BOND POLLS 2017: The Big "SPECTRE" vs "QUANTUM OF SOLACE" Battle!

1234579

Comments

  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Thanks @barryt007 . I am quite stunned how close the voting is going, since the more 'heavy-duty' posters on the MI6community in here completely destroy SP.

    Its still #12 for me,and I really like it until it reaches the torture scene and London.
    QoS is #4 at the moment for some of its great scenes ,as in the plane chat with Beam,Greene,Felix and Elvis,and the Tosca scene etc..I do like Greene,i must admit,although not many do on here.

    But really? 4th?

    Quite. The Greg Beam scene on the plane right up there as one of the all time great scenes in Bond? Seriously?

    Quantum of Solace is at #3 for me.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Walecs wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Thanks @barryt007 . I am quite stunned how close the voting is going, since the more 'heavy-duty' posters on the MI6community in here completely destroy SP.

    Its still #12 for me,and I really like it until it reaches the torture scene and London.
    QoS is #4 at the moment for some of its great scenes ,as in the plane chat with Beam,Greene,Felix and Elvis,and the Tosca scene etc..I do like Greene,i must admit,although not many do on here.

    But really? 4th?

    Quite. The Greg Beam scene on the plane right up there as one of the all time great scenes in Bond? Seriously?

    Quantum of Solace is at #3 for me.

    QOS for me is at #267
  • Posts: 19,339
    Walecs wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Thanks @barryt007 . I am quite stunned how close the voting is going, since the more 'heavy-duty' posters on the MI6community in here completely destroy SP.

    Its still #12 for me,and I really like it until it reaches the torture scene and London.
    QoS is #4 at the moment for some of its great scenes ,as in the plane chat with Beam,Greene,Felix and Elvis,and the Tosca scene etc..I do like Greene,i must admit,although not many do on here.

    But really? 4th?

    Quite. The Greg Beam scene on the plane right up there as one of the all time great scenes in Bond? Seriously?

    Quantum of Solace is at #3 for me.

    QOS for me is at #267

    One place higher than TLD which I have at #268.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Probably QoS
  • Posts: 4,044
    What is the score?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Some like myself enjoy films that don't get in their own way or eight themselves down with formula.

    Well done. :)

    What am I getting a gold star for this time? I'm running out of room on my refrigerator.

    *That should also be "weight down," not "eight down."

    Just how you are able to enjoy those films, where the rest of us can't. That's a skill, you know? wish I could enjoy QoS.

    @Mendes4Lyfe, you love DN, which is very much a stripped back Bond film (naturally with it being the first), so I'd say you fit into this camp too, at least partly. QoS and that film aren't that far apart, in that they don't rely on comfortable little gimmicks or traditions to earn the audience's respect. They just tell a story.

    That's why I sometimes lament the legacy of GF, where pop culture thinks that all Bond films are like those that I really don't like, that make the spy a sort of non-character in a bit of parody. The far more interesting and powerful Bond films to me have been those that've used Bond to tell interesting and human stories while also being stylish and cinematic in their own way. We see that in the stripped back detective stories of Dr. No and From Russia with Love, how that style blended with a blockbuster for Thunderball while still retaining a human aspect, and in On Her Majesty's with one of the most un-Bondian movies of them all that boldly went where none have ever gone again. Similar attempts were made after that, namely in the Dalton era, but never reached what once was. The Craig era have gotten there though, and in many ways the era is synonymous with doing something new with what is well-known.

    I love that our current Bond films have been able to tell stories of grief, loss, betrayal, ghosts of the past, old vs. new and the crumbling relationship of a father and daughter of all things all in one era of movies. I guess I appreciate those stories more because I'm a bigger fan of films than I am Bond films. I can accept and respect when elements of filmmaking enter into the Bond realm and the movies just focus on stories and the dimensional characters without the formula shoved down the throat. The Craig era has some of what you'd expect from Bond films, but it's those human stories that have always been the most compelling and refreshing thing for me. They aren't unlike Fleming's own books, where human stories in grounded stakes were able to be told despite the larger than life and fantastical or bizarre nature of some of the plot. Even though Moonraker is about a bomb plot to nuke London, for example, what you remember is Bond being left alone with his "cold heart" when the truth is revealed to him at the conclusion.

