CGI IN BOND FILMS

Apologies in advance if this has been covered, search uncovered nothing for CGI, My question is do we want more, less or none? To be honest i can't think of too many instances unless of-course it was so good i diden't see it. The obvious ones were the collapsing building in Spectre and of-course the dreadful kite surfing the tsunami scene in DAD.
I'm sure there are others...probably several, but does the use of CGI take away from the films or perhaps you feel the opposite is true? I'm not referring here to special effects of-course, the series is peppered with them but the use of generated images instead of doing it for real on location or at least in the studio and not on a laptop?

It takes away 100% of believability. Bond in particular was always known for stunts and practical work at the best of the best level-and to resort to obvious CG usage is not only disheartening but robs a lot of the film's credibility. I think a major selling point of the films could and should be that there is no CG usage-but then again it is so widespread that practically all productions no matter the size these days have rampant CG all over the place. There's a tad in CR06 and I hated the bits in QoS particularly the plane and dangling in ropes scene.
At least it is made slightly less obvious in the competing Mission Impossible series but even there I get frustrated when they over rely on it as a tool and I get taken out of the moment.

Ironically though most single out DAD it was the last in the series to have significant model work and it's a damn shame that other pushed to shoehorn in those awful CG sequences.

For me CGI should mostly be used subtly in a way that you wouldn't even realized what you were seeing was computer generated. I think SKYFALL is an excellent example regarding the third act where certain shots of the Skyfall lodge and terrain was touched up to give them a more specific look. This is a sharp contrast to DIE ANOTHER DAY heavily using CGI to be the center of the action which is why it gets so much flack. So it always feels refreshing watching a contemporary film like SKYFALL only use CGI minimally, with more emphasis on practical elements. Stuff like the train crashing into the tunnel or the helicopter crashing into Skyfall lodge look great as practical f/x, and in a Marvel film might have looked more over the top.

When subtly done, not a problem. Ironically by example, TND manages it (helicopter rotors during the motorbike jump and additions to the corner of the building roof that Bond and Wai-Lin jump from) better than the 5-years-later DAD does.

I think the rule of thumb should be: if it can't be achieved with stuntmen/model work then a rewrite is in order. The Bond films built its reputation on doing unbelievably crazy stunts and that should be upheld. The worst two examples of CGI for me are the QOS free fall and the collapsing MI6 building in SP. The former because there was no need for it to be done digitally, especially since MR did something similar decades ago with actual stuntmen. 80 times. Similarly, and following the rule of thumb, if you can't bring down the MI6 building for real and have Bond speedboat away as it collapses (obviously you can't!), then it's a bad idea. And again, TWINE did an attack of MI6 much more effectively with incredible model work.

Two other points I want to make:

1. While the parasurfing scene goes against the aforementioned rule of thumb, at least Bond's character isn't compromised in the process. The visual effects are terrible, there's no denying that, but Bond using his wits and improvise his way out of the dilemma at least keeps the integrity of Bond's acuity. For that reason I'm more forgiving of that sequence.

2. One aspect of modern day CGI usage that grates is the cut and pasting of the actor's face on the stuntman. God it looks awful!

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the parasurfing scene goes against the aforementioned rule of thumb, at least Bond's character isn't compromised in the process. The visual effects are terrible, there's no denying that, but Bond using his wits and improvise his way out of the dilemma at least keeps the integrity of Bond's acuity. For that reason I'm more forgiving of that sequence.

I don't think anyone has ever knocked that scene for its concept, only that that visual effects look so poor and that the heavy use of CGI in the parasurfing scene encapsulates everything wrong about DAD for a lot of fans. If they were able to do it in a more practical manner where Brosnan doesn't look so obviously digitally composited onto the scene, then that would be a very different story.

I imagine the QOS freefall was done digitally because its production issues probably didn't allow the time to do it with stuntmen 80 times, lol.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the parasurfing scene goes against the aforementioned rule of thumb, at least Bond's character isn't compromised in the process. The visual effects are terrible, there's no denying that, but Bond using his wits and improvise his way out of the dilemma at least keeps the integrity of Bond's acuity. For that reason I'm more forgiving of that sequence.

I don't think anyone has ever knocked that scene for its concept, only that that visual effects look so poor and that the heavy use of CGI in the parasurfing scene encapsulates everything wrong about DAD for a lot of fans. If they were able to do it in a more practical manner where Brosnan doesn't look so obviously digitally composited onto the scene, then that would be a very different story.

People knock the entire film for a 45 second sequence that dabbled with the VFX of the time. It's hardly a structural issue which is why it shouldn't grate as much as its reputation suggests. Granted, I think having 007 running straight to his Aston from the biodome and Zao and Bond battle it out with the car chase would have been a better alternative - and if a demonstration of the weaponised Icarus was absolutely necessary have the cars battle it out while dodging the space laser for an extra layer of tension. But to write off the entire film for what we ended up with is wrong.

BI wrote:

I imagine the QOS freefall was done digitally because its production issues probably didn't allow the time to do it with stuntmen 80 times, lol.

Ha, maybe. An unfinished script and the tightest turnaround for a Bond film since the 60s and they gloat about globetrotting to the most locations of any 007 film.

