Spectre title song - Writing's on the Wall

18384868889175

Comments

  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.
  • I'm looking forward to this until I hear the song.

    I loved YKMN - easily one of my favorite Bond themes and it had the perfect edge to it to match Casino Royale. The theme was great and Arnold used the YKMN riff throughout the film's score. Worked very well IMO.

    I loved the AWTD instrumental, but the lyrics & singing on the track didn't work. I enjoyed Skyfall, but do agree it seemed to try and go out of its way to invoke similar past themes from the series.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    How can Bond mimic Bond?
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    How can Bond mimic Bond?

    Ask @RC7 :-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.

    I understand your point @RC7, but......I do disagree. Because I think letting Bond wear a white dinner jacket is really a less lazy, more subtle design choice. The choice is not lazy, because the costume department obviously have been carefully thinking "What shall we do next" as opposed to...letting Bond wear a black dinner jacket again.

    So I really find it a perfect hommage.

    But as you say, this discussion comes in many shades of grey really. And personal taste also gets infused in this discussion: You are not so.....thrilled about that white dinner jacket. But I am :-).
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited September 2015 Posts: 1,731
    @ Gustav - it's all about subtlety. If an 'homage' or inspiration is not subtle but very in your face then it is generally considered poor. How poor an homage, as with all other things, is subjective of course.

    Fields covered in oil being a case in point by RC7. Very blunt, not at all subtle...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.

    I understand your point @RC7, but......I do disagree. Because I think letting Bond wear a white dinner jacket is really a less lazy, more subtle design choice. The choice is not lazy, because the costume department obviously have been carefully thinking "What shall we do next" as opposed to...letting Bond wear a black dinner jacket again.

    So I really find it a perfect hommage.

    But as you say, this discussion comes in many shades of grey really. And personal taste also gets infused in this discussion: You are not so.....thrilled about that white dinner jacket. But I am :-).

    It's not so much that I'm not thrilled about him wearing a white dinner, I actually like that as an idea, what I don't care for is the addition of the red carnation and its use in the promotion of the film. It seems like too much of a carefully staged homage to Connery in GF. That may sound like a petty gripe, but like I said, the devil is in the detail. It's not about him not wearing or doing things other Bond's have, it's more to do with how that's represented visually and whether it's too closely aligned with another incarnation. DC in naval uniform would be neat, for example, but DC wearing beige slacks and a pink tie (God forbid) would be a no go for me, not just because it would be horrendous, but because it's a look synonymous with Conners in a specific film.
  • Posts: 2,081
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.

    Yes. I think it was awful.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Subtlety is a lost art......and I agree, it's all about being subtle.

    There is no need, as an example, to so obviously evoke other films (LALD or OHMSS) as they have been doing to date in the marketing and the trailers (particularly OHMSS which is a very specific film/novel) unless they are trying to tell us something.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 330
    Since I knew yesterday that Disclosure helped mix the bond song, ive been listening to some of their work. Such as this one,


  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    I've listened to that song, Hourglass, before, and really enjoyed it. Hopefully they'll help put out a great theme!
  • HMBFFHMBFF Lisboa, Portugal
    Posts: 204
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w

    Which was my point.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w

    Think this should be directed at the person RC7 was quoting...
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Have just listened to Newman's soundtrack in its entirety, and taken on its own, as music, I actually have to say that there are some nice elements. However, as a soundtrack to a film, and specific film (Skyfall), I still think it falls way short of what I'd expect. What it so clearly and desperately lacks is one, or really any, distinctive theme/s to unite it and give it some character or coherence. It's all very serviceable and polite, but there's really nothing in it that's remotely memorable or particularly exciting.

    The one moment where it suddenly feels like everything is being tied together, is that tiny, brief reference to the title song during Komodo Dragon. Sadly, as it's never repeated, all it does is hint at what the score could have been, had Newman not been such a jealous, lazy, grump, and actually agreed to collaborate more closely with Adele and Epworth.

