Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » CGI Banned in CR
CGI Banned in CR [message #240371] Di, 14 März 2006 18:16
DC  
The attitude towards this film really is quite promising in several
ways. EON seem to realise many Bond fans have been critical of CGI and
prefer *real* stunts. Craig as a more serious Bond and do his involvement in
the stunts reminds me of Dalton (which is a good thing in my view):

--
THE makers of the new James Bond film admitted yesterday that they relied
too heavily on computer-generated images for the spectacular stunts in their
last two 007 movies.
Daniel Craig, making his debut as Bond on location in the Bahamas,
told The Times that for Casino Royale they are going back to the
old-fashioned way of making action thrillers and restoring the risk.



He said: "It's the wow factor. You want the audience to be short of
breath. The audience gets it when they're for real." When audiences knew
that the stunts were real and that people had put their lives in danger, it
added a frisson that computer-generated imagery (CGI) could not achieve, he
added.

Casino Royale, the 21st Bond film, tells the story of how the British
secret agent got his licence to kill, his first 007 mission and his battle
against the evil Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorist organisations.

Craig, chosen from more than 200 hopefuls after a two-year search, is
the sixth Bond, after Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy
Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.

His craggy looks reflect an attempt by the producers to return to the
darker, more violent Bond of the original novel who was inspired by the
writer Ian Fleming's experience in British Naval Intelligence in the Second
World War.

Craig is doing many of the stunts himself and puts himself through a
rigorous, two-hour session with a trainer after each day's shoot. He said:
"It's incredibly physical. I'm getting kicks and bruises." He did not,
though, as reported, lose two front teeth in a fight. A cap just came loose.
Yesterday he filmed a spectacular chase through the alleyways of a specially
built shanty town.

Next week the chase continues across a building site. He will run over
narrow steel girders that hover precariously. Admittedly, Craig will be
attached to a cable and a stuntman will take over when he has to leap from
one enormous, moving crane to another. But it is the insurers who control
what Bond can and can't do, not M.

Gary Powell, stunt co-ordinator on his fourth Bond film, said that
audiences were "getting bored" by CGI - used extensively in The World Is Not
Enough and Die Another Day - because they knew that there was no real
danger.

Chris Corbould, the special effects supervisor, said: "I don't think
we got it quite right."




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2084375,00.html


Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240375 ] Di, 14 März 2006 19:13
Will Traynor  
"DC" <s_tombs [at] NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FTCRf.135597$Q22.93482 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The attitude towards this film really is quite promising in several
> ways. EON seem to realise many Bond fans have been critical of CGI and
> prefer *real* stunts. Craig as a more serious Bond and do his involvement
> in the stunts reminds me of Dalton (which is a good thing in my view):
>
> --
> THE makers of the new James Bond film admitted yesterday that they relied
> too heavily on computer-generated images for the spectacular stunts in
> their last two 007 movies.
> Daniel Craig, making his debut as Bond on location in the Bahamas,
> told The Times that for Casino Royale they are going back to the
> old-fashioned way of making action thrillers and restoring the risk.
>
>
>
> He said: "It's the wow factor. You want the audience to be short of
> breath. The audience gets it when they're for real." When audiences knew
> that the stunts were real and that people had put their lives in danger,
> it added a frisson that computer-generated imagery (CGI) could not
> achieve, he added.
>
> Casino Royale, the 21st Bond film, tells the story of how the British
> secret agent got his licence to kill, his first 007 mission and his battle
> against the evil Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorist
> organisations.
>
> Craig, chosen from more than 200 hopefuls after a two-year search, is
> the sixth Bond, after Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy
> Dalton and Pierce Brosnan.
>
> His craggy looks reflect an attempt by the producers to return to the
> darker, more violent Bond of the original novel who was inspired by the
> writer Ian Fleming's experience in British Naval Intelligence in the
> Second World War.
>
> Craig is doing many of the stunts himself and puts himself through a
> rigorous, two-hour session with a trainer after each day's shoot. He said:
> "It's incredibly physical. I'm getting kicks and bruises." He did not,
> though, as reported, lose two front teeth in a fight. A cap just came
> loose. Yesterday he filmed a spectacular chase through the alleyways of a
> specially built shanty town.
>
> Next week the chase continues across a building site. He will run
> over narrow steel girders that hover precariously. Admittedly, Craig will
> be attached to a cable and a stuntman will take over when he has to leap
> from one enormous, moving crane to another. But it is the insurers who
> control what Bond can and can't do, not M.
>
> Gary Powell, stunt co-ordinator on his fourth Bond film, said that
> audiences were "getting bored" by CGI - used extensively in The World Is
> Not Enough and Die Another Day - because they knew that there was no real
> danger.
>
> Chris Corbould, the special effects supervisor, said: "I don't think
> we got it quite right."
>
>

CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand, needs some
semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI doesn't work for
Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work on DAD, where Halle Berry
does the high dive into the water after destroying the clinic. Boy, was that
ever fake. That stuff just ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski
jump any day.

>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2084375,00.html
>
>
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240386 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 04:43
Mike Feeney  
Damn. There goes any chance at all that the pterodactyl
will look real.

--Mike
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240387 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 04:51
JHause  
Will wrote:
> CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
> fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand, needs some
> semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI doesn't work for
> Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work on DAD, where Halle Berry
> does the high dive into the water after destroying the clinic. Boy, was that
> ever fake. That stuff just ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski
> jump any day.
>

I never thought of that before, but it sure sounds correct.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240389 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 07:25
dgates  
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:42 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
wrote:

>CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
>fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand, needs some
>semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI doesn't work for
>Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work on DAD, where Halle Berry
>does the high dive into the water after destroying the clinic. Boy, was that
>ever fake. That stuff just ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski
>jump any day.

