99 replies to this topic

[007Bond007]

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,

That is completely WRONG i just watched the second disc and they used a crane to pull the police car, to make it look like the planes engines blown it away.

[The ides of Mark]

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,

That is completely WRONG i just watched the second disc and they used a crane to pull the police car, to make it look like the planes engines blown it away.

There's more CGI in CR. The chase in Madagaskar: the way Bond is lifted to the top of crane folowing Mollaka.

[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,

That is completely WRONG i just watched the second disc and they used a crane to pull the police car, to make it look like the planes engines blown it away.

Watch it again and you'll see I'm RIGHT: the car was indeed towed with a crane separately to the jet plane aborting its landing. The two pieces of film were then digitally merged together to create what we saw in the film, which, while only a minor CGI process - it's pretty much CGI 101 - is technically considered to be CGI nonetheless. So don't go jumping to conclusions there, Nancy, 'cause chances are you aren't even going to land in the right time zone.

[trevanian]

Folks, listen up. I used to write for Cinefex, so I do know something about fx.

People misuse the CGI acronym all the time. Computer generated imagery is not the same as comping images digitally. Technically, cgi is whole-cloth digital creation, where you don't start with real elements.

But just like people used to say special effects for any trick shot, even if it was visual effects and not physical effects, now everybody says cgi for everything, from painting out wires to modelwork (which still exists, just isn't used as often or as well as it should be.)

The QOS vfx super told me they had 900 + vfx shots in the show and no miniatures; now that probably means a ton of comp work (putting actors into different backgrounds) plus some wire fixes plus a few other unusual bits (like the freefall stuff, which is a kind of digital/virtual version of bullet-time.)

[Captain Tightpants]

Hmmm, well then I'm going to have to take the issue up with my film editing lecturer when I see him next Tuesday ... I have a very clear memory of him telling me that stuff like that was CGI; he even used that scene as an example in the lecture.

[trevanian]

Hmmm, well then I'm going to have to take the issue up with my film editing lecturer when I see him next Tuesday ... I have a very clear memory of him telling me that stuff like that was CGI; he even used that scene as an example in the lecture.

See if he is considering digital compositing to be CGI ... if so, he might want to review a film glossary.

Also, to be fair, lots of atmospheric elements are done as CG instead of practical now, so that is another kind of cg embellishment (the ice falling off the miniature rocket in APOLLO 13's liftoff.) So you might see CG vapor trails on a real plane sometimes, and THAT would be cgi. But putting together a Craig foreground shot in 08 with a location background shot in 07 .... unless you're creating new material to help link the two elements (like smoke), then it wouldn't be considered computer GENERATED imagery.

[Sir James Moloney]

I´ve just seen in E! Entertainment (awfull excuse of a channel I know), some shots of Camille with blue screens everywhere with the same clothes that she wears on the boat chase, so they´re using the composite shots a bit I believe. Not a problem for me if they do it right

[tim partridge]

But putting together a Craig foreground shot in 08 with a location background shot in 07 .... unless you're creating new material to help link the two elements (like smoke), then it wouldn't be considered computer GENERATED imagery.

Yeah, but as we know (you especially!), there are definitely extensive CG elements in the roof tumble, obviously the glass/roof itself, for blatant health and safety reasons, the set (even city) extensions for practical and budgetary reasons (check out that other thread that compares the before and after) and possibly even Craig and his mate. Hence the title I initially gave this thread. The intrusive Bourne/Spider-man camera angle only makes it a hundred times more obvious than if it had been in the restrained style often associated with the Bond series.

As I have said a dozen times over (and be amazed at how many future posters in this thread and elsewhere will continue to not grasp the concept, in true internet forum, sensationalist form), my beef is not with big special effects fakery in a Bond film. Classics like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE to THE SPY WHO LOVED ME contained really deceptive matte painting and miniature work, but for the most part you would never know. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, CASINO ROYALE, TOMORROW NEVER DIES and even GOLDENEYE featured some of the most elaborate yet seamless digital trickery in recent memory. My problem is when the special effects in these Bond movies call attention to themselves in a directorially stylised fashion, in my opinion, such as with the Agent Smith Vs Dock Ock CGI glass roof tumble. THAT is my beef, NOT the technology at hand. It's all a bit like the inappropriate speedramps that Tamhori/Wagner stuck into DIE ANOTHER DAY, for no reason other than to pander to what was "hip" outside of Bond.

Well, actually... My only other beef is the worry concerning "no miniatures". As far as I know, EVERY Bond movie up until this new one had a miniature shot in it. Even LICENCE TO KILL! That's TWENTY TWO YEARS worth of considerable heritage. Call me old fashioned, but to have new guys come in a plough that part of Bond history down, well... Just all me old fashioned!

Edited by tim partridge, 01 October 2008 - 10:39 PM.

[trevanian]

There are a couple comps in TWINE that really blow my mind, I seem to remember some of the stuff on the water in Turkey is actually composite shots. That sort of seamless not calling attention to itself stuff is, I agree, the breadandbutter on Bond fx. And again TWINE, the bmw driving through the forest model is one that totally fooled me.

I haven't bought a Cinefex since my leavetaking 8 years ago, but maybe I'll buy the QOS one, just to see what else they cover (my piece for ICG is really tiny, my cut was like 1700 words and I think it wound up 1200, and that's down from a rough draft of 3000 words, so I was only on the tip of the digital iceberg.)

[Royal Dalton]

there are definitely extensive CG elements in the roof tumble, obviously the glass/roof itself, for blatant health and safety reasons, the set (even city) extensions for practical and budgetary reasons (check out that other thread that compares the before and after) and possibly even Craig and his mate.

And even if the fall was done with real people (although, it doesn't look like it to me), they must have used a digital intermediary to blend the shots together. There's no way that was all done in one take.

My only other beef is the worry concerning "no miniatures".

Yes, the flames and rocks in the

Spoiler

Eco Hotel explosion

in the trailer look suspiciously like they've been comped into the shot. I'm quite surprised they didn't go down the model route with that one.

[tim partridge]

There are a couple comps in TWINE that really blow my mind, I seem to remember some of the stuff on the water in Turkey is actually composite shots. That sort of seamless not calling attention to itself stuff is, I agree, the breadandbutter on Bond fx. And again TWINE, the bmw driving through the forest model is one that totally fooled me.

I still say that apart from that one crap bellyflopping jet crash shot (which no doubt would have been reshot, had Meddings lived), the entire Severneya sequence from GOLDENEYE was a masterpiece of seamless visual effects. Everything thing from the first time we see it, as a forced perspective, sandwich model, all of the shots of the Tiger copter landing in the snow and leaving, to that great final split screen comp of Natalya walking through the snow calling for Boris. Just gorgeous, and entirely convincing as an exisiting location. Same for the graveyard/Helicopter missile scene, and all of the light aircraft crash action at the end of the movie.

I STILL don't know where the miniature BMW is used during the Germany car chase from TOMORROW NEVER DIES. I also love the mountain fireball shot during the pretitles (during the brief dog fight). I'd love to know why the interesting choice of Bill Neil was the original VFX supe on TND (I'm guessing because of Spotsiwoode), why he left the production and exactly what he did on the film before Mara Bryan took over. The visual effects on TND are generally quite consistent. The miniature and digital units seemed to be kept very seperate, however (but it worked).