SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

12829313334

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree. It will be a very successful film when it's all said and done, as was expected anyway (Bond is forever after all). However, I think things could certainly have been done better, and then I personally would have been more excited about it, rather than having a humdrum impression as I do now. It was a decent enough film for me, but nothing to jump up and down about. Many of my friends feel the same way but I realize there are those who feel differently as well.....which is absolutely fine. No doubt it will be profitable and make money at the end of the day.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.
    There´s nothing exaggerated about what I said. I verbally referred to the sky in those scenes, and that is clearly not its natural colour. There was a much-discussed shot of the Morocco desert in the production timeline thread, and that shot looks pretty natural, and it has a shiny blue sky.


    You know, I'm getting a bit tired of how Sam Mendes is treated in here. "He has no anus-idea of action sequences", "He knows shit about locations", "He is whining constantly about how he directed the film", "He is forcing his opinion on us", "He needs to go, that dramaqueen", "His beard is too grey, so are his films", "He sucks in the drama department", etc, etc, etc.

    Since when......really guys, since when did we talk like that about all previous Bond directors? By jolly, have a bit respect for the man.
    There´s no need to lick his shoes if he makes films that make me feel detached from my favorite franchise.
    And it´s not as if you would use any different formulations for expressing your opinion.



    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    I too waited patiently to see how those colour schemes look in the finished product. And they don´t make sense to me at all. I find them neither aesthetic nor useful in a symbolic sense.

    I don´t give a **** about Mendes´ intentions, or if I understand them or not. What I care about is whether I like the film or not. IMO Mendes is a lousy choice as director for Bond films. I don´t like what he does with them. I never felt like that with any other director or Bond film before.

    I saw Bridge of Spies yesterday. Compared to that film and director, I personally find Mendes a bloody hack. You can say of course that it doesn´t make sense to compare those films, or those directors, but the fact is, Bridge of Spies is full of elements I would normally find boring, yet I was fascinated from start to finish, while with Mendes´ Bond films, it´s the other way round.



    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that have been hurting the films.
    Then we may both be in a minority because I agree with you. Competition (the right kind) is always good for Bond. Bond is Bond, but it changes with the times and Bourne as well as MI will keep Bond on its toes for the next few years.

    As long as EON stay true to what makes Bond unique, but draw from the excellence that comes from these two franchises in particular (which in my view is tight narratives, believable and outstanding action, superior tension filled scenes, & increasingly excellent use of locations) we will be ok.
    While I don´t particularly think of Bourne and Bond as competition, and I don´t think Bond should look too much towards Bourne, I must admit that after giving SP three tries, I felt myself drawn to the three Bourne films for some reason.


    This is quintessential Bond, James Bond. And I actually think Mendes really knows how to return to this sinister and sometimes quite psychotic villain introductions. These parabels, comparisons, etc....can really lift up the reasoning behind the villain. And IMO that worked tremendously in SF, though it also worked in SP.
    Theoretically, yes, absolutely!
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    @Gustav I'm obviously aware of the differences but comparisons can be made. Bourne knows how to use locations to a satisfying degree moreso than the majority of the Bond films of the last 28 years.

    The Bourne films are among us since 2002. And then in hindsight you also disqualify the use of locations pre-2002, when there wasn't a Bourne film yet? I find that weird.

    Moreover, why can't you just agree with me that Bourne and Bond are entirely different? Bond bungeejumping from a huge Swiss dam, Bond visiting the Monte Carlo casino, Bond going to the demolished Azerbaijan, Bond visiting Scotland, Bond going to lairs in Morocco and Japan, Bond indulging in romantic Venice with Vesper, Bond entering casino's in Macau and Montenegro, Bond visiting a bungalow in Tálamo, Bond visiting the Austrian Alps, Bond attending opera's in Bregenz and expensive syndicate meetings in Rome, not to mention Bond attending cultural festivities in Madagascar and Mexico.

    My point really is: The type of locations and how they are used in the plot differ so tremendously between Bond and Bourne, that I find comparisons especially when it concerns locations rather weak. Bourne doesn't go to casino's, he doesn't visit secret lairs, and he certainly really indulges in cultural festivities.

    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange. In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.

    That's what divides Bond and Bourne. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh!
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that have been hurting the films.
    Then we may both be in a minority because I agree with you. Competition (the right kind) is always good for Bond. Bond is Bond, but it changes with the times and Bourne as well as MI will keep Bond on its toes for the next few years.

    As long as EON stay true to what makes Bond unique, but draw from the excellence that comes from these two franchises in particular (which in my view is tight narratives, believable and outstanding action, superior tension filled scenes, & increasingly excellent use of locations) we will be ok.