People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?

Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
instead.

I think the problem isn't CGI per se, but the fact that they used it
to show Bond parasailing, they bit off too ambitious a stunt, made it
silly and it didn't even end up looking right.

He was dangling off a cliff, fine. Let him *just* parachute down.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240392 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 08:30
ahk  
At 1:13pm -0500, 03/14/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
>fantasy and could never happen.

I'll debate that. Sometimes I find any CGI jarring enough that it destroys
the illusion for me, something that really doesn't happen with decent
special effects done in pre-CGI methods.

Lucas was wrong. Nothing wrong with the original "Star Wars" that a newer
generation of special effects would fix. (What was wrong with "Star Wars"
was the unimaginative script and direction.)

I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie entirely
animated.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240400 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 12:42
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> I'll debate that. Sometimes I find any CGI jarring enough that it destroys
> the illusion for me, something that really doesn't happen with decent
> special effects done in pre-CGI methods.

I agree. I can't imagine how a CGI-based '2001' could look any more
convincing than the original, and I suspect it would, in fact, be less
so.

The problem with most CGI is that it's so alarmingly clean and flawless
that you know what's being depicted couldn't really be happening. It's
also led filmmakers into doing shots where as a viewer you know that
the camera angle you're being shown is physically impossible, and your
brain screams 'fake' - Halle Berry's dive in DAD is a good example.

As regards CGI versus stunts, I've been thinking about this. It seems
to me that big, spectacular, set-piece stunts of the Rick Sylvester /
Jake Lombard type are in fact a legacy of the Moore years, and that the
great Bond films of the '60s managed just fine without them. It was
action - mostly featuring the actors themselves - which carried those
early movies, and I'd like to see the new films follow that tradition
rather than end up like the many of the Moore films, where the stuntmen
were the ones really playing Bond and the actor became little more than
a link man.

Best

Phil
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240413 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 15:39
ahk  
At 10:25pm -0800, 03/14/06, dgates [at] spamlinkline.com wrote:

>People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
>today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
>tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?

>Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
>projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
>technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
>instead.

You have a point.

Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me. Which scenes
are you thinking of? And do you have some scenes in mind in which the rear
projection was handled well?
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240414 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 16:02
phil.gerrard1  
Adam H. Kerman:

> Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me.

Is that because you're used to the technique, and therefore are
prepared to suspend your disbelief? Even as a seven-year-old watching
'Man from UNCLE' re-runs, I don't think I believed that Napoleon Solo
was really driving around Paris or Rome, and I don't expect the
production team, deep down, expected everybody to believe it either,
but because back-projection was such a well-established convention you
went along with it. Of course, this had the added bonus that when you
did see something which was done for real - like the non-back-projected
shots of Dalton hanging onto the jeep in TLD - it had an extra 'wow'
factor.

The problem with bad CGI, as in the more notorious shots in DAD is that
it's trying and failing to convince you that the impossible is real: it
doesn't work on anly level. What does work and has worked in recent
Bond films IMHO is a more subtle use of CGI in combination with
traditional techniques. Although I'm not so keen on the scene itself,
I think the use of CGI to create the helicopter blades in TND is an
example of how this can work without detracting from the movie.

Best

Phil
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240420 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 18:01
Will Traynor  
"dgates" <dgates [at] spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:rhcf12tmecb5u7041btr10v5riqsdh1rku [at] 4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:42 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
>>fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand, needs some
>>semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI doesn't work for
>>Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work on DAD, where Halle
>>Berry
>>does the high dive into the water after destroying the clinic. Boy, was
>>that
>>ever fake. That stuff just ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski
>>jump any day.
>
> People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
> today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
> tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?
>
> Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
> projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
> technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
> instead.
>
> I think the problem isn't CGI per se, but the fact that they used it
> to show Bond parasailing, they bit off too ambitious a stunt, made it
> silly and it didn't even end up looking right.
>
> He was dangling off a cliff, fine. Let him *just* parachute down.

Special effects and CGI are two different things, IMHO. For example, you
need special effects to do space shots, such as YOLT or MR. But you don't
need CGI to do a stunt. EON is using CGI for stunts now, which it didn't do
in the past. For example, the Jet Pack sequence in TB is real, no special
effects. Someone actually did the stunt. Whereas in DAD, Halle Berry diving
into the water was CGI yet they could have hired an expert diver to do a
long dive sequence. Instead, the scene was obviously fake. The parasailing
sequence in DAD was horribly fake and totally unnecessary. Producers could
have come up with something more realistic. As I've said before, Bond is
fantasy, but the best Bond films tread a thin line between fantasy and
realism. When the scale moves too much toward the fantasy side, as in
portions of YOLT, MR and DAD, the movie loses credibility. Based on what
I've read from Wilson and Broccoli, they realize it too.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240421 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 18:06
Will Traynor  
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.63.0603150123420.3099 [at] qbbshf...
> At 1:13pm -0500, 03/14/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>
>>CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
>>fantasy and could never happen.
>
> I'll debate that. Sometimes I find any CGI jarring enough that it destroys
> the illusion for me, something that really doesn't happen with decent
> special effects done in pre-CGI methods.
>
> Lucas was wrong. Nothing wrong with the original "Star Wars" that a newer
> generation of special effects would fix. (What was wrong with "Star Wars"
> was the unimaginative script and direction.)
>
> I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
> overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
> really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie entirely
> animated.

