› ›

Italy... again. Really??

2»

Comments

  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Rome may be the capital of Italy, but it's almost a world of its own. Believe me when I say that Rome is more than the sum total of its buildings and famous art work. Rome is the perfect setting for a Bond film and it's a shame they never went there before.

    I think often people forget that a country is not a monolithic block. England is not only London, or the monuments in London, France is not only Paris and Italy has many distinct parts.

    Still the point about Bond movies has always been living a fascinating life and going to Places usual folks don't. In this regard neither Italy and especially the UK (no matter what part from) qualifies.Before flying became cheap dirt generations of Europeans drove to Italy,Spain and Portugal during holidays.It is almost collective heritage. About the Uk - well,apart from those living in Asia and South America just about everybody lives in a country where foggy,rocky,harsh or hill laden countrysides are not to far away (mind you,those living in the south of Spain certainly have a longer way,than those residing in Germany. The mountains of the alps on the other hand are a complete different story. Doesn't matter how often you see them,they are awe inspiring every time.

    A)Not many parts of the world now are out of reach from usual folks, except Antartica, Groenland and some remote parts of Far East and Africa.


    B) And I am all for using the UK in moderation. Fleming did in his novels, if only to stress its dreary and mundane aspect.

    A) And that's exactly where we should find James Bond. Leave the mundane places to the more down to earth spies.

    B) And he made it a point to have Bond never let hang around there for long ( apart from MR of course). Actually,to my mind he used it for contrast purposes exclusively and so should Eon.

    A)Good, try to find the money and equipment to shoot Bond 25 in Antarctica. My point is: there are places where it is far more difficult to shoot, for various reasons.

    B)And there are not many places nowadays that are out of reach from the middle class person.

    A) I would suggest they might save some money losing the high paid A-star league of actors and director on the way. Money that might be handily spent on locations (you know,how they did it way back when they made Bond a legend and a trademark for entertainment ).To me the china part of SF is still an embarrassment for the franchise.

    B) Being in reach doesn't actually mean going there. At least for most people. Take Myanmar and Mali for example. Everybody can go there,but hardly anyone does. On the other hand most people know how it feels to be in a grey and rainy city/landscape.
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    jobo wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm

    So you are basically saying that modern Bond films should be filmed at the poles or the rooftop of K2? Well, to cite Daniel Craig; "good luck with that"...

    No,I don't. But I still would insist they handle their travelogue with style. They way it was done in large parts of SF used to be the hallmark of Bonds cheap competition way back in the 60ies. This and ridiculous scripts lacking any logic. Hmmm ....
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Even if they were hiring lesser known actors (and there aren't many big stars in Bond movies, even now. If Ralph Fiennes is famous for instance, he is not exactly George Clooney or Tom Cruise famous), shooting in bleeding Antarctica is expensive all the same, not to mention technically difficult. But if they film in Austria and Rome, isn't it on location too? What's wrong with these settings? Is their sole sin is to be reachable? Not that they are visited as often as, say Paris. As for always filming on location... In FRWL, Pinewoods Studios and if I am not mistaken Scotland doubled as Italy.
  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    Posts: 299
    I recently read an article stating the current Hollywood production also works with a mind on the most important audience outside the United States: Asia. For Asians Rome or Europe in general is still exotic enough. Whereas China is not so much. Don't know if that's the reason SF did the China bit mostly in the studio, but it's certainly a thought. Anyway, I like Rome and Italy, couldn't be happier.
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    Oh for Pete's sake! "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" picked up from where "CASINO ROYALE" left off. That is why both the 2006 and 2008 movies are partially set in Italy. You would think people would realize this.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    DRush76 wrote: »
    Oh for Pete's sake! "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" picked up from where "CASINO ROYALE" left off. That is why both the 2006 and 2008 movies are partially set in Italy. You would think people would realize this.

    Good point there.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 6,023
    It's true that movies set below the Equator are few and far between in the world of James Bond (MR, CR '06 and QOS). But Antarctica might be a little too southern. Why not Australia or New Zealand ? Both have incredible locations, as evidenced by the LOTR movies. And Australia has fauna that could be put to great use by villains.
Sign In or Register to comment.