    I also agree. I really loved the CR and QoS Bond that was inspired by Bourne and I welcome it back with open arms. I miss the days Bond would command and be intimidating, and kick ass to get his way, not just have things happen by shear luck or because he had a gadget. To be honest I was never a fan of it.
  • Posts: 5,767
    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange. In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.
    First, I would sharply differ between many of those names.
    Second, there is great value in movie locations being nothing more than settings for action.
    Third, trying to make movie locations more than settings for action can produce an impression of pretentiousness.

    I go to a movie to see action in front of aesthetic settings. Action in that sense can be action action, or dramatic dialogue, or people looking at each other, or a lot else.
    The easier to look at the whole scenery is, the more I will be involved as an audience. If the image I see doesn´t appeal to my aesthetic senses, I won´t be satisfied seeing it.
    In that sense, and this is only my personal opinion, Deakins can do great work, but isn´t a great choice for Bond, at least in combination with Mendes. Hoytema is a hack, and I´m not referring to the quality of detachment he infuses his pictures with.

  • boldfinger wrote: »
    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange. In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.
    First, I would sharply differ between many of those names.
    Second, there is great value in movie locations being nothing more than settings for action.
    Third, trying to make movie locations more than settings for action can produce an impression of pretentiousness.

    I go to a movie to see action in front of aesthetic settings. Action in that sense can be action action, or dramatic dialogue, or people looking at each other, or a lot else.
    The easier to look at the whole scenery is, the more I will be involved as an audience. If the image I see doesn´t appeal to my aesthetic senses, I won´t be satisfied seeing it.
    In that sense, and this is only my personal opinion, Deakins can do great work, but isn´t a great choice for Bond, at least in combination with Mendes. Hoytema is a hack, and I´m not referring to the quality of detachment he infuses his pictures with.

    Your opinion. Which I tend to fully disagree.

    Shall I be very honest now? If in today's social media world, 2015, "Casino Royale" would have premiered, then there would have been a lot of disagreements as well. Because then the Brosnan-lovers would have really missed Craig. And they were up against the more progressive Bond fans.

    It's how it goes on forums nowadays :-). So let's agree to disagree.
  • Posts: 5,767
    In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle.
    And Bond´s luxury lifestyle was also reflected in action scenes taking place in front of gorgeous settings. Even when Bond got dirty, he stayed luxurious. The opposite happens when Bond attends a festivity in Mexico, and the sky is tinged unnaturally brownish, or when he visits Morocco, and the sky has a yellow tinge, or when he visits a clinic in the alps and the alpine panorama is hardly even visible.



    Moreover, why can't you just agree with me that Bourne and Bond are entirely different? Bond bungeejumping from a huge Swiss dam, Bond visiting the Monte Carlo casino, Bond going to the demolished Azerbaijan, Bond visiting Scotland, Bond going to lairs in Morocco and Japan, Bond indulging in romantic Venice with Vesper, Bond entering casino's in Macau and Montenegro, Bond visiting a bungalow in Tálamo, Bond visiting the Austrian Alps, Bond attending opera's in Bregenz and expensive syndicate meetings in Rome, not to mention Bond attending cultural festivities in Madagascar and Mexico.

    My point really is: The type of locations and how they are used in the plot differ so tremendously between Bond and Bourne, that I find comparisons especially when it concerns locations rather weak. Bourne doesn't go to casino's, he doesn't visit secret lairs, and he certainly really indulges in cultural festivities.

    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange. In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.

    That's what divides Bond and Bourne. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh!
    What now, Bond and Bourne are entirely different and cannot be compared, yet Bourne should learn from Bond? @Gustav, you would provoke less critical response to your posts if you wouldn´t contradict yourself like that.

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    boldfinger wrote: »
    In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle.
    And Bond´s luxury lifestyle was also reflected in action scenes taking place in front of gorgeous settings. Even when Bond got dirty, he stayed luxurious. The opposite happens when Bond attends a festivity in Mexico, and the sky is tinged unnaturally brownish, or when he visits Morocco, and the sky has a yellow tinge, or when he visits a clinic in the alps and the alpine panorama is hardly even visible.



    Moreover, why can't you just agree with me that Bourne and Bond are entirely different? Bond bungeejumping from a huge Swiss dam, Bond visiting the Monte Carlo casino, Bond going to the demolished Azerbaijan, Bond visiting Scotland, Bond going to lairs in Morocco and Japan, Bond indulging in romantic Venice with Vesper, Bond entering casino's in Macau and Montenegro, Bond visiting a bungalow in Tálamo, Bond visiting the Austrian Alps, Bond attending opera's in Bregenz and expensive syndicate meetings in Rome, not to mention Bond attending cultural festivities in Madagascar and Mexico.

