6 replies to this topic

[jeff319]

Hi everyone,

I may be in the minority here, but personally I sincerely hope that EON backs away from the CGI craziness that they are employing for Die Another Day. I have not seen the film yet, and rest assured that I will be there for it opening night in the U.S., but I'm really not stoked about the use of CGI in the film.

Bond movies used to be recognized for the fact that the stunts were real, not CG people running around. With each Brosnan Bond movie (with the exception of TND, which doesn't employ much CGI), I get more and more annoyed with the special effects. Remember the corny "spinning blades" bouncing around the waterfront docks in TWINE?

What's my point? I just want them to pull a "For Your Eyes Only" and bring Bond back down to earth in an actual spy movie, not a superhero flick that DAD seems to be. Whiz-bang special effects are fine for Spiderman and Star Wars... but Bond? Nah.

[IrishCrown]

I think there is an excellent chance that the next one will be like For Your Eyes Only. There's an excellent article on the HMSS site talking about the similarities between Moore and Connery. Their 5th films in relation to their 4th showed big changes. Moore's was brought down to Earth after his 4th, like I believe Pierce's will be. His next and last one will be a tough, gritty one.

[stromberg]

jeff319, you maybe in the minority, but that does not necessarily proves you wrong. I seriously hope that DAD did not set the standard for the forthcoming Bond movies. I'm with you and IrishCrown, hoping that next we'll get something like FYEO.

And if you're already concerned about the CGI without having seen the movie: I'm sorry, but don't forget your heart-pills. But it might help (just in case you have to wear some) if you forgot your glasses.

[jeff319]

Alright, I saw the film on Friday, opening night (yay!) and I highly enjoyed it. I rank it as #10 out of the 20 in the series.

However, as I suspected, their was far too much CGI... I don't mind a little bit, but in DAD it was used everywhere, and in places where it wasn't even necessary. Here's hoping they tone it down for Bond 21.

[SeanValen00V]

I didn't think there was much CGI in Bond, alot of it was real, and it was fantasy Bond, so it went to a different territory, but alot of the film looked very real, but if enough fans keep pestering EON-MGM about it, maybe you can wipe it out totally, but smart CGI that gels together and is very unnoticed will likely come in useful, but I felt DAD had to try some thing a little different, there's been 20 films now, and expectations are always on new stunts, but it gets harder, so CGI was going to be tried out sooner or later, but they could do it better in the future of cource, but there's no gurantee they will use it for Bond 21.

People who say DAD had far too much CGI are over hyping that aspect, you need to point to specific scenes and list them, and someone will agree or disagree with it. Only CGI scene that I felt could of been better was the iceland wave riding one, that was it for me, everything else was great.

Dad got alot of things right, then not right.

[IrishCrown]

I rue the day when Pierce is acting 80% the movie in front of a green screen, making out with a digital character, while the director is shouting, "Faster! More intense!"

Ah, yes, we've run out of places for Bond to go, so we're going to make up a country and create it entirely digitally. The new car Bond drives? All digital.

[B5Erik2]

CGI to clean up existing shots is fine. A scene totally rendered in CGI is not. DAD went to the latter too many times.

I hope that they tone it WAY down for the next one....