I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that it
was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by CGI.
The recent Star Wars movies were an example of getting overwhelmed with CGI
at the expense of the story. That's why LOTR trilogy kicked Lucas' recent
trilogy all over the map.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240428 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 22:12
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman:

>>Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me.

>Is that because you're used to the technique, and therefore are prepared
>to suspend your disbelief?

Perhaps a little. If I took an active dislike to the technique, then I
could never enjoy older movies and tv shows again.

Starting next week, the Christopher Eccleston episodes of "Doctor Who"
will finally air on US television. I have a feeling I'm going to miss the
cheesy special effects that were part of the charm of the original, no
budget series. (Especially since they've tampered heavily with the back
story and the characters, aargh.)

>Even as a seven-year-old watching 'Man from UNCLE' re-runs, I don't think
>I believed that Napoleon Solo was really driving around Paris or Rome,
>and I don't expect the production team, deep down, expected everybody to
>believe it either, but because back-projection was such a
>well-established convention you went along with it.

But every week Roger Moore as "The Saint" was in a different European city
even though the set with the shops looked just the same!

Think of it like a stage play. The sets and the special effects are there
to set the scene, but it should all be considered to be background.

>Of course, this had the added bonus that when you did see something which
>was done for real - like the non-back-projected shots of Dalton hanging
>onto the jeep in TLD - it had an extra 'wow' factor.

>The problem with bad CGI, as in the more notorious shots in DAD is that
>it's trying and failing to convince you that the impossible is real: it
>doesn't work on anly level.

This I don't agree with. The best movies create their own universe that,
upon analysis, bears little resemblance to our own. That doesn't matter to
the audience. What gnaws at us is when the script violates our
expectations of the laws of the movie's universe.

As far as DAD, I think the problem is more basic. We expect to see
entertaining stuntwork, a pleasure the movie denied us.

>What does work and has worked in recent Bond films IMHO is a more subtle
>use of CGI in combination with traditional techniques. Although I'm not
>so keen on the scene itself, I think the use of CGI to create the
>helicopter blades in TND is an example of how this can work without
>detracting from the movie.

What I dislike about some CGI is that the movements do not seem real. I
look at it and think that the technique has advanced to this level,
whoopie, but how the hell did anyone think that's an improvement over
older techniques? I'm sure it's cheaper.

But older techniques don't always work for me either. Combining animation
with live action is terribly difficult, particularly when an actor and
animated character have a scene together. Why? The actor doesn't know
where to focus his eyes. It's not enough that his head is turned the right
way. Also, he cannot simply perform with a stand in for the animated
character as animation lacks depth of field, or rather, perspective is
established in a different manner. The actor almost has to pretend that
the animated character is standing on the location of the "fourth wall"
itself.

It's something I've disliked about "Roger Rabbit", that, and it was the
first major animated feature that introduced that shading technique
claiming to create 3D images but doesn't work at all.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240429 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 22:18
ahk  
At 12:06pm -0500, 03/15/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>> At 1:13pm -0500, 03/14/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are clearly
>>>fantasy and could never happen.
>>
>> I'll debate that. Sometimes I find any CGI jarring enough that it destroys
>> the illusion for me, something that really doesn't happen with decent
>> special effects done in pre-CGI methods.
>>
>> Lucas was wrong. Nothing wrong with the original "Star Wars" that a newer
>> generation of special effects would fix. (What was wrong with "Star Wars"
>> was the unimaginative script and direction.)
>>
>> I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
>> overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
>> really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie entirely
>> animated.

>I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that it
>was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by CGI.

Did you see the same movies I had? Without CGI, there would be nearly
nothing on the screen!

>The recent Star Wars movies were an example of getting overwhelmed with
>CGI at the expense of the story. That's why LOTR trilogy kicked Lucas'
>recent trilogy all over the map.

I skipped 'em.

The only one I really liked was "Empire Strikes Back", which Lucas didn't
direct. I've seen pieces of "Return of the Jedi" on tv, but really didn't
like it very much.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240430 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 22:38
Paul Clarke  
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
>>>overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
>>>really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie entirely
>>>animated.
>
>
>>I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that it
>>was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by CGI.
>
>
> Did you see the same movies I had? Without CGI, there would be nearly
> nothing on the screen!

That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed
to get the screenplay and characters right.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240432 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:06
Tim Pollard  
"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HP%Rf.29630$M52.200 [at] edtnps89...
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>
> That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed to
> get the [Lord of the Rings] screenplay and characters right.


....and failed *dismally* in my opinion. Then again, as with Bond, I much
prefer the books.


--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240433 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:01
ste7ens  
>>Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me. Which scenes
are you thinking of? <<

During just about any scene in GF and TB when Bond is driving his Aston
Martin, the rear-projection viewed outside the windows is quite
chintzy. Ditto for the white convertible bits in YOLT and the scene in
OHMSS where Bond, Tracy and Draco are in the limo exchanging cutsey
glances while Louis Armstrong warbles "All the Time in the World."

>>And do you have some scenes in mind in which the rear
projection was handled well?<<

TLD's got some of the most convincing rear projection work in the
series...which makes the shoddy rear projection bits during the tanker
chase scene of LTK inexcusable, considering all other technologies
managed to improve in the 2 year interim between the 2 films.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240435 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:45
Will Traynor  
"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HP%Rf.29630$M52.200 [at] edtnps89...
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
>>>>overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
>>>>really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie entirely
>>>>animated.
>>
>>
>>>I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that
>>>it was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by
>>>CGI.
>>
>>
>> Did you see the same movies I had? Without CGI, there would be nearly
>> nothing on the screen!
>
> That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed to
> get the screenplay and characters right.