    My point really is: The type of locations and how they are used in the plot differ so tremendously between Bond and Bourne, that I find comparisons especially when it concerns locations rather weak. Bourne doesn't go to casino's, he doesn't visit secret lairs, and he certainly really indulges in cultural festivities.

    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange. In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.

    That's what divides Bond and Bourne. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh!
    What now, Bond and Bourne are entirely different and cannot be compared, yet Bourne should learn from Bond? @Gustav, you would provoke less critical response to your posts if you wouldn´t contradict yourself like that.

    What are you talking about. Comparing Bond and Bourne is one thing. Using elements from Bond for Bourne is something else. Anyway, if you read between that little bit of mistake from my side, you know my point really.

    Locations is what will always divide Bond and Bourne, because both franchises use them differently. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh! Bourne wearing a dinner jacket on the streets of Monte Carlo? Ridiculous!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,116
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    Yes, this probably was his intention.....or in conjunction with Van Hoytema. Time will tell whether this film's look & colour palette will date as well as the illustrious rest in the canon. We're too early for that. It is a curious and interesting choice, and as I've said on here, when watching this film I found it more in keeping with blockbusters of the day from Marvel, Lionsgate etc. with the thematic and somewhat monotonous palette. A product of its time. As you say it was different for Bond certainly, and some like it, some don't.

    I didn't recall any comparative blockbusters if I'm honest. I think it adds a ghostly feel to the entire picture, which was clearly intentional. I don't believe for a minute that either Mendes or Van Hoytema were motivated by creating a palette in line with current trends. I can accept it's not to everyone's taste, but it's clearly a decision based on the material not to be 'on trend'.

    Fully agree here.

    Yes I agree too. Also the music has a ghostly essence as well. All of which I like to think was intentional.

    Mendes and Forster both tend to put more thought into what is filmed and why ...but not saying I always agree or disagree ..or that they could not have always done better but saying that in general yes yes they do see the art in film.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,093
    You know, I'm getting a bit tired of how Sam Mendes is treated in here. "He has no anus-idea of action sequences", "He knows shit about locations", "He is whining constantly about how he directed the film", "He is forcing his opinion on us", "He needs to go, that dramaqueen", "His beard is too grey, so are his films", "He sucks in the drama department", etc, etc, etc.

    Since when......really guys, since when did we talk like that about all previous Bond directors? By jolly, have a bit respect for the man.
    Everyone's entitled to their opinion's Gustav. I get tired of the Brosnan bashing around here but I don't try to silence or censor people. We get it you loved Spectre, so did I but this isn't the best way to react to people who didn't. If your tired of of these thoughts, then ignore them or simply don't respond to them. We're not all going to agree on this website and these's little rants aren't going to force anyone to change their opinions. We all have them. Opinions can change over time, doesn't mean we all have to agree in a heartbeat.


  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited December 2015 Posts: 11,090
    doubleoego wrote: »
    @Gustav I'm obviously aware of the differences but comparisons can be made. Bourne knows how to use locations to a satisfying degree moreso than the majority of the Bond films of the last 28 years.

    The Bourne films are among us since 2002. And then in hindsight you also disqualify the use of locations pre-2002, when there wasn't a Bourne film yet? I find that weird.

    Pardon? What are you talking about? Last time I checked the last 28 years extends to the 1980s which predates 2002. I find what you're saying to be weird.
    Moreover, why can't you just agree with me that Bourne and Bond are entirely different? Bond bungeejumping from a huge Swiss dam, Bond visiting the Monte Carlo casino, Bond going to the demolished Azerbaijan, Bond visiting Scotland, Bond going to lairs in Morocco and Japan, Bond indulging in romantic Venice with Vesper, Bond entering casino's in Macau and Montenegro, Bond visiting a bungalow in Tálamo, Bond visiting the Austrian Alps, Bond attending opera's in Bregenz and expensive syndicate meetings in Rome, not to mention Bond attending cultural festivities in Madagascar and Mexico.

    @Gustav, you know what your problem is? You're often too self involved and sometimes don't take the time to comprehend other people's posts and as a result you end up posting comments that come off as an unguided stream of consciousness splattered all over the place.
    My point really is: The type of locations and how they are used in the plot differ so tremendously between Bond and Bourne, that I find comparisons especially when it concerns locations rather weak. Bourne doesn't go to casino's, he doesn't visit secret lairs, and he certainly really indulges in cultural festivities.

