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
Completely agreed. These were creative geniuses.
EON has been through a lot since they last worked on Bond though (including financial troubles with MGM, studio idiots messing with the creative process etc.) as well as the advent and overuse of CGI.
I miss Barry greatly as well as Adam (and I can really can tell the difference between their finesse and their respective successor's lack thereof, so it upsets me - it does not seem to be that way with everyone). These men were visionary giants in their respective fields.
It may be too much to expect that we can get there again but now that Bonds are making wads of cash again, maybe they will insist that the music, and the sets, reflect that. I think SP will be better than SF in this regard, so we have something to look forward to.
That's so true. The ice palace thing probably felt cool to some studio nut. I watched DAD the other day and could not believe they came up with that.
Personally I really like some of the design elements I saw in QoS (editing aside). The Tosca eye in particular was very Bondian. It wasn't a set, but I'll take that over any ice palace as it had the unique Bond quirkiness. Sort of like the Dr. No set where Dent gets his instructions from Dr. No and the spider. The hotel as well had an Adam vibe.
I agree it's best to forge ahead rather than try to recreate the past, especially if you don't truly understand what inspired the original vision. Otherwise, one runs the risk of pastiche and even worse, parody..
With the world giving us some real, stunning architectural structures, I think we can keep the Bond films with very interesting locations that seem realistic, including the buildings. Set design for interior work should also be of highest standard, nothing looking cheap. It needs to be interesting, daring even yet not OTT because that would make it seem ... dated, like an old Bond film. We simply cannot have another villain's lair close to Stromberg's, for example. But they can take an amazing building, like we have seen posted on other threads, and give it a unique, dramatic twist.
Yes, I agree totally. They could actually film in a modern architecturally pleasing building and that could substitute for the modern set, and still produce the right vibe at a lower cost. The cinematography is also very important to capture the essence of the location. As an example (and probably not the best one) I love North by Northwest, and in particular the house used at the end of that movie. Although it predates Bond, I find that bit very Bondian, because of the simple yet architectural flair of the house, and the way it is photographed (from upstairs looking down etc).
My problem with the Ice Palace is that it looked like pastiche (evoking TSWLM to a degree). There was nothing particularly standout about it, apart from it being an Ice Palace. Big wow.
A very nice man.
You've met Ken Adam and worked with Peter Lamont? I'm envious. Two greats.
My main issue was that damned invisible cloaked car where some idiot must've thought the film was Star Trek not Bond.
That's true, but you know I did like the MI6 bunker office in SF. I totally forgot about that one and you reminded me of it. That seemed suitably Bondian and sort of industrial...
I did like the War Bunker in Skyfall too. I thought the production design took a nice step forward. I was also happy to see the classic M's office design from the 62-89 films.
At the end of the day it does come down to how an amazing architectural venue can be used as the stage for a nicely filmed action sequence. Something they did try at the start of QoS for the rooftops action though the ropes and scaffolding felt a bit too Cirque du Soleil and ridiculously contrived. The Opera scene is very good with a real nice balance about it though the desert hotel felt totally flat.
Then of course the SF opening bazaar but I'm just not feeling the same wow as the GE sets. God help Spectre meeting up in a Travelodge conference room somewhere! Please make the venue more Piz Gloria. Mind, without Barry, I feel that wouldn't have resonated quite the way it does in OHMSS so of course I totally agree with other comments about the score being as important if not more so than the set.
That's what I meant. Well put!
I don't think the ice palace concept in itself was the problem - it was the design, implementation And perhaps it's role in the film.
My argument is really that the quality of design work on Bond is just not very inspired. Remember Ken Adam didn't just do crazy volcano lairs - he did period interiors, simple hotel rooms, etc. He designed so many films other than Bond as well - like the Madness of King George and several Kubrick movies. The general standard was just higher.
Glassner is not bad, if you want Glassner. I am just saying Bond could aim higher. Not by aping Ken Adam, but by seeking out a new young talent who has their own unique vision and talent and brings the look of the Bond films cometely up to date and makes it really interesting again.
The Tosca set was a piece of opera production design by someone else that the QoS location scouts found and used for Bond. I'd like it if the Bond production designers came up with those kind of designs themselves . Also the final hotel sets were a bit derivative of Ken Adam but without the originality. I don't want Ken Adam rip- offs. I want new original production design that really suggests that stylish, possibly sometimes slightly fantastical world of Bond. I think Nolan would be the person to bring on board superior Design talent - he really has a strong awareness of the importance of production design. I think Mendes has a little bit of a theatre approach - sets and production design are more like part of his set of tools. Whereas I think sets are porential characters in a story - they can really add so much, particularly in a Bond film.
I think a key is eccentricity. There must be something quirky or eccentric about the location, combined with some feeling of space or expansiveness, and a certain coldness of character. Then it must be photographed and filmed to maximize the details. I used to think that it needed to be sparsely populated too in order to fit Bond, but the QoS eye has changed my mind. More people is not a problem....... It just needs some eccentricity IMO.
I also liked the unsung stealthboat (a fairly large moody set and model work; no CGI) in TND as well.
If SPECTRE has a sprawling lair inhabited by hundreds of minions, I'd borrow lair elements from the better Brosnan films or make it a darker version of the MI6 facilities featured in the Craig films so far.
Silva's hideout was odd and eerie, making you wonder about the upkeep of his mainframes and what his living quarters are like in such a derelict and isolated location, but it was almost completely empty.
Thanks, a couple of class acts, those two.
What I'm saying is that we need Mendes and his team to put more thought into his locations and sets, move away from fast cutting and make them "breath" (but then again we had convincing set designs and layout with the Skyfall estate).
I like Glassner fine; I thought the Skyfall sets were very well done.
Glassner is fine, but don't you think we could expect more? Bond used to known for its unique production design. For years now though they have looked fairly ordinary.
My concern is not to get too over the top - in humor or in design. I don't want another Stromberg's underwater domain. That is why I think using structures, like we are getting now in Austria, in the film automatically give it a "notch up" in cool, really amazing looking locations. I really liked the interiors and exteriors in Skyfall. SPECTRE is a different kind of Bond film, it seems to me, and it should be fun to see and feel those differences. So the production design may indeed be different, bigger, bolder or more unique, certainly more wordly I think, in this film.
I am okay with this film giving Bond some gadgets, too, especially with his car. But not a jetpack. So again, balance is key, while still pushing this one to be more fun, spectacular, and beautiful.
Sadly nothing will compare to Adam. There'll never be one like him again, just like there'll never be another Barry unfortunately. These were giants. So while I agree with you, I fear nothing can really compare on a detail level. Everything is likely to disappoint when looked at more critically.
As I said earlier, it might be too expensive these days to get someone with an architectural background to create a magnificent Adam style set without overuse of CGI, so I'd prefer if the don't mess it up. I think the sets in SF were quite good and somewhat of a return to form. The one thing I didn't like was the obvious use of CGI when showing Silva's HQ from the outside aerial shots, and his actual HQ which was pretty dull to me. That bugged me. What a long way we've come from the beautiful shots of Scaramanga's HQ in TMWTGG for instance.
I'd prefer the use of an existing architectural structure that has some unique characteristics, like the wikileaks building referenced earlier. That way we can avoid the crappy cgi. I'd also prefer if they spend more time on the cinematography (another area that had suffered tremendously until CR). So I'm realy looking forward to Van Hoytema's work on SP.
Very true. There might have been some reason though that we are not aware of.
That whole bit took me out of the experience because it was obvious, ending with the crappy helicopters. If they can avoid obvious CGI in SP, I'll be a very happy man.