Tested: The James Bond movies comprise the longest continually-running film series ever, beginning with the release of Dr. No in 1962 and continuing all the way up to the present day… and beyond. While the Bond films aren't exactly effects-driven, they still require the services of a crack team of illusion-wielding agents both on-set and in post. The output of these SFX and VFX mission specialists typically includes spectacular chase sequences, a big reveal of the evil mastermind's hidden lair and, almost certainly, lots of inordinately large explosions.
14 comments:
I've honestly never considered the fact that someone might be able to create an entire career out of doing only James Bond effects. I mean, the article is right that there aren't a stupid about of effects, but these movies are an incredible enterprise. It seems to me that these movies could have such an incredibly consistent team of people, but particularly in the effects sector. I guess for me, it would be amazing to create 'inordinately large explosions' for Bond movies, if only because I think Bond movies have a certain pizazz and style that I have always appreciated.
It never ceases to amaze me the types of tricks that are used on film shoots. Though when most people hear things like scale model, they usually think of something portable or table-top sized. In the film world, a scale model can still be the size of a building. The 63 foot long tanker wouldn’t even fit in a standard tractor-trailer. It is hard to think of something that size as being a model, but it doesn’t make a difference after editing and being shown on a big screen. With all of the Bond movies and all of the times MI6 headquarters has been blown up, I suppose it is a bit unrealistic to think that they actually blew the building up, let alone the number of times it has blown up. With a combination scale models, real explosives and digital special effects, it is hard to tell where reality ends and the digital begins. But isn’t that the point of movies?
James bond is amazing. The franchise has continually made great movies with few exceptions (skyfall). I love the action in the movies and that they are able to use action with out completely relying on special effects to make the movie. Obviously the special effects got better as the franchise went on, technology got better. I don’t think the movies would have continued to make money for this long if they hadn’t continued to evolve with the times. It is great that some of the special effects people ave been with he company since the late 1970’s. I find if fascinating how they rig scale models with a sort of ‘green screen’ to lay in the building they are “blowing up” in the movie. It is truly remarkable how far we have come in the world of special effects, and hopefully they will only get better as time goes on. I do hope they don't lose all personal touches and become entirely digital, I thinks something ends up getting lost.
As a Bond-head, seeing how Bond films have progressed through the years has been an exciting viewing experience. Each Bond film ups the ante in terms of stunts, locales, and sleek fight scenes. Reading the article and seeing how miniature was used so frequently in the films lends them a certain kind of charm that is lost in most big-budget films nowadays. While Bond has transitioned into one of those tentpole franchises, and the budget has increased proportionally, the effect are still rooted in the same heart as the rest of the franchise. Seeing the shot in Skyfall of MI6 exploding and realizing that that was done in miniature as well is a bit amazing. Creating a building completely in scale so that blowing it up will still have a big effect, while not enacting it on a life-size scale, is the kind of magic that pushes me towards the entertainment field. Coming up with these kinds of creative solutions to silly problems is a dream of mine.
Huh, I would have thought that all of the pyro and explosion sin Skyfall had been done with VFX, but it makes me really happy to read that some of at least the base effects were done with practical’s. I really do hope that the film industry continues to move in a hybrid SFX/VFX direction. I know that we cant possibly do everything we do with computer generated effects live on set, but I think there is a quality to practical effects that we have not mastered replicating in a computer yet. Maybe we need a few more decades of experiencing the computer generated art form before it becomes really natural to us, it is so close now. Explosions and building, things and cars, these are being done very well now by computer graphics, but human interaction, animals, nature; these we don’t have perfected yet. When film makers make the decisions to put hybrid elements of production into their movies, it makes better art.
One of my favorite things to do when watching old movies is to re watch the scenes with explosions or monsters or whatever and figuring out what they did to make that effect. With older movies, all the effects were practical, with miniatures and costumes and paintings. But, with the implementation of CGI in every movie nowadays, it takes a little bit of the cleverness that I once enjoyed from movie production. I feel there are movies nowadays simply banking on "Doesn't this CGI look great?" while ignoring the rest of the movie. This takes a little bit of the soul out of the production.
I don't think it's necessarily always bad though. Creating such lifelike and fantastic effects is an art form. I've always liked imagining time traveling back to the 1920s or something and showing people modern films. I'd love to see he audience that reportedly ran away from a video of an oncoming train react to Transformers.
It's so great to hear that the effects in the new Bond movies are still done using a few practicals. I would have thought that by now they were all computer-generated, but I am glad they have found a way to combine the two to create a better overall product. Computer effects are getting better by leaps and bounds, but there is something about a practical effect that just cannot be replaced by computer simulation, at least where it stands now. Perhaps farther down the road practical effects will no longer be necessary, but I think they add something wonderful and challenging to the making of a movie and that makes it all the more real for the audience. What this article said about the collaboration between the two areas reminds me of the movie Life of Pi, where most of the movie is computer generated. Still, the movement of the boat and the scenes shot in it were all filmed in an actual boat floating on actual water: something that would have been very challenging to replicate with computer effects. In the end, their collaboration produced better art.