    Your mainly talking about singular locations and venues within a geographical location. I was talking about Bourne using locations in a way where there's a greater sense of feeling immersed in the atmosphere and culture and never feeling robbed of the time spent in those locations. No one's talking about casinos or jumping of bloody dams.
    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange.

    No. The locations in Bourne serve as backdrops to encompass the story being told and to provide audiences with a sense of being immersed. The Bond films lately with the exception of a couple of movies have failed to really capture a sense of satisfying atmosphere and authenticity. There's no room to let these places breathe and grasp onto these amazing locations.
    In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.

    That's what divides Bond and Bourne. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh!

    You've really missed the point of the argument and thats because like I said, you're evidently too self involved and havn't comprehended what was said. Don't you get tired of labouring under your own delusions?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    No. The locations in Bourne serve as backdrops to encompass the story being told and to provide audiences with a sense of being immersed. The Bond films lately with the exception of a couple of movies have failed to really capture a sense of satisfying atmosphere and authenticity. There's no room to let these places breathe and grasp onto these amazing locations.
    I certainly felt that with the Bourne Identity.....particularly Paris and some of the other backdrops. One really felt the travelogue aspect, but it was very gritty, which was quite unlike Bond. That was at at time when Bond was churning out nonsense like TWINE (a quick flash of the Bilbao Guggenheim museum is all we got of that location.....why not film a sequence in there for pete's sake?) and DAD......and I certainly noticed the difference at the time, and feared for my favourite franchise.

    Bond hasn't been doing such a great job of it lately.....at least not like they used to in the heyday, but I think QoS showed some potential. Breganz and Haiti really come to mind, particularly the former that was just beautifully shot. In fact, thinking about it makes me want to watch that film again!

    You're absolutely right about letting the films breathe in one or two locations so we can really soak it up. I would prefer if they did that. As a kid I used to travel vicariously through Bond and I want to do that again. It was a cultural as well as a film experience. I learnt about saki & Japan, as well as Hong Kong/Kowloon/Thailand through Bond.

    Someone mentioned something on another thread about wishing they had a foot chase through some of the ruins at night in Rome in SP.......and I also think that would really have been something......then they wouldn't have had to spend so much money on that car chase and could have got something quite sinister......Hinx chasing Bond through the Roman ruins. Similar to the brilliant Karnak temple sequence in TSWLM
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Thank you. @bondjames you hit the nail on the head. The contrasr between Bond and Bourne highlights the glamour and grittiness of these places but in the end being transported to and spending time in these places where you feel like youre there is where Bourne has the edge and interestingly enough Bourne in a single film can offer audiences upto 5 or 6 locations and astonishongly not one is wasted. As Bond used to wholly excellent at this I want my Bond movies to capture that immersive travelogue experience. Give us 1 or 2 locations, let these places breathe and allow for audiences to come to know and feel these places. When I said there were only a couple of Bond movies that capturing the immersive atmosphere of being in these foreign places QoS was definitely one of them and aided with Arnold's wonderful score to compliment the flavour of these places really helped. Also, the Rome foot chase sounds like a fantastic, dynamicic and more cost effective idea to deliver great action while exploring and utilising a foreign landmark.
  • Posts: 154
    Finally saw SPECTRE tonight. Great Bond! By far the best of the Craig Bonds & now one of my all time favorite Bond movies. I'll write a review later. For now, I'll just say that I'm certain there was a corporate media conspiracy, especially in the U.S. & maybe France, against this movie due to it's anit-surveillance, ant-NWO stance. I even saw hints at the suggestion that 9/11 was inside job. For me, none of the common criticisms of this movie hold water. This movie was far superior to SF & even felt like a real espionage movie. Logan/Mendez/Craig have redeemed themselves in my eyes for the boring whiny SF. More later.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The only place where they didnt let it breathe long enough in was Austria IMO.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Costa Mucho
    Posts: 41,978
    gklein wrote: »
    Finally saw SPECTRE tonight. Great Bond! By far the best of the Craig Bonds & now one of my all time favorite Bond movies. I'll write a review later. For now, I'll just say that I'm certain there was a corporate media conspiracy, especially in the U.S. & maybe France, against this movie due to it's anit-surveillance, ant-NWO stance. I even saw hints at the suggestion that 9/11 was inside job. For me, none of the common criticisms of this movie hold water. This movie was far superior to SF & even felt like a real espionage movie. Logan/Mendez/Craig have redeemed themselves in my eyes for the boring whiny SF. More later.

    Some good points there.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,566
    It's very interesting to see that almost everyone who disliked SF love SP. I for one have both films in my top 3.
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,756
    jake24 wrote: »
    It's very interesting to see that almost everyone who disliked SF love SP. I for one have both films in my top 3.