Right on. There is a reason why the LOTR trilogy is considered the best in
film history. They didn't let the special effects get in the way of the
story.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240436 ] Mi, 15 März 2006 23:54
Will Traynor  
"Tim Pollard" <timpollard [at] y a h o o .com> wrote in message
news:0e0Sf.2456$aA6.255 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HP%Rf.29630$M52.200 [at] edtnps89...
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>
>> That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed to
>> get the [Lord of the Rings] screenplay and characters right.
>
>
> ...and failed *dismally* in my opinion. Then again, as with Bond, I much
> prefer the books.
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Tim Pollard
>
> www.timpollard.com
>
> A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
> needed to launch one ship.
>

Sorry, Tim, you are in the minority on that one. It is considered the
greatest film trilogy in history. IMHO, its better than the original Star
Wars trilogy. But everyone has their opinions, of course.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240437 ] Do, 16 März 2006 00:23
Paul Clarke  
Tim Pollard wrote:
> "Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HP%Rf.29630$M52.200 [at] edtnps89...
>
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed to
>>get the [Lord of the Rings] screenplay and characters right.
>
>
>
> ...and failed *dismally* in my opinion. Then again, as with Bond, I much
> prefer the books.

I strongly disagree. I found the story and characters riveting. The
effects were used, very effectively IMHO, to bring the world to life. To
me, Jackson's LOTR is a supreme achievement in cinema fantasy.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240440 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:23
phil.gerrard1  
ste7ens [at] aol.com wrote:

> TLD's got some of the most convincing rear projection work in the
> series...which makes the shoddy rear projection bits during the tanker
> chase scene of LTK inexcusable, considering all other technologies
> managed to improve in the 2 year interim between the 2 films.

<frowns> Really? Which shots during the tanker chase are you thinking
of? From memory, it seems to me that the PCS of TLD is far more
jarring in its switches between back-projection, stunt work, and
obvious studio shots. In that PCS, one moment you can see that Dalton
is genuinely hanging onto the roof of the jeep, whereas in the next
moment the back-projection is blatantly obvious. I don't recall
anything nearly as bad in the final scenes of LTK.

Best

Phil
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240443 ] Do, 16 März 2006 01:44
phil.gerrard1  
Adam wrote:

> Starting next week, the Christopher Eccleston episodes of "Doctor Who"
> will finally air on US television. I have a feeling I'm going to miss the
> cheesy special effects that were part of the charm of the original, no
> budget series. (Especially since they've tampered heavily with the back
> story and the characters, aargh.)

Stick it out - I think the show and Eccleston get better as they go on,
and that there are some really strong episodes later in the series.
With no offence at all intended to Eccleston's strong and brave
interpretation of the role, I would add that you're in for one hell of
a treat performance-wise when you get to 'The Christmas Invasion'.

> But every week Roger Moore as "The Saint" was in a different European city
> even though the set with the shops looked just the same!

LOL! Those of us who grew up on the original 'Dr Who' and 'Blake's 7'
got to know certain English quarries very well...

> As far as DAD, I think the problem is more basic. We expect to see
> entertaining stuntwork, a pleasure the movie denied us.

....and didn't really have to. I like a lot of DAD, but Halle Berry's
dive and the parasurfing scene could easily have been reworked either
to include a spectacular stunt or to bypass the issue altogether. If a
stunt can't be done, that's fine, just rewrite the script to work
around it. Don't resort to what amounts to animation to get around it,
because suddenly you're out of a living, breathing movie and into a
cartoon, or a manufacturer's demo of the amazing things one can now do
with a certain piece of software.

Best

Phil
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240448 ] Do, 16 März 2006 04:17
poormansjb  
I think CGI which enhances a sequence visually or ensures the safety of
stunt performers is valid, but scenes composed wholly of CGI are not,
The helicopter in TND is a good case for both, though even better cases
(in no small part because the helicopter sequence is just physically
preposterous) are the sea drill attack and later dive on the Devonshire
in the same film. There's a good deal CGI throughout that I dare say a
good many of us probably weren't aware of until we saw the extras on
the DVD.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240457 ] Do, 16 März 2006 09:05
Tim Pollard  
"Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zLOdnc1U9oSUBoXZnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> "Tim Pollard" <timpollard [at] y a h o o .com> wrote in message
> news:0e0Sf.2456$aA6.255 [at] newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:HP%Rf.29630$M52.200 [at] edtnps89...
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed
>>> to get the [Lord of the Rings] screenplay and characters right.
>>
>>
>> ...and failed *dismally* in my opinion. Then again, as with Bond, I much
>> prefer the books.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Tim Pollard
>>
>> www.timpollard.com
>>
>> A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
>> needed to launch one ship.
>>
>
> Sorry, Tim, you are in the minority on that one. It is considered the
> greatest film trilogy in history. IMHO, its better than the original Star
> Wars trilogy. But everyone has their opinions, of course.



