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
Notice how the 3 biggest Bond films, most epic outings visit 6 times less locations than QOS, and 4 times less than CR... Something is very wrong, since neither Craig films are even close of the epicness of YOLT/TSWLM/MR... And, QOS's globetrotting *is* extremely Bournified since, contrary to any Bond films from 1962-2002, it changes location at an alarming rate of once avery 10 minutes, just like Bourne... While the Bond films from 1962 to 1985 can stay at the same locations for nearly 45 minutes average.
You can see that, @Panchito, no ? It is totally un-Bond and very Bourne-like to change country every 10 minutes or so... Contrary to nearly every Bond films and every Fleming novels as well. I don't watch Bond film to feel like a tourist who barely never leaves the airport, but to feel AT HOME in locations I will most likely never visit in my life.
I don't understand this whole "Bond must only be in one location" drivel. Some of the best films in the series have featured multiple locations. FRWL has five (SPECTRE Island, Zagreb, Belgrade, Istanbul and Venice); FYEO has five (Spain, Corfu, the dive site, Albania and Greece); TLD has six (Gibraltar, Bladen, Bratislava, Tangier, Vienna, and the airbase in Afghanistan); and CR has six (Prague, Madagascar, the Bahamas, Miami, Montenegro and Venice). In fact, the only Bond film with less than three locations was OHMSS. Even DN had three locations, as did YOLT.
So I really don't get why it's so important that Bond stays in one place and "absorbs the local culture", or whatever you want to call it. If I wanted to see that, I'd watch Michael Palin. You have no idea how the locations in BOND 23 will be divided up. For all you know, South Africa will be the PTS sequence, with India and China being the post-London locations. So on one hand, you want "ONE, maybe TWO major locations outside the London-MI6 section and a PTS location, and that's it", but at the same time you think "India, S.Africa and China is way, way to many locations". Contradiction, much? I don't think "epic" is a word anyone would use to describe MR. Except maybe "epic failure". As you repeatedly point out, you think CR is a poor film. Yet the general consensus is that it's one of the best films in the franchise. You will also notice that every location in CR serves a function of the plot. Bond does not stay in one location for longer than he needs to - if the Miami, Prague or Madagascar scenes had been any longer than they actually were, they would have felt over-long.
Also, your claims of Bond being "Bournified to the extreme" carry no weight. IDENTITY was limited to three locations - Zurich, Marseilles and Paris. SUPREMACY went to four - Goa, Italy, Berlin and Moscow. And Ultimatum went to four - London, Madrid, Tangier and New York. Bond has regularly been going to four locations since 1963. Or does your memory only go as far back as 2002?
If you can read, you'll see this : DN visit 2 countries, YOLT 1, OHMSS 2, DAF 2, GF 2, FRWL 3, LALD 3, TSWLM 3, MR 3 (!!), FYEO 3, OP 3, AVTAK 3.
Oh, and your idea of S.Africa being the PTS is just patheticly wrong. Bond visits S.Africa for the FIRST TIME, and you want it to only be featured in a 5 minutes PTS sequence ? How can you say such insane rubbish ? A new locations MUST BE a major location. You are not thinking straight at all. If S.Africa is the PTS of any plot, than it is an instant failure to me, without even seeing the film. I do NOT want to see a new location in the franchise be wasted in a 5 minutes PTS sequence. I hope you are not serious shadow, or else you just have no idea how locations should be chosen for a Bond film.
Have you ever seen YOLT ? It takes place in ONE country - Japan. DN takes place in 2 countries - London and Jamaica. Please read this list first : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_film_locations
Anyway, I would say that the number of locations doesn't matter too much as long as the story itself flows. Yes, some of the more recent films have had more locations, but (with the exception of QOS) I've felt that they've all been quite fluid. I would imagine that (like most films and stage productions) the story will be set into three acts. It is perfectly possible - though not definite - that each location will be used for each act. Now that does not seem unreasonable to me.
Now can we stop throwing statistic-ridden mud at each other and just wish the best for B23? Please.
All I am saying is this - S.Africa and China MUST be the major locations if B23 goes there, or I won't be wasting 2 hours of my life to see this film I will hate from the start. India must be the PTS for me, or it's no use going there, as it will steal the screentime for the 2 new countries in the franchise, which deserve much more than a 15 minutes sequence.
Sorry to sound redundant, @PanchitoPistoles, but Bond is about to visit 2 new countries, 2 very beautiful and exotic countries (China and S.Africa), and I do NOT want to see either of them wasted in a 5 minutes PTS. If B23 goes to China, India and S.Africa, then India MUST only be shown in the PTS, and give plenty of space for the film to show the 2 other locations. It will just be criminal if, for the first time Bond visits China and S.Africa that they are only there for a 10 minutes. They almost deserve the whole film to themselves and dump India alltogether.
If you think that the first purpose of a Bond film is to visit exciting new locations and spend plenty of time soaking them up, then I'm afraid you've missed the point of the films entirely. You're willing to write a film off as being unable to score anything more than 5/10 simply because it spends fifteen minutes in a location the franchise has never been before? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a very long time.
My personal theory is that the other major location will be South Africa, with China or Scotland being the PTS. (By the way, it looks like this will be the first Bond movie in a long time where the only European location is the UK.)
This is starting to fall into the tedious mess that finds its way into so many topics in which several members cannot agree to disagree, resulting in petty arguments and long winded posts of getting one over on another member.
I'm looking at both @shadowonthesun and @DaltonCraig007 here.
Give it a rest.
Less raging thunderstorms
More cool weather and attitude
Now the deal breaker I want bond to play hold em in one scene as i feel it's Craig bond's game of choice.
As for the locations, if everything is done correctly, we should be OK, if not, well... It seems like this could be no problem then. Good news.