    It used to be in my Top 3 as well, but now I'm not very fond of it. Still top 10, but it's probably my least favourite Craig film. For such a long film, the writing was pretty lazy, I can notice it as someone who has written screenplays, empty connections, vague "meaningful" scenes, rushed conclusions, obvious dialogue, vague metaphors (meteor), forced exposition. Pointless and obvious reveal as ESB.
  • Posts: 92
    2nd viewing today here in Japan, second day of proper release.
    Local regional cinema, about 1/7th full.
    I liked it first time, really liked it this time.
    Biggest gripe still the apparent toning down of colour/contrast and underuse of Austria and lair settings. But minor complaints, loved it.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    @Gustav I'm obviously aware of the differences but comparisons can be made. Bourne knows how to use locations to a satisfying degree moreso than the majority of the Bond films of the last 28 years.

    The Bourne films are among us since 2002. And then in hindsight you also disqualify the use of locations pre-2002, when there wasn't a Bourne film yet? I find that weird.

    Pardon? What are you talking about? Last time I checked the last 28 years extends to the 1980s which predates 2002. I find what you're saying to be weird.
    Moreover, why can't you just agree with me that Bourne and Bond are entirely different? Bond bungeejumping from a huge Swiss dam, Bond visiting the Monte Carlo casino, Bond going to the demolished Azerbaijan, Bond visiting Scotland, Bond going to lairs in Morocco and Japan, Bond indulging in romantic Venice with Vesper, Bond entering casino's in Macau and Montenegro, Bond visiting a bungalow in Tálamo, Bond visiting the Austrian Alps, Bond attending opera's in Bregenz and expensive syndicate meetings in Rome, not to mention Bond attending cultural festivities in Madagascar and Mexico.

    @Gustav, you know what your problem is? You're often too self involved and sometimes don't take the time to comprehend other people's posts and as a result you end up posting comments that come off as an unguided stream of consciousness splattered all over the place.
    My point really is: The type of locations and how they are used in the plot differ so tremendously between Bond and Bourne, that I find comparisons especially when it concerns locations rather weak. Bourne doesn't go to casino's, he doesn't visit secret lairs, and he certainly really indulges in cultural festivities.

    Your mainly talking about singular locations and venues within a geographical location. I was talking about Bourne using locations in a way where there's a greater sense of feeling immersed in the atmosphere and culture and never feeling robbed of the time spent in those locations. No one's talking about casinos or jumping of bloody dams.
    No, in Bourne movies locations are nothing more than settings for: Action. So that locations are plot-wise easier to interchange.

    No. The locations in Bourne serve as backdrops to encompass the story being told and to provide audiences with a sense of being immersed. The Bond films lately with the exception of a couple of movies have failed to really capture a sense of satisfying atmosphere and authenticity. There's no room to let these places breathe and grasp onto these amazing locations.
    In Bond films locations themselves are important, to show off Bond's luxury lifestyle. And IMO I think Bourne should actually learn from Roger Deakins, Michael Reed, Claude Renoir, Phil Meheux and Hoyte van Hoytema. They new exactly how to turn locations into much more than action settings.

    That's what divides Bond and Bourne. And that's what will always divide them. Bourne visiting an expensive Monaco casino? Don't let me laugh!

    You've really missed the point of the argument and thats because like I said, you're evidently too self involved and havn't comprehended what was said. Don't you get tired of labouring under your own delusions?

    I completely disagree. And you should have made your point better. Perhaps saying that it's also a matter of taste. You know, perhaps you 'feel' the locations are better immersed with the story. Frankly, I find it a load of bull.

    Bond films actually, IMO, thrive on locations that sometimes feel as an independent element of Bond films. I actually like that 'detached' feeling. With Bourne perhaps everything is better immersed. True. But it also makes the locations usually entirely forgettable, because perhaps too much weight is put on the story. My point was, and please don't say that I miss the point because I don't, is this: Bond films thrive on locations that usually feel slightly detached, slightly disconnected with the story. That makes them different from Bourne.

    And another reason for that is perhaps the slightly 'larger-than-life' feeling that Bond films have...need to have as compared to Bourne. Sorry, but I don't see Bourne, as part of a very tight story in which the locations support the story, visiting casino's or lush and luxury villainous lairs. It even sets QOS apart from all the Bourne films: Bourne never visits an opera in a dinner jacket. So again, Bond is not Bourne. Bourne is not Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    So again, Bond is not Bourne. Bourne is not Bond.
    I don't think anyone is disputing this at all. At least not what I can see.