    I'm not a huge fan of Adele's song, but it has plenty of nice motifs that really lent themselves to orchestral references during the score. As it stands, the Skyfall soundtrack is a fairly bland and generic piece of action/thriller scoring, with no coherent identity. A massive missed opportunity. Had Adele's song been woven properly into the score, I also believe it would have elevated the song itself as well.

    I am really hoping that this major error has been properly addressed with Spectre. I am very hopeful that one of the reasons they appear to have got the theme song sorted so long ago was that EON and Mendes are insisting that Newman incorporates it into his score.

    I really hope so. I don't actually care that much how often or little the Bond theme itself is used. I think the overall strength of the score is much more dependent on the quality of the original themes and motifs than run through a Bond score and tie it together. All the best Bond scores incorporate the theme song properly.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Tuulia wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.

    Yes. I think it was awful.

    100% agree. The endless reappearance of the DB5 since 1995 (particularly the ejector seat gag in SF), and the Fields 'GF' reference in QoS were absolutely awful. Absolute low points in the series, only beaten by the entirety of DAD, in their mind-blowing awfulness.

    I don't particularly want blatant musical references either, apart from the Bond theme. Having said that, if OHMSS popped up in the film, in the right context, I don't know how I'd respond. Barry reused his own themes, so why not others? But generally speaking, 'in jokes' and self-referential humour are best avoided.
    RC7 wrote: »
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w

    Which was my point.

    Can't believe people are up in arms because the theme song is going to be sung by a gay guy. Seriously? Are we actually in the 21st century? The idea that any one finds it shocking is both deeply sad and hillarious at the same time.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 2015 Posts: 7,546
    I thought the 'oil is the new gold' moment in Quantum of Solace was great.
    I could easily see the DB5 appearances getting a bit old, but I like it in Skyfall. It's aesthetic against the lodge in Scotland was fantastic I thought.
    I 104% agree on your final point there, though, @Getafix.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Subtlety is a lost art......and I agree, it's all about being subtle.

    There is no need, as an example, to so obviously evoke other films (LALD or OHMSS) as they have been doing to date in the marketing and the trailers (particularly OHMSS which is a very specific film/novel) unless they are trying to tell us something.

    I think this is a load of bullocks really. I recall very very well that most of the fans despised Craig's original suits in "Skyfall", because they were too frikkin' tight. But they were tight, because it was the fashion in 2012. No retor-stuff, no looking back, Jany Temime decided it was the right thing to do at that time.

    And now look where we are now? Bond wears a white dinner jacket, evoking some retor feeling as opposed to Craig's suits in "Skyfall", Bond fans were thrilled at first, and now....a few weeks later we STILL know how detest the tiniest little details!

    Does it really matter if the incarnation was removed? Does that incarnation really suddenly makes you feel...better? Does it....affect the story? Will it result in 007 surfing on an ice-tsunami? Perhaps some people call this 'subtlety'. Well, I think we have arrived at a point of complete 'ridicilousness'. Where we are over-criticising the fun and joy out of the franchise. Sorry...what's next? Daniel Craig walks too much like Connery? Bonds DB10's gadgets are too much like.....the gadgets from GF? God, if that's the case....I sooner or later retire from being a Bond fan.


    And may I remind some fans in here that only 1 to 2 years ago Bond fans were detesting the idea of bringing back S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and perhaps Blofeld? Be a man. and still despise that decision that has been made by the Bond producers.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Getafix wrote: »
    Can't believe people are up in arms because the theme song is going to be sung by a gay guy. Seriously? Are we actually in the 21st century? The idea that any one finds it shocking is both deeply sad and hillarious at the same time.

    That it even is a topic at all is kind of sad or silly or both.

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    bondjames wrote: »
    Well, I think we have arrived at a point of complete 'ridicilousness'. Where we are over-criticising the fun and joy out of the franchise.

    Seems it gets to a point in communities like this where people simply run out of things to talk about. ;)

    But I agree with you, @Gustav_Graves
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think you're over overreacting. The above arguments are personal taste. They're things some of us would rather happened, but none of us are ready to jump ship. For me it's purely a case of having something tangibly unique. For example, if it's a choice between an Aston with gadgets or a Lamborghini Muira that Bond steals from a villain (for example) I take the latter. It's different, it's something to add to that vast Bond sandbox. Just my opinion of course.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Subtlety is a lost art......and I agree, it's all about being subtle.

    There is no need, as an example, to so obviously evoke other films (LALD or OHMSS) as they have been doing to date in the marketing and the trailers (particularly OHMSS which is a very specific film/novel) unless they are trying to tell us something.

    I think this is a load of bullocks really. I recall very very well that most of the fans despised Craig's original suits in "Skyfall", because they were too frikkin' tight. But they were tight, because it was the fashion in 2012. No retor-stuff, no looking back, Jany Temime decided it was the right thing to do at that time.

    And now look where we are now? Bond wears a white dinner jacket, evoking some retor feeling as opposed to Craig's suits in "Skyfall", Bond fans were thrilled at first, and now....a few weeks later we STILL know how detest the tiniest little details!

    Does it really matter if the incarnation was removed? Does that incarnation really suddenly makes you feel...better? Does it....affect the story? Will it result in 007 surfing on an ice-tsunami? Perhaps some people call this 'subtlety'. Well, I think we have arrived at a point of complete 'ridicilousness'. Where we are over-criticising the fun and joy out of the franchise. Sorry...what's next? Daniel Craig walks too much like Connery? Bonds DB10's gadgets are too much like.....the gadgets from GF? God, if that's the case....I sooner or later retire from being a Bond fan.


    And may I remind some fans in here that only 1 to 2 years ago Bond fans were detesting the idea of bringing back S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and perhaps Blofeld? Be a man. and still despise that decision that has been made by the Bond producers.

    Jany Temime, whatever her intentions were, made a mess of it in SF.....imho. Craig looked like a twit in those tight suits. They're meant for 'lean cuisine' people, again imho, not for a man of his height/build. That's just my view on that of course. Hopefully she has learnt her lesson for SP (it looks like she has).

    Regarding referencing the past, they used to do that all the time during Moore's run and even Dalton's so it's nothing new. It's the more overt references that I find a little amusing at times (like the DB5 and the Fields oil instance)......as if they have to do this to sort of add credibility to their offering...in my view they cheapen it.

    Having said that, nothing I've seen to date is offensive.. I'm looking forward to everything, but I don't think Craig looks good in that white dinner jacket (Again a personal opinion). I think it looks like he's trying too hard and actually seems sloppy. It does not suit his height, build or skin/hair. That's just my view.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Well, I think we have arrived at a point of complete 'ridicilousness'. Where we are over-criticising the fun and joy out of the franchise.

    Seems it gets to a point in communities like this where people simply run out of things to talk about. ;)

    But I agree with you, @Gustav_Graves

    Thanks @NickTwentyTwo ;-)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I think you're pretty close to the mark @bondjames when you say they do it to add credibility, but essentially cheapen things. I find it hard accepting the argument that, 'the public love it', maybe so, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't love something less homage based, or god forbid, unique, even more.
  • HMBFFHMBFF Lisboa, Portugal
    edited September 2015 Posts: 204
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w

    Think this should be directed at the person RC7 was quoting...

    Yes. RC7 quote came along by mistake. Sorry @RC7 :(
  • Posts: 1,068
    HMBFF wrote: »
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond th
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,068
    HMBFF wrote: »
    HMBFF wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    andmcit wrote: »
    My main fear with Smith is the danger the song with be unnecessarily melodramatic and limp wristed.

    Big gay Sam, with his big gay Bond theme.

    Yes, because everyone knows that sexual orientation and musical choices goes hand in hand.
    :-w

    Think this should be directed at the person RC7 was quoting...

    Yes. RC7 quote came along by mistake. Sorry @RC7 :(

    Yes OK, my 'limp wristed' comment was an unfortunate turn of phrase earlier: I genuinely have no interest in Sam Smith's sexual preferences and truly didn't know so walked into being pilloried as homophobic/sexist etc. I have purely been making my judgement on his songs from viewing them on YouTube.