I know I'm in a minority on this one, but so were the resistance in
Nazi-occupied France <g> - I'm on a mission here, and I won't stop until
everyone has the blinkers lifted from their eyes - not only are those films
travesties of Tolkien's works, ripping apart and rewriting characters and
events above and beyond the need to reduce such work to the screen (why they
couldn't have approached the much better level of adaptation and dialogue
from BBC radio version I'll never know), but they are Bad Films anyway -
people (normally people who haven't read the books) forgive them a lot
because 'they're a trilogy' with 'epic sweep' - and thus don't worry so much
that the dialogue is *dreadful*, the acting piss poor for the most part and
as films in their own right they are badly made and unsatisfying.

But like I say, I know when I'm beaten (and way off-topic). It just doesn't
stop me fighting! <g>

--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240458 ] Do, 16 März 2006 09:48
ahk  
phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>Starting next week, the Christopher Eccleston episodes of "Doctor Who"
>>will finally air on US television. I have a feeling I'm going to miss the
>>cheesy special effects that were part of the charm of the original, no
>>budget series. (Especially since they've tampered heavily with the back
>>story and the characters, aargh.)

>Stick it out - I think the show and Eccleston get better as they go on,
>and that there are some really strong episodes later in the series.
>With no offence at all intended to Eccleston's strong and brave
>interpretation of the role, I would add that you're in for one hell of
>a treat performance-wise when you get to 'The Christmas Invasion'.

SciFi Channel bought only Season 1 and not any of the post-season specials
like that episode, and not Season 2. Who knows when I'll see it.

I haven't heard anything bad about his performance, mostly good things
actually. What annoyed me is that his race has been killed off and the
implied love story. Sheesh.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240459 ] Do, 16 März 2006 09:55
ahk  
At 9:38pm -0000, 03/15/06, Paul Clarke <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>At 12:06pm -0500, 03/15/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com> wrote:
>>>At 1:13pm -0500, 03/14/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>>>>I loved "Lord of the Rings". However, in "The Two Towers", it was
>>>>overwhelmed by CGI, not a single major scene that wasn't "enhanced". I
>>>>really, really questioned the decision not to do the damn movie
>>>>entirely animated.

>>>I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is
>>>that it was able to keep the main story in focus without being
>>>overwhelmed by CGI.

>>Did you see the same movies I had? Without CGI, there would be nearly
>>nothing on the screen!

>That's not the point. The point is that considerable effort was placed to get
>the screenplay and characters right.

Would you please retain each of the attribution lines when quoting so
people can know who said what? I restored the missing ones.

Actually, he'll have to rephrase that. The two don't have anything to do
with each other; it's up to the director and whatever budget he has for
effects. There are movies with bad scripts that enjoyable special effects
cannot fix, and there are movies with good scripts and weak effects.

In "Two Towers", yeah, I found the CGI overwhelming. I still liked it.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240464 ] Do, 16 März 2006 12:07
Mac  
dgates wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:42 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are
>> clearly fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand,
>> needs some semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI
>> doesn't work for Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work
>> on DAD, where Halle Berry does the high dive into the water after
>> destroying the clinic. Boy, was that ever fake. That stuff just
>> ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski jump any day.
>
> People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
> today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
> tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?
>
> Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
> projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
> technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
> instead.
>
> I think the problem isn't CGI per se, but the fact that they used it
> to show Bond parasailing, they bit off too ambitious a stunt, made it
> silly and it didn't even end up looking right.
>
> He was dangling off a cliff, fine. Let him *just* parachute down.

The back-flip dive from Jinx was not only poorly executed (it's worse
than the parasailing in it's lack of veracity), but it was totally
unnecessary. Could have been a nice opportunity for a real high-dive
from a stuntwoman.
--
--Mac
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240474 ] Do, 16 März 2006 14:37
Carcharias  
"DC" <s_tombs [at] NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FTCRf.135597$Q22.93482 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> The attitude towards this film really is quite promising in several
> ways. EON seem to realise many Bond fans have been critical of CGI and
> prefer *real* stunts. Craig as a more serious Bond and do his involvement
in
> the stunts reminds me of Dalton (which is a good thing in my view):

I think this is one of the absolute best ways for Bond movies to distinguish
themselves from other action flicks. Put it right up front -- "No CGI was
used in the stunts for this movie." Do lots of "Making of Bond Stunts" and
feed those to the press right around release time. Make these the
'alternative' action films. I know you have to fudge it a little with using
studios for closeups during stunts..etc, but you'd at least be technically
right by saying no computer effects were used.

Jay
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240476 ] Do, 16 März 2006 14:56
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:47sv92FhcejqU2 [at] individual.net...
> dgates wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:42 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are
>>> clearly fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand,
>>> needs some semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI
>>> doesn't work for Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work
>>> on DAD, where Halle Berry does the high dive into the water after
>>> destroying the clinic. Boy, was that ever fake. That stuff just
>>> ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski jump any day.
>>
>> People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
>> today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
>> tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?
>>
>> Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
>> projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
>> technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
>> instead.
>>
>> I think the problem isn't CGI per se, but the fact that they used it
>> to show Bond parasailing, they bit off too ambitious a stunt, made it
>> silly and it didn't even end up looking right.
>>
>> He was dangling off a cliff, fine. Let him *just* parachute down.
>
> The back-flip dive from Jinx was not only poorly executed (it's worse
> than the parasailing in it's lack of veracity), but it was totally
> unnecessary. Could have been a nice opportunity for a real high-dive
> from a stuntwoman.
> --
> --Mac
>

I agree completely. It seems like they were getting lazy. They would rather
have some computer geek set up a CGI sequence rather than have someone do an
actual stunt.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240493 ] Do, 16 März 2006 22:41
ahk  
At 2:01pm -0800, 03/15/06, ste7ens [at] aol.com wrote:
>Adam wrote:

>>Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me. Which scenes
>>are you thinking of?