    The Craig era couldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but I have found it refreshing. So many want "old Bond" back, perhaps forgetting that how Bond started is much closer to the Craig films than not. What they really mean is they want films like those that were off-shoots of Goldfinger, which is fine, but I lament more interesting innovations in the series. We have enough Goldfingers in the series, not only because of how many times EON literally attempted to remake it with fresh paint, but also in how it has influenced a collection of comfortable films that don't feel at all bold or interesting in comparison to the risks of before and after them. The vast majority of the films in the series fit closer to the Goldfinger mold than not, and so one has to wonder when Bond is allowed to do something new, as was the goal with Casino Royale onward?

    From the response to Quantum of Solace I think we have seen that people don't want films that strip back things to tell stories, they want the Bond iconography every time and I think there's a better way to realize a balance than that. Basically they could make the films as Fleming made the books, giving room for interesting stories and elements of the bizarre or fantasy without parody weighing things down. I've had enough of jokey, carefree Bond, and it'll be sad if the series regresses back to the same old same old after Craig's era showed newer ways to get there.
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I see your point, but I don't see why GF is to blame? The film was just as innovative as the first two, no? It's like blaming the original Star Wars for all the Death Star clones that came in the subsequent films.

    Also, I think the Craig films operate on their own formula. Without that tease of the return of classic Bond at the end of each film, would they really have the same impact? Is it right to criticise the heritage of the franchise whilst praising a group of films which use said heritage to tease the audience like a dog with a bone. I mean, in order to eschew classic formula, it relies on the audience having a knowledge of the formula, no? So in a way, the Craig movies are just as dependant on the formula as the old films, because if those elements weren't familiar to the audience to begin with, it wouldn't have the same impact when they are eschewed.

    @Mendes4Lyfe, it's not blaming Goldfinger itself, but more how its "innovations" were used after by EON. Though I also hold that a great bit of the Bond experience was already settled in before 1964 ever arrived, where that film didn't create the feeling or experience of a Bond film, but only was able to develop off it. But I don't want to turn this into another discussion where a member will treat me like a child and say, "Know your Bond history, that film is important," and blah, blah, blah.

    I'm not criticizing the formula and lauding Craig's era for not having it, those elements are there, but as I have always said, the movies don't let formula weight it down or limit them. If the Bond formula ran those movies then we'd never get to see the human stories, because they would be of the mind that, like Goldfinger, people will suck up a movie that is flashy instead of substantial in the grand scheme and Bond isn't a place for those more "grown up" stories. The Craig films are what they are in spite of the formula, which it sometimes pokes fun at to an amusing degree as well, and that is dodges around to be more than just another series of Bond films. I just think it's a beautiful thing that a modern day Bond film can have a long character scene with two people discussing a dead man they knew to be both good and evil, and how the movie itself allows that scene to develop quietly. It's not something one would expect to see in a Bond film or one calling on the legacy, but it's there. The scene treats itself seriously, and doesn't ruin it by inserting an obligatory one-liner or a shot of a woman with no top.

    Old Bond films can be fun, but I like how the Craig films have still been able to grow up with an edge, and play with expectations, sometimes in ways fans view as condescending (I don't), to create a new experience. We couldn't have a Casino Royale if EON were constantly worried about respecting the formula, and we never ever would've had a Quantum of Solace. Skyfall and Spectre, which people seem to think are more Bondian than the first two, still do their own thing with the Bond legacy and shake stuff up in the stories they tell and how they use characters, often in ways we've never seen before. Taking what you know-or think you know-but doing it different.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    QOS is top 10 for me.

    It is a film I've come to greatly admire, SP has definitely been put into perspective.

    QOS seems like LTK but this time it's not jarring tonally and the actor playing Bond gives a consistent performance.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Shardlake wrote: »
    QOS is top 10 for me.

    It is a film I've come to greatly admire, SP has definitely been put into perspective.

    QOS seems like LTK but this time it's not jarring tonally and the actor playing Bond gives a consistent performance.

    That's essentially how I describe it. "LTK, but better executed tonally, and more interesting character-wise." ;)

    It's what I talked about above, where you have a film with too much formula, LTK, and a movie that is connected to the Bond legacy without letting the formula limit it, in QoS. You can't have a movie like QoS done well if you hold on to so much of the formula, as we see in the mis-matched execution of LTK. You have to commit, and tell your story. While LTK spends too much of its time wondering if it's doing something old or something new (much like TLD too at times), from jump QoS says, "This is what I am, and here we go." No identity crisis, no cold feet.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Keep voting dear forummembers. It's almost a draw so far. How is that possible?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Keep voting dear forummembers. It's almost a draw so far. How is that possible?
    I've already explained it to you. Would you like me to do so again?
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep voting dear forummembers. It's almost a draw so far. How is that possible?
    I've already explained it to you. Would you like me to do so again?

    Please do so....I must have missed your remark...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's in your opening preamble.

    Both films are basically ranked similarly by the general public. A mediocre and forgettable 64% (QoS) and 65% (SP) respectively on RT (with 'Audience' rating of 58%-QoS and 61%-SP respectively with much more representative sample sizes, although there might be a slight skew in favour of SP in that ranking because more members of the general public viewed the last film in comparison to QoS, and are also more likely to remember it since it's more recent).

    SP gets more criticism here because it's the latest film. That's always the case. It was that way 3 years ago with SF (there were countless threads on the film here at that time) and I imagine it was the same way 6+ years ago with QoS. Just because a film is debated and critiqued by members doesn't mean it's necessarily more 'disliked'. Just that it is the more current choice for discussion. More so in this case because it was a film that tied everything together.

    So all this poll has shown us is that both of Craig's lesser efforts are generally viewed as being equally poor, which is exactly as we could have surmised from the RT audience rating.
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's in your opening preamble.

    Both films are basically ranked similarly by the general public. A mediocre and forgettable 64% (QoS) and 65% (SP) respectively on RT (with 'Audience' rating of 58%-QoS and 61%-SP respectively with much more representative sample sizes, although there might be a slight skew in favour of SP in that ranking because more members of the general public viewed the last film in comparison to QoS, and are also more likely to remember it since it's more recent).

    SP gets more criticism here because it's the latest film. That's always the case. It was that way 3 years ago with SF (there were countless threads on the film here at that time) and I imagine it was the same way 6+ years ago with QoS. Just because a film is debated and critiqued by members doesn't mean it's necessarily more 'disliked'. Just that it is the more current choice for discussion. More so in this case because it was a film that tied everything together.

    So all this poll has shown us is that both of Craig's lesser efforts are generally viewed as being equally poor, which is exactly as we could have surmised from the RT audience rating.

    I agree with you on most of your answer. I do think however that in the past 8 years or so the Bond forum community has become more crowded. I actually can't remember very well what the opinion was about QOS shortly after it premiered. Well, the official critics are clear, but in here I don't know.

    Yet when I did a similar poll somewhere else between SF and CR, shortly...or a few months after SF premiered, CR was still winning.

    Also, when do we take film critics seriously and when are we blasting them? I remember I created thes topics, and there was pretty much blasting going on with regard to film critics:
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/4960/skyfall-vs-casino-royale-on-rotten-tomatoes-metacritic-imdb-update-23-8-2016-with-qos-sp#latest
    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/7137/rottentomatoes-ratings-of-bond-films#latest

    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film over the next two years.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.

    Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.
    Yes, I agree and that's what I mean about loose continuity (which I mentioned on another thread). Something subtle is definitely ok.

    I didn't like the Madeliene/Bond scene on the train in SP because that reminded me too much of the Vesper/Bond train sequence in CR, which was just far superior (very few can compete with Eva Green and her train intro is one of the iconic moments of Bondom). I don't know what Mendes was thinking, but he really should have changed up the location. That's one of the things they have to be careful about going forward. In a way, he did Seydoux a disservice. There are many examples like that in SP which recall the past too vividly and create unfavourable comparisons.

    Having said that, I didn't have a problem with the actual discussion, which recalled the Vesper/Bond CR conversation over caviar about 'choice' (even if it was too reminiscent of Bourne/Marie or Wayne/Rachel for my liking)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.

    Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.

    Bond bumped shoulders with a lot of enemies in Jamaica and nearly died more than a couple of times (The Three Blind Mice twice, Dent, then Dr. No), that's all that quote is referring to.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.
    Yes, I agree and that's what I mean about loose continuity (which I mentioned on another thread). Something subtle is definitely ok.

    I didn't like the Madeliene/Bond scene on the train in SP because that reminded me too much of the Vesper/Bond train sequence in CR, which was just far superior (very few can compete with Eva Green and her train intro is one of the iconic moments of Bondom). I don't know what Mendes was thinking, but he really should have changed up the location. That's one of the things they have to be careful about going forward. In a way, he did Seydoux a disservice. There are many examples like that in SP which recall the past too vividly and create unfavourable comparisons.

    Having said that, I didn't have a problem with the actual discussion, which recalled the Vesper/Bond CR conversation over caviar about 'choice' (even if it was too reminiscent of Bourne/Marie or Wayne/Rachel for my liking)

    I...I agree with you @BondJames. I completely agree. Hence I think it would be great to change the locations more radically. Would be great to set the next Bond film way more heavily in the USA. There's a lot of....shit happening there these days ;-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I don't have a problem with using the United States @Gustav_Graves. SP didn't do well in the US, and perhaps EON may want to get a better result and publicity there next time (like they did with DAF) by filming there.

    If they go to the US, I just hope that they try to make the locations feel glamorous and stylish rather than camp and cheap. Bond films have not used the US well in the past. AVTAK is a disgrace in comparison to other efforts (like Vertigo) which really make San Fran shine for example. Hitchcock knew how to make the US feel stylish (e.g. North by Northwest).
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.

    Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.

    Bond bumped shoulders with a lot of enemies in Jamaica and nearly died more than a couple of times (The Three Blind Mice twice, Dent, then Dr. No), that's all that quote is referring to.

    Fine. Except Bond says the line to Felix.

    If that's a reference to DN I'd be interested to know when the enemy got 'close' to Felix? The most danger he is ever in is being exposed to Dent's radioactive 'samples' on the quayside.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.

    Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.

    Bond bumped shoulders with a lot of enemies in Jamaica and nearly died more than a couple of times (The Three Blind Mice twice, Dent, then Dr. No), that's all that quote is referring to.

    Fine. Except Bond says the line to Felix.

    If that's a reference to DN I'd be interested to know when the enemy got 'close' to Felix? The most danger he is ever in is being exposed to Dent's radioactive 'samples' on the quayside.

    That we see.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with using the United States @Gustav_Graves. SP didn't do well in the US, and perhaps EON may want to get a better result and publicity there next time (like they did with DAF) by filming there.

    If they go to the US, I just hope that they try to make the locations feel glamorous and stylish rather than camp and cheap. Bond films have not used the US well in the past. AVTAK is a disgrace in comparison to other efforts (like Vertigo) which really make San Fran shine for example. Hitchcock knew how to make the US feel stylish (e.g. North by Northwest).

    A bit like....this @BondJames ;-)? https://www.docdroid.net/q503afj/story-treatment-james-bond-007-in-murder-on-wheels-final-2docx.pdf

    I can think of plenty luxurious spots in the USA. USA locations that feel Bond-ish at the same time.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I will take a look at your story treatment at some point @Gustav_Graves.

    It's not so much the luxury as the cinematography. Washington DC for example can look very stylized (I thought they did a decent job in National Treasure for example).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    bondjames wrote: »
    I will take a look at your story treatment at some point @Gustav_Graves.

    It's not so much the luxury as the cinematography. Washington DC for example can look very stylized (I thought they did a decent job in National Treasure for example).

