

Of course I was being facetious and that hopefully in a lighthearted way. I wasn’t being serious.

But what I am being serious about, is that I do not see CGI or effects ‘flaws’. I think it looks good. All of it. Not unreal, but real. Certainly not 50’s or 60’s or 70’s or 80’s or 90’s. It looks like good solid 2000’s visual effects.

[crheath]

The first time I saw it, I thought definitely CGI. Looking at it again, I didn't notice it. I think the reason it's so obviously CGI is because it's such a spectaculer shot that couldn't have been done with real stuntment. You couldn't have the camera follow them down like that.

I think in the theatre it will look a lot better also.

[Publius]

They seem to make impossible split second movement, knowing exactly where to fall and what platforms to grab on to.

I don't see that. Yes, they grab for platforms, but if a military-trained top British secret agent can't do something as simple as grab a (rather large) platform he fell on. I have no idea if I can make a similar case for that other guy, though. Then again, there is adrenaline.

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.

Well, the old Bond films did have embarrassing back-projection and "why did you even bother?" graphics (YOLT, DAF). And instead of camera moves calling attention to themselves, they had Little Nellies and lined up alligators and submarine cars doing the same.

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.

I think you're overstating how "gritty" and down-to-earth CR was meant to be. It was certainly meant to be more gritty and down-to-earth than any other Bond film, and I think it largely succeeds at that, but it wasn't mean to be Bourne-style in scope and spectacle. Hell, even Bourne wasn't by the end of Supremacy or throughout Ultimatum.

And I honestly can't see how you don't appreciate the difference between this, or any of CR's similar sequences, and DAD's over-the-top... well, cartoons. The car fight featured a lot of dramatic zooming and slow-mo camera work and they were racing on some very convenient terrain. Jinx's backwards dive was so blurry it looked like she didn't even jump a foot and the whole thing was done on computer. I think I don't have to get into the ice wave.

I mean, I get your gripe if you do wish Bond was even more realistic, and I'd probably enjoy that too, but right now I'm enjoying the balance between extremes CR has struck and QoS looks likely to continue.

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.

I think Moonraker is among the biggest offenders in the Bond franchise in this regard, rivaling even DAD. That space stuff just looked laughably fake. Heck, between that lame laser fight and a comedic/romantic Jaws, you have most of the reason I don't like this movie more than I do.

[kyleargyle]

I'm really quite shocked at the controversy this shot has generated. I thought it was breathtaking - a well done stunt that I had never seen before. Yes, there are elements of over-the-topness and FX to it, sure, but in this case the FX are used to enhance the scene, and that's fine. As someone before stated, as soon as we start seeing (or not seeing, as it were) invisible and Bond para-sailing off a melting iceberg, we should count ourselves lucky.

[Judo chop]

I'm really quite shocked at the controversy this shot has generated.

Look again.... there's no controversy. Tim P expressed a concern, and I don't believe anybody else has shared that concern with him. The rest of us are all here because we're concerned about him.

[Vauxhall]

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

The conversation between Bond and Mathis? That's a real shot, I believe!

[zencat]

It's a great shot. I love it.

[thecasinoroyale]

At first it took me by surprise...a real shock to see a smooth action shot like that!

But now it's amazing! The transition between the actor and the CG help is seamless, if you go frama by frame, just watch Bond and it just flows as if he really DID fall through there! It's amazing, not tacky at all and a breathtaking moment.

Almost like the Aston flip in the CR trailer, this is the money shot of our QOS trailer. Great fight, great tension as they fall and it sounds a pretty nasty impact!

Can't WAIT for the whole sequence to flow...and at least they used the CG in enhance a dangerous fall, not a fight move or simple stunt like they cheat in some modern movies.

[mccartney007]

I stopped reading this thread after about the third post, because I think the shot is excellent and no one is going to make me think otherwise.

[stamper]

I'll say it again, the actors are real. There's no CGI, what I see is motion controled camera blending two actions, the two guys falling on a green screen, and the actual window breaking plate. No CGI, it's all old school.

[SPOTTER]

I don't know what people are fussing about. I think it looks great. I've tried to notice any dodgy effects but I can't find anything wrong with it.

[deth]

my goodness... when there's nothing to complain about then by golly let's create something to complain about!

[Royal Dalton]

I'll say it again, the actors are real. There's no CGI, what I see is motion controled camera blending two actions, the two guys falling on a green screen, and the actual window breaking plate. No CGI, it's all old school.

The actors are real, until Bond and Mitchell go over the ledge and they turn into computer-generated synthespians.

I'll give this shot the benefit of the doubt for the time being, as I don't think the shot in the trailer had been fully rendered. But I'm not really in favour of them going too far down this path. It goes against the Bond ethic of doing stunts for real.

[Judo chop]

I'll say it again, the actors are real. There's no CGI, what I see is motion controled camera blending two actions, the two guys falling on a green screen, and the actual window breaking plate. No CGI, it's all old school.

The actors are real, until Bond and Mitchell go over the ledge and they turn into computer-generated synthespians.

I'll give this shot the benefit of the doubt for the time being, as I don't think the shot in the trailer had been fully rendered. But I'm not really in favour of them going too far down this path. It goes against the Bond ethic of doing stunts for real.

I'm all about the ethic of the real stunt, but at what point are you saying they turn CG? After the camera angle cuts from a bird's eye to a worm's eye view?

Why would they do that? They've got the cut to help them out and the danger looks to be much less severe at that point. Plus we've got less than a frame or two of that shot. I'm looking at a crappy resolution, but I can't see what you're talking about. Are you certain it's CG?

[smartz]

I've posted elsewhere on this forum that i love this shot despite despising CGI when used in the gratuitous sense.

This really is a fantastic shot and i personally felt like it pushed boundaries in terms of the camera positioning and ability to closely follow the actors. I wondered if this was the shot that required the wind tunnel facility that we heard about recently???

The pickup shot is equally well co-ordinated and seems to be executed with what i would consider Bond polish. I discussed this with my dad and he said that when in DAF the diamond encrusted satellite opened the whole cinema gasped in amazement and that this looks as mind blowing. Now i tihnk we all know looking back that the shot from DAF seems seriously dated but that doesn't mean QOS will age in such a way. Anyway what's wrong with living in the here and now??? The sames goes for the theme song. I like it!

By the way they are not synthespians, this is definitely a rotoscoped style shot with real actors!

Edited by smartz, 19 September 2008 - 09:09 PM.

[RedKelly]

Call me crazy but it thrilled me to death. Can't wait to see the whole sequence.

[Mr. Blofeld]

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

The conversation between Bond and Mathis? That's a real shot, I believe!

No, he means the bit where stuntmen shoot blanks at footage of a plane from their own open door...

[MajorB]

The first time I saw it, I thought definitely CGI. Looking at it again, I didn't notice it. I think the reason it's so obviously CGI is because it's such a spectaculer shot that couldn't have been done with real stuntment. You couldn't have the camera follow them down like that.

I think in the theatre it will look a lot better also.

That's it in a nutshell. We know the shot can't be exactly what it looks like because it would be impossible to film. Therefore there must be some kind of trickery involved. Since so much is CGI these days, the first thought is that it must be wholly or at least substantially digital. People aren't reacting to "bad CGI" but to the fact that it's an impossible shot.

Assuming that it is, in fact, a quick blend between two totally live shots--and while I haven't studied it in detail, I'm fully willing to accept the explanations of those who have--then it's ironic that people are assuming it's "more fake" than it really is.

Personally, I wouldn't care that much if more of the shot had been CGI, as long as it looks convincing. I think the bigger concern is whether, in the context of the whole movie, the shot calls attention to itself so much that it distracts from the excitement of the scene overall. That would be a problem. But from what we've seen, it looks like there will be a number of striking action shots (such as the morotcycle jump) in this film, thanks in part to that new camera crane (or whatever it is) they're using. So this shot may fit in just fine.

[trevanian]

I don't think the characters ever go CG in the falling shot, though some other elements don't look physical/practical. I think the thing that shouts FAKE (besides the impossibility of capturing such a fall, it is 'weird' like the ejector seat shot in DIEHARD2 when Bruce flies right up almost into camera as the plane blows up beneath him) is that they have the shutter adjusted so there isn't enough blur ... the faces read way too clean for such a rough&tumble move, in a kind of PVT RYAN way.

And no, this fall isn't what the wind tunnel was for, that is a whole other sequence, one that DOES employ what has been described as 'virtual cinematography' and involved the Dalsa 4K cameras.

Edited by trevanian, 19 September 2008 - 11:17 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

I'll say it again, the actors are real. There's no CGI, what I see is motion controled camera blending two actions, the two guys falling on a green screen, and the actual window breaking plate. No CGI, it's all old school.

The actors are real, until Bond and Mitchell go over the ledge and they turn into computer-generated synthespians.

I'll give this shot the benefit of the doubt for the time being, as I don't think the shot in the trailer had been fully rendered. But I'm not really in favour of them going too far down this path. It goes against the Bond ethic of doing stunts for real.

I'm all about the ethic of the real stunt, but at what point are you saying they turn CG? After the camera angle cuts from a bird's eye to a worm's eye view?

Why would they do that? They've got the cut to help them out and the danger looks to be much less severe at that point. Plus we've got less than a frame or two of that shot. I'm looking at a crappy resolution, but I can't see what you're talking about. Are you certain it's CG?

There isn't a cut. It's done as a single shot.

This is how I see it.

Real Bond.

http://img180.images...28110601ua5.jpg

CGI Bond.

http://img72.imagesh...28110602sa3.jpg

Notice that Mitchell's tie is static in these frames.

http://img216.images...28110603wp9.jpg
http://img216.images...28110604nr4.jpg
http://img72.imagesh...28110605gq5.jpg

And the rest.

http://img72.imagesh...28110606qi8.jpg
http://img254.images...28110607mn5.jpg
http://img206.images...28110608hq8.jpg
http://img254.images...28110609ef7.jpg
http://img72.imagesh...28110610vw6.jpg
http://img187.images...28110611hu1.jpg
http://img217.images...28110612td1.jpg
http://img72.imagesh...28110613vk5.jpg
http://img211.images...28110614iz3.jpg
http://img211.images...28110615no0.jpg
http://img89.imagesh...28110616rv6.jpg
http://img232.images...28110617cz6.jpg

Back to Real Bond again.

http://img232.images...28110618mo0.jpg