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
Don't get me wrong. I love having Craig as James Bond. There's just an edge to him that Brosnan and Moore didn't have. My only complaint is that they after six years are still trying to reboot the character. It has become redundant know, I think.
The very last scene in SF (which did put "story first" like you said, but didn't do it well IMO) gives me some hope, though. I'm not saying I want "outlandish" for Bond 24, but please no more of this personal related stuff. Just give him a mission and let him complete it with flying colours.
I don't think they ever intended to throw out EVERYTHING. Just throw out the "rot". To me SF felt quite different to the other Bond films but also had an air of familiarity. That's why I really liked it.
That would be wonderful. Both movies are amongst my favorites for various reasons (not the plot).
That's how I felt about QOS.
This has probably been discussed before, so can someone point me to a thread?
LTK has all the things you listed except the stunning locations.
Maybe its the locations that made the difference for me
:-?
- Exciting PTS
- Chart-topping single
- Girl No.1 is seduced then dies. Sometimes a 2nd one will too.
- 3rd girl is the one Bond usually beds at the end.
- Outlandish villain
- Bond gets sent on mission by M
- A gadget of some sort introduced by Q
- Bond occassionally meets the villain in more friendly surroundings first, and is challenged to a game of wits
- The villain has an evil henchman who Bond fights, usually towards the end of the movie
- Bond gets captured by the villain and escapes near death
- Bond stops the villains plans at the end of the movie
- Bond occassionally meets the henchman or villain once the film appears as though it is over in a final showdown
- Bond gets the girl at the end
Regarding locations I actually think that part of the charm about Bond movies are on location shots. That you actually get to see Bond doing stuff in real places like Venice/Rio/Nassau/Egypt etc. Every single scene that Bond is in after the main titles in SF has been shot in England. Every! This really takes away some of this talked about "STUNNING locations", IMO.
@jetsetwilly It's funny you used those two because they were mostly shot in England. The bit on the boat was shot on location and some Shanghai shots were but Craig himself never actually went to those locations I don't think (apart from the boat bit).
This is one of my niggles. Everything was backlot or studio, hence having to use CGI for Silva's island. Can't imagine Cubby letting them get away with it. They did well but there's no substitute for reality.
Hence why it is one of the least exotic.
The only glamorous location in GF, the alps in Switzerland, was shot on location.
I don't mind a bit of doubling. Thought that Bahamas was an excellent double for Madagascar in CR for example, as long as they don't overdo it, like I think they did in SF.
Sorry mate, that's nonsense. Cubby's films were lavish. Roger was on location extensively for every single film.
Considering a large portion of the early Bond films were shot at Pinewood, I don't think he would've minded.
EDIT: Moore films went on location a lot more but considering the drop in quality for films like MR, AVTAK and OP, is that really a good thing? Does a lavish overseas shoot really make the film better?
This was a film that centred in the UK, there was no real need to film overseas since much of the action while there (Macau) was indoors. The establishing shots of Shanghai, which were real, were spectacular. The Macau casino, while shot in Pinewood, looked spectacular. I knew it was shot on a set but when watching it the thought never came into my mind. Magic of cinema.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Yes, a budget film would operate in this way. I always enjoyed that the Bond films were traditionally rather over indulgent. It makes business sense but in the Bondian world of high living it's nice to do things for real. Cubby's sensibility was to put the money up on screen, not scrimp. They were the days of old though.
MR had much better sets, better action, a better score and had stunning locations compared to SF. Like RC7 said: the money is up there on the screen.
I know it's a hassle and expensive to fly the crew to far away exotic locations like in the good old days. And I know that they spent three months shooting a 10 minute segment for SF in Turkey, but really... When I heard Mendes on the first press conference say that "Bond will travel to China and Macao" I was kind of looking forward to actually seing him there.