I recall Forster claiming that he was proud of the realistic technology because he didn't have to risk the stuntmen's life.

And who could forget invisible cargate! The film has some good moments however

I think if one can buy the Wet Nellie in TSWLM, a camouflaged Aston Martin based on real technology should be just as easy to swallow.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

While the parasurfing scene goes against the aforementioned rule of thumb, at least Bond's character isn't compromised in the process. The visual effects are terrible, there's no denying that, but Bond using his wits and improvise his way out of the dilemma at least keeps the integrity of Bond's acuity. For that reason I'm more forgiving of that sequence.

I don't think anyone has ever knocked that scene for its concept, only that that visual effects look so poor and that the heavy use of CGI in the parasurfing scene encapsulates everything wrong about DAD for a lot of fans. If they were able to do it in a more practical manner where Brosnan doesn't look so obviously digitally composited onto the scene, then that would be a very different story.

People knock the entire film for a 45 second sequence that dabbled with the VFX of the time. It's hardly a structural issue which is why it shouldn't grate as much as its reputation suggests. Granted, I think having 007 running straight to his Aston from the biodome and Zao and Bond battle it out with the car chase would have been a better alternative - and if a demonstration of the weaponised Icarus was absolutely necessary have the cars battle it out while dodging the space laser for an extra layer of tension. But to write off the entire film for what we ended up with is wrong.

It's only 45 seconds, but it's seen as being representative of everything that's wrong with the film because there is so much reliance on CGI beyond just that parasurfing stunt. Whatever good DAD has, the bad parts spoil it too much for others. The film was heavily marketed at the time for being the first Bond to dive into the digital era of filmmaking, with Lee Tamahori saying he was proud of bringing the franchise to the future of cinema. It's no coincidence the film kicks off with a gun barrel featuring a CGI bullet. But I get it, you're inclined to be more easy on DAD than most fans because it's got Brozza who's your ideal Bond and he smooths out the rough edges for you. We can at least agree it is not THE worst Bond film of the franchise, but I can't deny that I understand why the film grates for so many fans too.

If a briefcase full of diamonds blew up in my face i'm not sure what i would do

MP wrote:

But I get it, you're inclined to be more easy on DAD than most fans because it's got Brozza who's your ideal Bond and he smooths out the rough edges for you.

Ah. Standard MP response.

No. I'm more inclined to be easy on DAD because of its tone.

Sure.

As per general consensus, in-your-face CGI only works for sci-fi and fantasy. A film set in the real world that uses copious CGI for action scenes will look like a video game every time. A lot of CGI in contemporary action movies is a terrible substitute for real life stunts. Yes, it's cheaper and easier than actually flipping cars or having stuntmen jump out of planes, but it's even cheaper and easier to not make a movie at all, so...

It's why it was oddly heartening to hear that that NTTD test explosion blew out part of the 007 Stage wall and someone incurred a minor injury as a result.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

It's why it was oddly heartening to hear that that NTTD test explosion blew out part of the 007 Stage wall and someone incurred a minor injury as a result.  

Things going wrong on the set? Standard operating procedure for a Bond film! The worst is really with FYEO where a stuntman died during the bobsled sequence. Aeriel cameraman Johnny Jordon lost his leg from a helicopter motor rotor. Even in DIE ANOTHER DAY a smoke grenade shrapnel lodged into Halle Berry's left eye.

Don't tell anyone Bond movies aren't tough to make.

During DAD somebody broke a fingernail and one bloke swallowed a peanut

Makeshift Python wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

It's why it was oddly heartening to hear that that NTTD test explosion blew out part of the 007 Stage wall and someone incurred a minor injury as a result.  

Things going wrong on the set? Standard operating procedure for a Bond film! The worst is really with FYEO where a stuntman died during the bobsled sequence. Aeriel cameraman Johnny Jordon lost his leg from a helicopter motor rotor. Even in DIE ANOTHER DAY a smoke grenade shrapnel lodged into Halle Berry's left eye.

Don't tell anyone Bond movies aren't tough to make.

Possibly the oddest one was during Goldeneye ... Brozzer used a porcelain towel-rail for support whilst getting out of the shower, which promptly shattered as he held on to it. He said that consequently, any strain that he's showing while dangling from the dish ladder during GE's climax 'is not acting'.

The birth of PainFace!

Surely at its finest during the TWINE torture chair scene at the moment where he resembles a squirrel storing food in its cheeks.

Brozzer's injury on GE did mess up the schedule a little. Dalton's hand got injured on LTK in an accident when Benicio Del Toro had to cut the bonds on the shredder and got a bit too carried away. Of course Roger got blasted in the bum which may explain why he so coldly kills Stromberg by shooting him over and over....the list goes on and on.


The big one is the FYEO tragedy and one I never knew about for years and years until finally seeing reference somewhere. They definitely tried to downplay it but looking at OHMSS they almost had a bobsled related tragedy there as well.

Hehehe, as Moore put it ... 'Where most people only have one hole, I now have three!'

You see TSWLM for years and go wow Bond got away just in time.

You then devour production history.

Then every time you wince in sympathy with Roger and imagine the panicked crew jumping out in camera with extinguishers...