>During just about any scene in GF and TB when Bond is driving his Aston
>Martin, the rear-projection viewed outside the windows is quite chintzy.
>Ditto for the white convertible bits in YOLT and the scene in OHMSS where
>Bond, Tracy and Draco are in the limo exchanging cutsey glances while
>Louis Armstrong warbles "All the Time in the World."

Yes, I agree about some of the driving sequences, but surely, you must be
able to point to a movie from the '50's or the '60's in which the rear
projection looked good.

If you actually have to think about it, how the hell did we expect those
scenes to be filmed in that era without rear projection, a high-speed
chase of a truck and car, with the cameraman hanging out the back of the
truck and the car with no windshield to avoid reflection?

As far as the limo scene, well, if I objected to scenes like that, then
I'd be unable to enjoy any movie from any era. All I expect from rear
projection in a scene with dialogue is a hint at location, nothing more.

>>And do you have some scenes in mind in which the rear projection was
>>handled well?

>TLD's got some of the most convincing rear projection work in the
>series...which makes the shoddy rear projection bits during the tanker
>chase scene of LTK inexcusable, considering all other technologies
>managed to improve in the 2 year interim between the 2 films.

Gosh. I loved the tanker chase when the movie came out.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240498 ] Do, 16 März 2006 23:16
Kent  
"Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yM6dnf2_R9I11IXZRVn-og [at] comcast.com...

<SNIP>

> I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that
> it was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by
> CGI. The recent Star Wars movies were an example of getting overwhelmed
> with CGI at the expense of the story. That's why LOTR trilogy kicked
> Lucas' recent trilogy all over the map.

If the new Star Wars films weren't CGI heavy, there wouldn't be a lot left.
Lucas only seemed to have ideas for one and a half films and then dragged it
all out to make his required trilogy. The script and acting are also pretty
bad, which just makes it all the more disappointing. IMHO, the only great
Stars Wars films are the first two. If I hadn't been living in hope, I
probably wouldn't have watched the rest.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240500 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 00:10
Will Traynor  
"Kent" <K [at] stackmail.com> wrote in message
news:3tlSf.8273$dy4.6256 [at] news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:yM6dnf2_R9I11IXZRVn-og [at] comcast.com...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> I disagree completely. One of the reasons why LOTR worked so well is that
>> it was able to keep the main story in focus without being overwhelmed by
>> CGI. The recent Star Wars movies were an example of getting overwhelmed
>> with CGI at the expense of the story. That's why LOTR trilogy kicked
>> Lucas' recent trilogy all over the map.
>
> If the new Star Wars films weren't CGI heavy, there wouldn't be a lot
> left. Lucas only seemed to have ideas for one and a half films and then
> dragged it all out to make his required trilogy. The script and acting
> are also pretty bad, which just makes it all the more disappointing.
> IMHO, the only great Stars Wars films are the first two. If I hadn't been
> living in hope, I probably wouldn't have watched the rest.
>

Actually, I liked Return of the Jedi, and about half of Revenge of the Sith.
But it just amazes me how Lucas screwed up the franchise with some bad
movies. He had so much time to develop scripts and cast the right actors.
That makes it even more ridiculous, if you ask me.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240529 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 15:10
Tim Pollard  
"Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LfmdnaqWpfHAbYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
>
> Actually, I liked Return of the Jedi, and about half of Revenge of the
> Sith. But it just amazes me how Lucas screwed up the franchise with some
> bad movies. He had so much time to develop scripts and cast the right
> actors. That makes it even more ridiculous, if you ask me.


That's how I feel about LOTR... *sigh*


--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240535 ] Fr, 17 März 2006 21:00
Will Traynor  
"Tim Pollard" <timpollard [at] y a h o o .com> wrote in message
news:GrzSf.6467$KF3.3800 [at] newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LfmdnaqWpfHAbYTZnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> Actually, I liked Return of the Jedi, and about half of Revenge of the
>> Sith. But it just amazes me how Lucas screwed up the franchise with some
>> bad movies. He had so much time to develop scripts and cast the right
>> actors. That makes it even more ridiculous, if you ask me.
>
>
> That's how I feel about LOTR... *sigh*
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Tim Pollard
>
> www.timpollard.com
>
> A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
> needed to launch one ship.
>
>
>

Don't start that again !!! lol
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240579 ] So, 19 März 2006 09:09
dgates  
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:56:02 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
>news:47sv92FhcejqU2 [at] individual.net...
>> dgates wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:13:42 -0500, "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> CGI works for Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, because they are
>>>> clearly fantasy and could never happen. Bond, on the other hand,
>>>> needs some semblance of believability to work, IMHO. That's why CGI
>>>> doesn't work for Bond. BTW, I noticed another bad piece of CGI work
>>>> on DAD, where Halle Berry does the high dive into the water after
>>>> destroying the clinic. Boy, was that ever fake. That stuff just
>>>> ruins a Bond movie for me. Bring back TSWLM ski jump any day.
>>>
>>> People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
>>> today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
>>> tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
>>> projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
>>> technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> I think the problem isn't CGI per se, but the fact that they used it
>>> to show Bond parasailing, they bit off too ambitious a stunt, made it
>>> silly and it didn't even end up looking right.
>>>
>>> He was dangling off a cliff, fine. Let him *just* parachute down.
>>
>> The back-flip dive from Jinx was not only poorly executed (it's worse
>> than the parasailing in it's lack of veracity), but it was totally
>> unnecessary. Could have been a nice opportunity for a real high-dive
>> from a stuntwoman.
>> --
>> --Mac
>>
>
> I agree completely. It seems like they were getting lazy. They would rather
>have some computer geek set up a CGI sequence rather than have someone do an
>actual stunt.