    The point that is being made, as I see it, and which I agree with, is that Bond can and should make better use of the locations that they visit. Immerse us in the experience. Teach something about the location or the locals via the script.....incorporate some aspect of the experience into it. This was something that Bond did so well in the past. Examples include (off the top of my head):

    1. Jamaica in DN
    2. Istanbul in FRWL (including Hagia Sophia & Bosphorous - night and day between this film and TWINE), as well as the Orient Express
    3. Nassau in TB including Junkanoo
    4. Japan in YOLT (including saki and sumo)
    5. Switzerland in OHMSS including skiing and bob sledding
    6. Vegas in DAF including Circus Circus and the shows
    7. Louisiana & New York in LALD
    8. Hong Kong/Kowloon/Macau and Thailand in TMWTGG (my favourite because I visited the Thai location that was used where the kid was thrown in the water as well as the Peninsula Hotel with the Rolls Royces) as well as martial arts training
    9. Egypt in TSWLM (absolutely stunning use of pyramid locations and the Karnak temple)
    10. Rio in MR - the cable car sequence and the Carnaval festival


    In SP we got the Day of the Dead, which was great and a return to form. It was just a few shots though, and it was only in the pretitles. A little bit more time in Mexico using those locations would have been nice. Same in Rome which is a truly magnificent locale.

    Some non-Bond examples that come to mind (there are many more of course) which I recall being really good include:

    1. The International - massive shootout at Guggenheim museum in NYC. Great use of Istanbul rooftops, as well as coldness/modernity of Berlin, Germany
    2. Bourne Identity - Paris
    3. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol - Dubai including sand storm (so Bondian that one)
    4. Mission Impossible 3 - Vatican and Shangai
    5. Angels and Demons - Rome - superb use of churches and other locales
    6. Da Vinci Code - Paris Louvre in particular
    7. National Treasure - Washington DC

    So we can inject Bond like glamour while still using the locations more effectively to teach something about the culture and the people. They did a better job before imho, and it almost seems like the locations are more postcard photographic backdrops these days without being more immersive and all encompassing cultural experiences.

    It's just a preference. No right or wrong.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    So again, Bond is not Bourne. Bourne is not Bond.
    I don't think anyone is disputing this at all. At least not what I can see.

    The point that is being made, as I see it, and which I agree with, is that Bond can and should make better use of the locations that they visit. Immerse us in the experience. Teach something about the location or the locals via the script.....incorporate some aspect of the experience into it. This was something that Bond did so well in the past. Examples include (off the top of my head):

    1. Jamaica in DN
    2. Istanbul in FRWL (including Hagia Sophia & Bosphorous - night and day between this film and TWINE), as well as the Orient Express
    3. Nassau in TB including Junkanoo
    4. Japan in YOLT (including saki and sumo)
    5. Switzerland in OHMSS including skiing and bob sledding
    6. Vegas in DAF including Circus Circus and the shows
    7. Louisiana & New York in LALD
    8. Hong Kong/Kowloon/Macau and Thailand in TMWTGG (my favourite because I visited the Thai location that was used where the kid was thrown in the water as well as the Peninsula Hotel with the Rolls Royces) as well as martial arts training
    9. Egypt in TSWLM (absolutely stunning use of pyramid locations and the Karnak temple)
    10. Rio in MR - the cable car sequence and the Carnaval festival


    In SP we got the Day of the Dead, which was great and a return to form. It was just a few shots though, and it was only in the pretitles. A little bit more time in Mexico using those locations would have been nice. Same in Rome which is a truly magnificent locale.

    Some non-Bond examples that come to mind (there are many more of course) which I recall being really good include:

    1. The International - massive shootout at Guggenheim museum in NYC. Great use of Istanbul rooftops, as well as coldness/modernity of Berlin, Germany
    2. Bourne Identity - Paris
    3. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol - Dubai including sand storm (so Bondian that one)
    4. Mission Impossible 3 - Vatican and Shangai
    5. Angels and Demons - Rome - superb use of churches and other locales
    6. Da Vinci Code - Paris Louvre in particular
    7. National Treasure - Washington DC

    So we can inject Bond like glamour while still using the locations more effectively to teach something about the culture and the people. They did a better job before imho, and it almost seems like the locations are more postcard photographic backdrops these days without being more immersive and all encompassing cultural experiences.

    It's just a preference. No right or wrong.

    For me it's a complete mystery why you leave it so many -basically ALL- recent Bond films. All Bond films from FYEO and onwards are not there. And then you 'hail' certain sequences from Bourne and Mission Impossible as they are using the locations better than all of the Bond films from FYEO until SP. Sorry @BondJames. I don't buy it.

    Why can't you just admit that you actually prefer these films over the Bond films. Just do it for once. And I feel quite sorry for you....that you had such a mediocre experience with the recent Bond films. I really feel sorry that you can not find the joy anymore in a film like SP, which IMO uses Morocco in a much much better, exotic and luxury way as compared to Morocco in RN.

    Some other examples:
    01. CR: Exteriors of Karlovy Vary, doubling for Casino Royale and Hotel Splendide, including terraces and aerial shots of Karlovy Vary (You know, that Montenegro didn't exist at the time. So I love it how the filmmakers turned it into an alternative Monaco).
    02. SP: Entire Morocco sequence, including aerial views of the Desert Express train, Tanger and wide shots of the Moroccan desert and the (fake...though didn't seem fake to me) Crater where Blofeld lives.
    03. SF: I really don't know why people hate the Scotland locations so much. I truly loved them. Those grim, desolate, rainy and cold aerial views of Scotland. This is how the nature of Scotland really is. Did I see the Ben Nevis somewhere (no need for extra's here)?
    04. QOS: The wonderful Atacama Desert, with in it that desolate hotel. Although it was doubling for Bolivia, I found it magnificent (including poor Bolivians, wearing traditional clothes).

    So really, I think my list above was a bit necessary, as you failed to mention them. And obviously you couldn't care for them, otherwise they would have been in your list.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,612
    bondjames wrote: »

    1. The International - massive shootout at Guggenheim museum in NYC.
    Interestingly, they built the interior to film in. I've been there and I thought they filmed in it, that's how precise they were.
    Great flick btw, almost a Bond to me.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    So again, Bond is not Bourne. Bourne is not Bond.
    I don't think anyone is disputing this at all. At least not what I can see.

    The point that is being made, as I see it, and which I agree with, is that Bond can and should make better use of the locations that they visit. Immerse us in the experience. Teach something about the location or the locals via the script.....incorporate some aspect of the experience into it. This was something that Bond did so well in the past. Examples include (off the top of my head):

    1. Jamaica in DN
    2. Istanbul in FRWL (including Hagia Sophia & Bosphorous - night and day between this film and TWINE), as well as the Orient Express
    3. Nassau in TB including Junkanoo
    4. Japan in YOLT (including saki and sumo)
    5. Switzerland in OHMSS including skiing and bob sledding
    6. Vegas in DAF including Circus Circus and the shows
    7. Louisiana & New York in LALD
    8. Hong Kong/Kowloon/Macau and Thailand in TMWTGG (my favourite because I visited the Thai location that was used where the kid was thrown in the water as well as the Peninsula Hotel with the Rolls Royces) as well as martial arts training
    9. Egypt in TSWLM (absolutely stunning use of pyramid locations and the Karnak temple)
    10. Rio in MR - the cable car sequence and the Carnaval festival


    In SP we got the Day of the Dead, which was great and a return to form. It was just a few shots though, and it was only in the pretitles. A little bit more time in Mexico using those locations would have been nice. Same in Rome which is a truly magnificent locale.

    Some non-Bond examples that come to mind (there are many more of course) which I recall being really good include:

    1. The International - massive shootout at Guggenheim museum in NYC. Great use of Istanbul rooftops, as well as coldness/modernity of Berlin, Germany
    2. Bourne Identity - Paris
    3. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol - Dubai including sand storm (so Bondian that one)
    4. Mission Impossible 3 - Vatican and Shangai
    5. Angels and Demons - Rome - superb use of churches and other locales
    6. Da Vinci Code - Paris Louvre in particular
    7. National Treasure - Washington DC

    So we can inject Bond like glamour while still using the locations more effectively to teach something about the culture and the people. They did a better job before imho, and it almost seems like the locations are more postcard photographic backdrops these days without being more immersive and all encompassing cultural experiences.

    It's just a preference. No right or wrong.

    For me it's a complete mystery why you leave it so many -basically ALL- recent Bond films. All Bond films from FYEO and onwards are not there. And then you 'hail' certain sequences from Bourne and Mission Impossible as they are using the locations better than all of the Bond films from FYEO until SP. Sorry @BondJames. I don't buy it.

    Why can't you just admit that you actually prefer these films over the Bond films. Just do it for once. And I feel quite sorry for you....that you had such a mediocre experience with the recent Bond films. I really feel sorry that you can not find the joy anymore in a film like SP, which IMO uses Morocco in a much much better, exotic and luxury way as compared to Morocco in RN.