It's so great to see that a franchise as hugely and as widely successful as James Bond still utilizes practical effects. With all of the virtually unlimited resources that the James Bond team must have, I think it's fantastic that they're dedicated enough to still use practicals. Of course, the use of digital effects has been extremely useful, and has allowed those in the film industry to portray things that would never be able to be actually made. However, it's really cool to see that the James Bond movies still use some practical effects, even though the industry is so reliant on virtual effects nowadays. This article was really interesting to read, as it followed the development of James Bond effects, and it showed how today the James Bond team is able to effectively use both practical and virtual effects.
Wow. Very interesting to hear the background of VFX and SFX as they relate to the James Bond franchise. I did not know that the makers of James Bond had such an entrenched history with practical SFX. You know, I've always wanted to hear a knowledgeable lecture on the pros and cons of practical and digital effects. I'm sure that to anybody to works in the industry, it is fairly obvious about the strengths and weaknesses of each, but I guess to me and a lot of other uninformed movie-goers, the differences are not clear. Perhaps that is why a lot of people always say, "Oh man, practical effects are way cooler." But perhaps it is only because we notice poorly done digital SFX, and are unaware of the strengths of it. As far as the James Bond Franchise is concerned, it is definitely cool to read about how they are blending old and new technology to create a superior, and likely cheaper, product. The use of realistic miniatures is especially amazing in this day and age because I feel for sure like it would stick out like a sore thumb. Apparently not!
For me, this article did two things. For one, it educated me about the history of big-movie special effects, something I have remarkably little knowledge of. The other result of me reading this article was an increase in knowledge about the James Bond franchise, another thing I have embarrassingly little knowledge of. (Both of these things, by the way, can be attributed to my parents, who raised me without a television, therefore sealing the deal on my pop-culture illiteracy.) I found that having these two deficits of mine addressed was something very helpful, as this history of the film industry, as told through one of its best-known creations, is something that may help me should I ever go into film.
On that note, this article was also a bit inspiring, as seeing the fantastic work of so many industry greats is something pretty moving for a student such as myself, for whom the entertainment industry offers so many routes to go. Seeing this work exposed me to more career paths, which is always dope.
Spectre was a frustrating Bond movie. Yes, all of the typical explosions and special effects were there (en masse), but the justification for them was at an all time low. Indeed, the explosions and flashes and bangs tended to carry the plot, "physically" grabbing the audience's attention back rather than enhancing a plot line. Though the effects utilized in the plot stretched the uppermost limits of audience suspension of disbelief (i.e. a plane navigating obstacles and still functioning, sans wings), the effects themselves were tight and aesthetically sound.
Subsequently, for want of a genuine plot, these carefully crafted effects began to come across as imitations of slapstick comedy, which on the whole felt like it cheapened the Bond name and franchise as a whole. Bond is known for suave charm and polish and the lack of impetus behind the explosions made it feel rather Pink Panther. By no means is the Pink Panther bad, it is just that it is simply not Bond.
I LOVE JAMES BOND! And I love that a film franchise as big as the James Bond franchise is still using practical special effects. With the film industry using so much green screen now, it is sometimes hard to differentiate what is "real" and what is real. I do like how the article talked about the collaboration between the two practices, practical effects and special effects to create one amazing looking movie. Just goes to show how far along we are coming with technology but how much we still want to keep our practical roots and not rely solely on computer generated scenes. I can't wait to watch Spectre, the new James Bond Film and see what I can pick out as being special effects and practicals.
This article is a neat little insight on what must be a very interesting world. It’s pretty safe to say that a lot of people can get behind Bond films. At this point, they’re pretty engrained in western culture as the go to espionage thriller movie, the series basically defined the genre. That being said, the use of visual effects in these movies are integral to the cultural stigma that surrounds them. The article said it well, the movies aren’t effects driven, but a Bond film is incomplete with out a few explosions and a few gun fights, general badassary, and neat gadgets. The world behind making all of that happen, convincingly, uniquely (considering the franchise is over 50 years old with 24 movies), and safely, must be one that is both exciting and rewarding. That kind of “make it happen” world is one that brought me here to CMU, being able to help create an immersive world is what it’s all about.
I have never really thought of Bond as an enterprise, but it makes sense that anyone working on a Bond production theoretically could have been working on Bond productions for most of their careers if not their whole lives. It is pretty amazing to hear about the give-and-take of effects over the years; the miniature tanker as an alternative for a tanker that is so realistic that even the people who failed to rent them a tanker forgot that they did not rent them a tanker. I always find it amazing when a show blows up buildings and even entire cities. While CGI makes special effects more realistic with the high quality film, it is almost more interesting to hear about how special effect were handled before CGI because a lot more thought had to be put into the planning of each effect to make sure that it would look real.
Post a Comment