Here's a theory I'm working on: Sometimes I think that people complain
about one thing in a movie when in fact it's another thing that
bothers them. (For example, I might complain that AVTAK had a bad
plot, when the real problem is just that I was bored during it.)

I think I'm hearing an odd complaint articulated here around the Jinx
high-dive. The complaint seems to be "I know Halle Berry couldn't do
that dive and that it had to be in some way 'faked,' but rather than
faking it via a CGI effect where we see Halle's face during the dive,
I would have preferred the film faked it by cutting to a long shot of
some stunt person making a big dive."

I think I've heard that argument before around here, but I'm not sure
I fully buy the logic of it. I just want a scene that is cool, no
matter how they opt to do it. I find that I'm even willing to meet a
movie halfway if I'm enjoying it for other reasons. (I think a few
people have mentioned forgiving things like visible rear screen
projection if they're enjoying the rest of the movie.)

IIRC, I liked the high dive scene and didn't like the parasailing
scene. To paraphrase Woody Allen, "If it bends, it's cool. If it
breaks, it's not cool." For me, the dive was within the acceptable
range of bending (plus I liked Halle and Cuba and was enjoying that
whole part of the movie). The parasailing "broke."
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240583 ] So, 19 März 2006 14:45
Mac  
dgates wrote:

> I think I'm hearing an odd complaint articulated here around the Jinx
> high-dive. The complaint seems to be "I know Halle Berry couldn't do
> that dive and that it had to be in some way 'faked,' but rather than
> faking it via a CGI effect where we see Halle's face during the dive,
> I would have preferred the film faked it by cutting to a long shot of
> some stunt person making a big dive."
>
> I think I've heard that argument before around here, but I'm not sure
> I fully buy the logic of it. I just want a scene that is cool, no
> matter how they opt to do it."

The argument is the Berry dive was neither "cool" nor a good use of CGI.

The argument is that CGI is supposed to be convincing, in this case it
isn't. Not only do we know Berry didn't perform the dive, we know that
there wasn't even a dive in the first place. It made no attempt to
adhere to the physics of the real world and just pulls one out of the film.
A stuntperson performing the dive for real has no choice but to adhere
because they are doing it for *real*.

Now, using CGI to put Berry's face on the stuntperson as they take the
real dive would have been a clever use of CGI.
--
--
--Mac
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240592 ] So, 19 März 2006 19:04
dgates  
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:45:37 -0000, "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net>
wrote:

>dgates wrote:
>
>> I think I'm hearing an odd complaint articulated here around the Jinx
>> high-dive. The complaint seems to be "I know Halle Berry couldn't do
>> that dive and that it had to be in some way 'faked,' but rather than
>> faking it via a CGI effect where we see Halle's face during the dive,
>> I would have preferred the film faked it by cutting to a long shot of
>> some stunt person making a big dive."
>>
>> I think I've heard that argument before around here, but I'm not sure
>> I fully buy the logic of it. I just want a scene that is cool, no
>> matter how they opt to do it."
>
>The argument is the Berry dive was neither "cool" nor a good use of CGI.
>
>The argument is that CGI is supposed to be convincing, in this case it
>isn't. Not only do we know Berry didn't perform the dive, we know that
>there wasn't even a dive in the first place. It made no attempt to
>adhere to the physics of the real world and just pulls one out of the film.
>A stuntperson performing the dive for real has no choice but to adhere
>because they are doing it for *real*.

Hmm. I guess it depends on what we mean buy "for real." The
upside-down jump in TMWTGG was "for real" but the setup needed to
create the effect was so preposterous that it might as well have not
been.

I had seen TMWTGG many times before I realized that those two
perfectly shaped halves of the ramp were supposed to be a *broken
bridge*. As a child, I saw those two things and said "Hmm, I guess
some Evel Knievel guy must have set up this cool jump and now Bond's
going to try it himself."


>Now, using CGI to put Berry's face on the stuntperson as they take the
>real dive would have been a clever use of CGI.

Fair enough. I think we disagree on whether or not the effect was
"cool" within the movie, but agree that CGI isn't some magical enemy
(What's the opposite of "panacea?") that can destroy any movie.

:-)
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240594 ] So, 19 März 2006 19:59
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4855kbFifqi5U1 [at] individual.net...
> dgates wrote:
>
>> I think I'm hearing an odd complaint articulated here around the Jinx
>> high-dive. The complaint seems to be "I know Halle Berry couldn't do
>> that dive and that it had to be in some way 'faked,' but rather than
>> faking it via a CGI effect where we see Halle's face during the dive,
>> I would have preferred the film faked it by cutting to a long shot of
>> some stunt person making a big dive."
>>
>> I think I've heard that argument before around here, but I'm not sure
>> I fully buy the logic of it. I just want a scene that is cool, no
>> matter how they opt to do it."
>
> The argument is the Berry dive was neither "cool" nor a good use of CGI.
>
> The argument is that CGI is supposed to be convincing, in this case it
> isn't. Not only do we know Berry didn't perform the dive, we know that
> there wasn't even a dive in the first place. It made no attempt to
> adhere to the physics of the real world and just pulls one out of the
> film.
> A stuntperson performing the dive for real has no choice but to adhere
> because they are doing it for *real*.
>
> Now, using CGI to put Berry's face on the stuntperson as they take the
> real dive would have been a clever use of CGI.
> --
> --
> --Mac
>
>
>
>
>