    In the context of my full post earlier I was expressing reservations about the song being delivered a bit tamely and not with the gusto blood and thunder of that of a favourite of mine - TB

    I'm out of here
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,068
    Double post - delete
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    This is the key thing to avoid. DC wearing the Connery dinner jacket, or driving the GF DB5 is consciously mimicking, especially when the scenes themselves are shot to look like a period film (as with this SP train scene).

    Now that I truly find bull-shit. So when Bond wears a black dinner-jacket in "Skyfall" it's not 'consciously mimicking' but something 'truly original that we haven't seen before'?

    I think if you really want to find out the answer, you'll have to talk directly to Dutch costume designer Jany Temime. On top of that, I recall very well, that Jany Temime wanted to give Bond also a very 2012-esque look with his suits in "Skyfall", making them more slim-fit, more 'cut-to-the-bone'........so by doing so actually moving away from the retro past a bit. Well, we know how dissatisfied some people were about that.


    In my honest humble opinion, I think it completely rocks seeing Bond finally in a white dinner jacket again, and in a way I find that way way more thoughtful and creative and respectful to Bond's past, as opposed to letting 007 wear a midnight blue or black dinner jacket again. Probably this choice has also been made by taking into account the fans.

    My point really: It's a rather hollow argument to use the argument 'consciously mimicking' and to say we 'need to avoid that'. It has been done ever since "Doctor No" appeared on the screen.

    The white dinner jacket with red rose is a one-off and associated with the most iconic film in the entire series. Dinner jackets, whether black or midnight blue are a staple ingredient. Giving DC the GF look is a conscious nod to that film. That's not bullshit, it's just fact. As I've said, I'm not a massive fan of mimicking very specific visuals, but it's just an opinion. I know others love see things they've seen before. For me, in the long run, I prefer to look back and see a breadth of design that is specific to each film.

    It's a fact until Jany Temime confirms. Yes, the references are there, and it's obvious. But something is not a fact when you call it a fact.

    Moreover, your arguments are still hollow, as I can recall numerous examples in which the 'past was consciously mimicked'. Giving 007 a diamond-ended bow tie in "QOS" obviously goes back to Connery's dinner jacket in "Doctor No". Not to mention painting the poor Strawberry Fields oil black.....which is a 'conscious mimick' of Jill's gold painted body in "GF".

    Summarizing: I don't see ANY harm in that. People love it. And moreover, as time passes by, it becomes inevitable that elements 'look' like 'that Bond film from the 1960's'. How the hell can you stay fully original if you start production on the 39th Bond film somewhere in 2052 ??

    And you forget one important thing. clothing designers are not shamefully copy-pasting, they always give a new twist to it. I call it 'creative inspiration'. As opposed to that red carnation, one can also say that the overall dinner jacket has very big early 1970's lapels. Which is different from the very slim 1960's lapel on Connery's white dinner jacket in "GF". It's not as black and white as you make it sound. And again, it's not fact until Jany Temime speaks it out in a videoblog.

    Ok, it's not a fact, it was definitely an accidental coincidence, just like the DB5 in SF.

    Anyhow, I'm not sure you see my point of view, or understand it. In my eyes it's about balance and it's important, because the devil is in the detail. If you want to compare Bond's bow tie in QoS with DN, cool, if that truly is a conscious decision, it's a very subtle nod and 'cute', for want of a better word. Fields covered in oil on the other hand, to me, is an overtly conscious and poor homage. It's lazy. One is a subtle design choice, one is riffing on one of the most iconic scenes in the series. They are at completely different ends of the spectrum. There are shades of grey and it's very subjective, but I stand by the fact I'd prefer Bond films to not be too conscious in their references. If you borrow 1960's visual iconography for your 2010's movies, what do you reference in 2060? The answer: don't bother 'borrowing', start 'inventing' again.

    But Bond in a white dinner jacket is a statement about his character, which has been established for 50+ years.

    The filmmakers are in a no-win. If they do things completely new and original, fans are angry; if they give a nod to the franchise's past, fans are angry.

    You're right about "balance." And I think Mendes got it just right in SF. I predict he will in SP, too.
Sign In or Register to comment.