    'House of Cards' does a great job of making D.C. look very stylized, as well.
  • D.C. would be a great location for a Bond film. (It's already appeared, albeit severely underused, in Boyd's Solo.)

    I haven't seen National Treasure, but I think I'll check it out. I'm liking the cast.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Or Colorado, USA. Great villa's and mansions there :-):
    20150611211415062637000000-o.jpg?2015-06-16
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I will take a look at your story treatment at some point @Gustav_Graves.

    It's not so much the luxury as the cinematography. Washington DC for example can look very stylized (I thought they did a decent job in National Treasure for example).

    'House of Cards' does a great job of making D.C. look very stylized, as well.
    Yes, very much so. It's all about the way one films it. Beautiful place.
    D.C. would be a great location for a Bond film. (It's already appeared, albeit severely underused, in Boyd's Solo.)

    I haven't seen National Treasure, but I think I'll check it out. I'm liking the cast.
    It's a fun film. I much preferred the first one to the second.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    The good news should be that Bond #25 will already look much better in comparison to SP wouldn't you say ;-)?
    Most likely, as long as they don't remind people of it. If they must bring Craig back, they should go down the SF route and just forget the prior film completely imho (in fact, they should do that even if Craig is not back, and is one of the reasons I don't want him back).

    I still have a lot of hope for B25 to be a killer film, but news that Craig is returning has dampened my expectations somewhat. There are a lot of articles out there already commenting on 'grumpy' Craig returning etc. and I don't want that sort of nonsense polluting the anticipation for the next film.

    For me the SF-route is quite comparable to the GF-route. There were some minor references to the films that preceded SF and GF.


    With SF there was this drinking/casino scene between Severine and Bond. And to me it showed that Sam Mendes clearly looked at Campbell's CR.

    Bond to Severine in SF: "I know when a woman is afraid and pretending not to be."

    Bond to Vesper in CR: "I think something is driving you. And I think I'll never find out
    what that is.
    "

    Not to mention "Don't touch your ear!"-line.


    With GF it was obviously Bond's following remark to Felix in Miami: "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica. What's on your mind? I'm on holiday."

    And that's obviously a tiny reference to DN.

    So taking this into account, I think you can have a few lines that aren't too obvious, but still make them a nice sport to look for.

    Since something like this obviously didn't happen in Dr.No it is not.

    Bond bumped shoulders with a lot of enemies in Jamaica and nearly died more than a couple of times (The Three Blind Mice twice, Dent, then Dr. No), that's all that quote is referring to.

    Fine. Except Bond says the line to Felix.

    If that's a reference to DN I'd be interested to know when the enemy got 'close' to Felix? The most danger he is ever in is being exposed to Dent's radioactive 'samples' on the quayside.

    Yes, I see the issue. Perhaps Bond is referring to Freelance, the seemingly innocent girl found out to be a SPECTRE plant alongside Felix in the club, a sign that they were being heavily opposed and watched in Jamaica? Felix was also there watching Bond when secret killer Mr. Jones was in place to pick him up for the ride, again showing that all the parties, British and American, were in danger. We also don't know the work Felix put in before Bond got there, possibly rubbing shoulders with them as he surveyed, information that was relayed to Bond. I just see that statement said by Bond in a general sense, in a, "They nearly got us" sort of way.

    It's not an elegant connection, but I can see its context.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I will take a look at your story treatment at some point @Gustav_Graves.

    It's not so much the luxury as the cinematography. Washington DC for example can look very stylized (I thought they did a decent job in National Treasure for example).

    'House of Cards' does a great job of making D.C. look very stylized, as well.
    Yes, very much so. It's all about the way one films it. Beautiful place.
    D.C. would be a great location for a Bond film. (It's already appeared, albeit severely underused, in Boyd's Solo.)

    I haven't seen National Treasure, but I think I'll check it out. I'm liking the cast.
    It's a fun film. I much preferred the first one to the second.

    One of the few examples of
    Sean Bean not dying in a movie.
Sign In or Register to comment.