I agree. Bond movies never had CGI effects in them; they relied on actual
stunts. For example, the Jet Pack sequence in TB. Obviously, Connery is not
flying in the air, but a stuntman did it. It's a real stunt. As you said, we
know Halle Berry didn't perform the high-dive; no one did. Instead, some
computer expert set up a CGI effect, which wasn't even believable. The best
Bond movies were somewhat believable and not as fantastic as say, MR, YOLT
and DAD. The other CGI effect that was obviously fake, the parasailing
sequence, was just horrible and indicative of how EON was doing less real
stunts and relying on computer programs. Give me a good fight sequence over
an invisible car any day. Even Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have
commented on how they went overboard with the CGI in DAD.
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240596 ] So, 19 März 2006 20:04
Will Traynor  
"dgates" <dgates [at] spamlinkline.com> wrote in message
news:117r12pk14uv9ng22ucijjoqmo70nn9s8g [at] 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:45:37 -0000, "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net>
> wrote:
>
>>dgates wrote:
>>
>>> I think I'm hearing an odd complaint articulated here around the Jinx
>>> high-dive. The complaint seems to be "I know Halle Berry couldn't do
>>> that dive and that it had to be in some way 'faked,' but rather than
>>> faking it via a CGI effect where we see Halle's face during the dive,
>>> I would have preferred the film faked it by cutting to a long shot of
>>> some stunt person making a big dive."
>>>
>>> I think I've heard that argument before around here, but I'm not sure
>>> I fully buy the logic of it. I just want a scene that is cool, no
>>> matter how they opt to do it."
>>
>>The argument is the Berry dive was neither "cool" nor a good use of CGI.
>>
>>The argument is that CGI is supposed to be convincing, in this case it
>>isn't. Not only do we know Berry didn't perform the dive, we know that
>>there wasn't even a dive in the first place. It made no attempt to
>>adhere to the physics of the real world and just pulls one out of the
>>film.
>>A stuntperson performing the dive for real has no choice but to adhere
>>because they are doing it for *real*.
>
> Hmm. I guess it depends on what we mean buy "for real." The
> upside-down jump in TMWTGG was "for real" but the setup needed to
> create the effect was so preposterous that it might as well have not
> been.
>
> I had seen TMWTGG many times before I realized that those two
> perfectly shaped halves of the ramp were supposed to be a *broken
> bridge*. As a child, I saw those two things and said "Hmm, I guess
> some Evel Knievel guy must have set up this cool jump and now Bond's
> going to try it himself."
>
>

If that sequence had been directed and edited properly, and the sound effect
was dropped, it would have been a very good action scene, regardless of the
set up. Why they decided to put that scene in slow motion is beyond me.

>>Now, using CGI to put Berry's face on the stuntperson as they take the
>>real dive would have been a clever use of CGI.
>
> Fair enough. I think we disagree on whether or not the effect was
> "cool" within the movie, but agree that CGI isn't some magical enemy
> (What's the opposite of "panacea?") that can destroy any movie.
>
> :-)
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240597 ] So, 19 März 2006 20:44
Mac  
dgates wrote:

> Hmm. I guess it depends on what we mean buy "for real." The
> upside-down jump in TMWTGG was "for real" but the setup needed to
> create the effect was so preposterous that it might as well have not
> been.

That's not the fault of the stunt, though; the actual stunt is still
pretty terrific. As is the parachute jump at the start of THE SPY
WHO LOVED ME -- the set-up for that doesn't withstand close
scrutiny either.

> Fair enough. I think we disagree on whether or not the effect was
> "cool" within the movie, but agree that CGI isn't some magical enemy
> (What's the opposite of "panacea?") that can destroy any movie.

Of course. I'm not anti-CGI. CGI has a place in the Bond movies. So
many outdated techniques can, and have been, effectively replaced
by CGI.

I am, however, a believer that real stunts are part of a tradition the
James Bond movies should never abandon.
--
--
--Mac
Re: CGI Banned in CR [message #240600 ] So, 19 März 2006 20:55
dgates  
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:39:17 -0600, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk [at] chinet.com>
wrote:

>At 10:25pm -0800, 03/14/06, dgates [at] spamlinkline.com wrote:
>
>>People tend to mention the TSWLM ski jump when complaining about CGI
>>today. Why not mention the bit where the motorboat jumps out of the
>>tanker? Or some of the nuclear explosions from DAF?
>
>>Perhaps we should consider some random piece of weak rear screen
>>projection from a 60s Bond film as a case where, if they had the
>>technology back then, perhaps they should have done some nice CGI
>>instead.
>
>You have a point.
>
>Usually, rear projection doesn't destroy the illusion for me. Which scenes
>are you thinking of? And do you have some scenes in mind in which the rear
>projection was handled well?

Nah, I don't have any particular scenes in mind. It's all pretty much
part of my theory that once a guy is enjoying a movie, he's more
willing to forgive bad FX.

I suspect that people can fill in their own examples here, with movies
about James Bond or not. "I prefered Steven Spielberg's Jaws, despite
its rubber-ish shark to such-and-such film, despite the latter's
better special effects."
Vorheriges Thema:Meet the new James Bond, Craig Becker
Nächstes Thema:hi, I,m new in this group and have some 007boardgame questions
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 20:55:16 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07656 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered