99 replies to this topic

[trevanian]

you may have a point. The faces read fairly sharp, but the arm doesn't, so that isn't a shutter thing like I thought. Plus there is that unpleasant painterly look that I associate with MATRIX 2.

[Judo chop]

RE: Royal Dalton's list of images.

Yes, I see the falseness. Yes, trevanian, reminiscent of the brawl sequence in RELOADED.

Might that be CG enhanced images of real people? Not sure why it would be. Maybe to make stuntmen look like the actors?



But then I'm not sure why they'd switch to 100% CGI after the fall either. It seems like more effort to try to make a seamless connection to the real actor than to just film an actor falling.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Perhaps it's the resolution of the images that's throwing us off; they might not all be up to sniff...

[Publius]

It goes against the Bond ethic of doing stunts for real.

But they are doing it for real, or as real as you can expect them to do in a major mainstream movie that has to comply with insurance requirements and, well, good sense. Sure, I'd love it if they really dropped Craig and that other guy onto a glass ceiling, but can you really expect them to go much further than they did?

This is how I see it.

Luckily, this is one of those moving pictures I've been hearing about.

But seriously, I guess my vision just isn't good enough, or maybe I don't have the trained eye you do, but I don't even see it in those stills. Hopefully it won't bother you when you see it in the theater. Maybe it's the prominence they've been giving it as a "money shot" that makes you notice what might otherwise fly right past you in the thick of the action?

[Hockey Mask]

It happens pretty quickly but...

It seems easy to tell it is CGI and it is a bit jarring just because it isn't a typical angle I have seen a hundred times. But, as far as the actual CGI goes, it seems to be done well. I need to see it in the flow of the movie to really see how it comes together. Something else to consider is CGI sometimes plays better on a small screen than the big screen and sometimes what plays on the big screen really shows it's flaws on TV.

[Binyamin]

Agree that they should do stunts for real whenever possible.

But this one is fine. I'll bet 99% of people watching the trailer didn't think twice about it, until they saw a thread saying "it's CGI! It's CGI!!!"

And keep in mind that most moviegoers nowdays expect (good) CGI anyway. It's an accepted tool. For example, I thought the Aston roll or the police car lift in Casino Royale were both CGI shots, until I read / saw that they were done for real. And that didn't take away from the experience at all.

There are better things to be worried about.

Edited by Binyamin, 20 September 2008 - 02:39 AM.

[Judo chop]

There are better things to be worried about.

It's only a worry if Bond starts to favor these types of solutions to actual stunts. I don't mind it at all. I'm not even sure it's 100% CGI even.

But Bond was built on the stunt and he really cannot afford to lose it. If he begins to, it's a big, BIG worry.

(Again, not saying that that is happening. The shot is fine.)

[JimmyBond]

It's one stunt in the film. Based on the trailer they did several of the other stunts for real, and that looks awesome.

[Binyamin]

It's one stunt in the film. Based on the trailer they did several of the other stunts for real, and that looks awesome.

Yes. If if there's one actor to keep real stunts at the forefront, it's Craig.

[Cody]

Hasn't there been BTS footage of them being filmed falling together?

They still look real to me for the whole fall.

Effects debates and we haven't even seen any of

Spoiler

the freefall sequence

yet. That's the one I've been expecting to stir things up.

[Jackanaples]

You know, CGI in movies is not the problem. It's when the filmmakers treat it as the only tool in the toolbox that it becomes a drag.

CGI surfing in DAD is lame, because it's shockingly obvious that it:

A. Isn't real (in terms of it being a real human being surfing --something totally doable with a bit of effort); and

B. It isn't Brosnan.

The fight/fall through the glass tracking shot is fine because it uses a number of elements and techniques (CGI being one of them) to get a dynamic shot that would be unachievable in any other way.

The first is an example of laziness, the second a perfect example of when and where it should be used in my opinion.

[Captain Tightpants]

In all honesty, while the parasurfing scene is an atrocity, it's not nearly as bad on the small screen as it is on the silver.

[the villain's architect]

In all honesty, while the parasurfing scene is an atrocity, it's not nearly as bad on the small screen as it is on the silver.

That might have something to do with the fact that they cut its screentime considerably for the DVD release.

[tim partridge]

Royal Dalton is rather good at this, isn't he?

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.

Spot on!

Absolutely regarding the shutter adjustment. Agent Smith Vs Doc Ock.

You nailed it with the DH2 comparison. Those kind of obvious dazzle shots, as far as I am concerned, don't have a place in Bond. Now the GoldenEye helicopter detonation scene, that's the same kind of shot (often accused of being derivitive of the DH2 scene), but filtered through Bondian sensibilities, i.e. it looks like it was shot for real by the main unit.

[honeyjes]

just curious the ones who are trying to prove dissprove what is real/not real are you going to enjoy the film, or will you be too busy with your notepad/recorder/hidden camera trying to see where this bit is CGI, green/blue screen, real actors or stunt double and report back your findings. I just find it disconcerting that we're no longer content to just enjoy a film, but feel compelled to pick everything apart, this is now drip feeding into every thread which in turn is dampening our enthusiam because we're being made aware of perceived faults by the experts even if there isn't one.

Edited by honeyjes, 20 September 2008 - 10:40 AM.

[tim partridge]

Like I said, I am not about "catching out" technical elements, and that's not what this thread is about for me. The series is built on trick shots, some more successful than others. I am solely concerned with the tumble shot's kind of fancy, stylised direction and overblown action, which to me seems more in tune with Tamahori's instrusively flashy visuals in DAD, rather than the "back to basics" grit that CR promised.

[double o ego]

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.

The Craig films do focus on a more back to basics element and not every scene has to be something of the real world. Why bother making movies in the 1st place, if we're not going to get something out of the ordinary. The fact is, these new films handle situations much more realistically than most of the preious Bond films that were sadly on the erge of self parody. People need to stop expecting some sort of documentary type film on the ins and outs of realistic action and to also not, take everything for face value.

[trevanian]

Like I said, I am not about "catching out" technical elements, and that's not what this thread is about for me. The series is built on trick shots, some more successful than others. I am solely concerned with the tumble shot's kind of fancy, stylised direction and overblown action, which to me seems more in tune with Tamahori's instrusively flashy visuals in DAD, rather than the "back to basics" grit that CR promised.

Nice hearing from you tim!

Kevin Martin

[Publius]

That might have something to do with the fact that they cut its screentime considerably for the DVD release.

And to think I've only see it on DVD, and that alone was enough to almost make me avoid the rest of the Bond movies (I had only seen the Brosnans up 'til then).

[trevanian]

In all honesty, while the parasurfing scene is an atrocity, it's not nearly as bad on the small screen as it is on the silver.

That might have something to do with the fact that they cut its screentime considerably for the DVD release.

Good Christ, it went on LONGER in the theater?!

They should have just done a miniature Bond a la the flying guy in BRAZIL, and pasted him over real water. CG is not the answer for everything.

[honeyjes]

Like I said, I am not about "catching out" technical elements, and that's not what this thread is about for me. The series is built on trick shots, some more successful than others. I am solely concerned with the tumble shot's kind of fancy, stylised direction and overblown action, which to me seems more in tune with Tamahori's instrusively flashy visuals in DAD, rather than the "back to basics" grit that CR promised.

If this is so, then this appears to be nit picking for nit picking sake. If an innovative tool has been utilised to capture what is possible and thrill the film going public, why diss it when the end result as far as many can see bares no relation to another film/director who messed up when what he tried didn't work.

[Germanlady]

From watching at 3:28 and 4:23 I see real actors doing the fall. We all have seen it, I think.

Edited by Germanlady, 20 September 2008 - 03:57 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course. But we're talking about the bit that happens just before that.

04:16 on that video is where the sequence starts.

[marygoodnight]

It's not CGI if you all were paying attention you would have seen this being done in this behind the scenes video.


sorry germanlady didn't see your post but glad you were paying attention also

Of course. But we're talking about the bit that happens just before that.

04:16 on that video is where the sequence starts.

the fall at the beginning is not CGI either

Edited by marygoodnight, 20 September 2008 - 04:51 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Of course. But we're talking about the bit that happens just before that.

04:16 on that video is where the sequence starts.

the fall at the beginning is not CGI either

Who said it was?

[Professor Dent]

It's not CGI if you all were paying attention you would have seen this being done in this behind the scenes video.

Thanks for the link. It's a great shot that was really filmed & has computer enhancement (like wires being removed, other elements being added, & looks to be slowed down slightly for dramatic effect). Casino Royale had almost 600 effects shots that involved using computers &/or miniatures & very few people seemed to mind.

[Cody]

3:22 - Bond and Mitchell having a long fall together. It's not above the scaffold, it's in some other space, and it looks like they're in their above-the-skylight falling positions.

3:27 - Falling from the skylight.

4:16 - The start of the fall.

4:23 - The scaffold landing.

That first long fall makes it look to me that the actors shot the fall for real elsewhere and were added into the above the building/through the skylight shot in post.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

3:22 - Bond and Mitchell having a long fall together. It's not above the scaffold, it's in some other space, and it looks like they're in their above-the-skylight falling positions.

3:27 - Falling from the skylight.

4:16 - The start of the fall.

4:23 - The scaffold landing.

That first long fall makes it look to me that the actors shot the fall for real elsewhere and were added into the above the building/through the skylight shot in post.

I agree.

There's an awful CGI fight scene in Fantastic Four where Thing and Von Doom are duking it out and fall through a roof. Looked like a video game, they're really tiny figures against a nighttime cityscape. They're still swinging as they fall and hit and drop and hit stuff like the city was rubber.

However, here when you look at it, the figures tuck in, practically hugging just before impact, protecting their head and necks. If they were CGI figures I don't think such self preservation would have happened. Not to this extent anyway. To me it looks like two guys doing a stunt who don't want to get themselves injured falling with some post work done after the fact.

[Jericho_One]

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.

Well I actually thought that too.
And I did like the camera movement. It struck me as something pleasantly unusual, just like that shot following the dirt bike's jump.

[007Bond007]

I no that is true, but they pulled it off though, it think so anyways. It looks pretty real.