It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Likewise, QoS had more locations than any other Bond movie, yet that is becoming as popular as DAD is.
Bond is as far removed from that, all this talk of Bond being too serious, SF is utterly preposterous quite often and it's all the more entertaining for it, I'd never say that Bond 23 is was an art film it's a 007 film it's just positioned for the 21st Century, if you want these film to resemble museum time pieces I'm afraid you are out of luck, find another franchise to like, Bond is in rude health so I don't see a return to Cubby Bond until this type loses it's appeal and on the reception of Skyfall will be for a few more entries yet.
These films aren't made for us they are made for a mass audiences and it appears those people have spoken, SF is a phenomenon and I would say that it has achieved that much box office with so much more distractions and competition that the relatively un-crowded marketplace that series king TB didn't, all this talk of adjusted and unadjusted, Skyfall has triumphed in times that TB would have definitely have had a hard time competing in.
Some balked a while back and still are but the idea of billion dollar Bond doesn't seem so impossible even if it's not this time, the expectation and audience for Bond 24 will be significant.
Sorry, you lost me after that......
@jetsetwilly.
It's okay with me if you think that Gassner did a better job than Ken Adam in MR.
I'm loving the fact that Craig's Bond is bringing back the Flemingesque style. I really hated the Moore and Brozza years, and with SF proving immensley popular both critically and commercially, it looks like my kind of Bond will be around for a long while to come.
Here's to Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's Bond, and let's hope for more of the same....... \:D/
You've previously said that MR is one of your favourites while I have it as 22/23. So I don't think we'll ever agree on it, perhaps best to leave it alone.
I personally don't mind if Bond is shot extensively on location if the quality of the film is as high as Skyfall is (I don't think we'll agree on that either). Might not have been entirely shot on location but the cinematography certainly didn't suffer as a result, on screen the film - particularly the Macau/Shanghai scenes - looked stunning which is why I don't think it matters that they weren't really there.
I would agree that some ASPECTS of MR are great but, objectively or subjectively, I find it hard to accept it as a better film overall to SF. Its just too cartooney. The last time I saw it I literally cringed at the moment when Jaws meets Dolly.
Your argument doesn't stand up. You state SF is great. Are you implying that using the real locations would have made no difference? I think it could only have added to the spectacle. Unlike some people I didn't think the establishing shots of Shanghai were anything special, namely because Bond wasn't in them. He's behind the wheel of a car then parked outside a London Skyscraper that doubles for Shanghai. Imagine a rooftop/street chase with Patrice IN Shanghai.
But from these trimmings aside, SF is far, FAR superior in every other way.
Considering that most rooftops in Shanghai are skyscrapers I'm not sure a rooftop chase would work out.
MI3 showed how it could be done to perfection to take advantage of this specific locations!
X_X
I think SF is entertaining too - although perhaps it isn't as "re-watchable".
I wasn't sure if it was you I made this point to but I had this discussion with someone else online a few weeks ago and he said the following:
"Films like FRWL and OHMSS are more drama based and hence less rewatchable than films like TSWLM or MR...but that doesn't make them any less great". He has a point.
For me personally SF easily has the edge over MR. It's just less campy and cartooney.
I Know, because I spent years hating DAD and it gets you nowhere...... ;)
Stick in a CGI parasurfing scene, and I would have had far more issues with that.
Yeah you're right. It's certainly better than using real locations. Anything that means using CGI as a cheap alternative is good for me.
Your entitled to it but you are beginning to sound like a broken record with your constant criticism of Skyfall.
Gassner will never compete with Adam the man is a one off but that doesn't make these earlier entries some how better, MR also has an amazing Barry score but it's certainly not going to allow me to let MR off when it has so many other things wrong with it.
The earlier films have some great craftsmanship involved, sets, cinematography and score but that doesn't make them all better than the later films just because of it, of course YOLT, DAF & MR have much better scores and set design than SF I wouldn't deny but it can't hide the fact that those films are far from perfect in many other areas.
I'm not blinded by hype at all, I just don't think the lack of locations in Skyfall was really an issue because it wasn't a film that required extensive outdoor location shoots and the fact that it was mostly shot in the UK or on sets didn't ruin my experience, I didn't even think about it.
I think that's definitely sarcasm.
Thing is, I've not suggested it would in any way ruin the experience. I'm implying that using real locations however frivolous is more often than not going to add a certain atmosphere and authenticity you just cannot get from doubling/studio. I think some people think I'm having a dig at SF. Too many people on the defensive and I don't know why. No one here made the bloody film so why so protective?
I guess I can't be. I liked SF and as we all know you can't like both SF and DAD in this playground. You must stake your claim and fight your corner, right? How dare anyone think it is possible that there are shades of grey in this world.
No, I don't think you're suggesting that it would ruin the experience. Just stating that mine wasn't in the way that others (not yourself) seem to have been pretty bothered by it. I completely agree with how atmosphere and authenticity can be added to a film by location shooting, personally I very much prefer location shooting (and stunts actually being performed in real life instead of CGI when possible) but in this case, with this specific film, I don't think the lack of location shooting was that big of a deal.
There are things I can criticise about Skyfall too, I'm really not that protective of it.
Thankfully SF had none of this. Give me a lack of locations any day of the week over an ice palace packed full of flying lasers.
And on top of that, I didn't even know Craig wasn't in Shanghai and Macao, so your argument falls spectacularly apart.