    Some other examples:
    01. CR: Exteriors of Karlovy Vary, doubling for Casino Royale and Hotel Splendide, including terraces and aerial shots of Karlovy Vary.
    02. SP: Entire Morocco sequence, including aerial views of the Desert Express train, Tanger and wide shots of the Moroccan desert and the (fake...though didn't seem fake to me) Crater where Blofeld lives.
    03. SF: I really don't know why people hate the Scotland locations so much. I truly loved them. Those grim, desolate, rainy and cold aerial views of Scotland. This is how the nature of Scotland really is. Did I see the Ben Nevis somewhere?
    04. QOS: The wonderful Atacama Desert, with in it that desolate hotel. Although it was doubling for Bolivia, I found it magnificent.

    So really, I think my list above was a bit necessary, as you failed to mention them. And obviously you couldn't care for them, otherwise they would have been in your list.
    Once again @Gustav_Graves, you miss the point. The point is nuanced, and not black and white. The point was that they did it better in the past. Not that they are not doing it at all now. Of course they are. Just not as well, imho.

    You can see I was going in sequence and gave sufficient examples of prior films where they did it well. If you want more recent examples, then allow me to continue:

    1. FYEO - Corfu, Cortina and Greece - particularly the mountaintop finale
    2. OP - India of course, and Berlin
    3. AVTAK - poor use of San Fran imho
    4. TLD - Vienna - superb use. As well as Bratislava (I've been to both locations and they got it spot on here)
    5. LTK - Florida Keys - done so well that True Lies aped it later
    6. GE - Monaco is absolutely stupendous. Probably one of the best recent (relatively speaking) use of classic location.

    I have already mentioned in a previous post how brilliant I thought the location use in QoS was (Haiti/Breganz - although I would have preferred more of Siena that I could actually see), and of course we all know that CR is a masterpiece in more ways than one, and used locations (Lake Garda) very well. What is the point of mentioning that again when we already acknowledged those two earlier films.

    SF - no one is hating on Scotland. It was a nice cinematic backdrop that's all. They didn't really delve in to the location.

    SP - no, Morocco didn't do it for me unfortunately.

    Again, I stand by my point that it was done better before and can be done better again. It's a personal preference, but my view is certainly not as one dimensional as you characterize it, and I just needed to point that out. Sorry if I offend you by stating my personal preferences, but that's life I guess. You can't please everyone.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited December 2015 Posts: 15,534
    @bondjames would you agree that toning down the amount of locations could be a good thing? Only 2 main locations outside of London? I loved the locations in QOS but I felt like a tourist who barely left the airports, the locations changed too fast. Compared to Bahamas in TB, Japan in YOLT or Istanbul in FRWL where you feel 'at home' in an exotic local for a good portion of the film.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 862
    a film like SP, which IMO uses Morocco in a much much better, exotic and luxury way

    Except for the few establishing shots, I never got the feeling they were actually filming there. Morocco was much better utilized in TLD.
    bondjames wrote: »
    1. FYEO - Corfu, Cortina and Greece - particularly the mountaintop finale

    Perhaps the best example. Great use of locations.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames would you agree that toning down the amount of locations could be a good thing? Only 2 main locations outside of London? I loved the locations in QOS but I felt like a tourist who barely left the airports, the locations changed too fast. Compared to Bahamas in TB, Japan in YOLT or Istanbul in FRWL where you feel 'at home' in an exotic local for a good portion of the film.
    Yes, I agree @DaltonCraig007. I think that's what @doubleoego advocated and I agree completely.

    If they had fewer locations they could really take more time to immerse into such locales more, culturally, so we could have a fuller experience, and I think the examples that you gave are spot on. Even Thailand or Hong Kong in TMWTGG were done very nicely and of course Egypt in TSWLM.

    I think these days they seem more like photographic backdrops to quickly advance the narrative, and so yes, I think less could be more.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Bond films actually, IMO, thrive on locations that sometimes feel as an independent element of Bond films. I actually like that 'detached' feeling. With Bourne perhaps everything is better immersed. True. But it also makes the locations usually entirely forgettable, because perhaps too much weight is put on the story. My point was, and please don't say that I miss the point because I don't, is this: Bond films thrive on locations that usually feel slightly detached, slightly disconnected with the story. That makes them different from Bourne.
    Wow! I never once noticed that in more than 20 Bond films!
    And you can say about Bourne what you like, but those locations are for sure not forgettable.

  • boldfinger wrote: »
    Bond films actually, IMO, thrive on locations that sometimes feel as an independent element of Bond films. I actually like that 'detached' feeling. With Bourne perhaps everything is better immersed. True. But it also makes the locations usually entirely forgettable, because perhaps too much weight is put on the story. My point was, and please don't say that I miss the point because I don't, is this: Bond films thrive on locations that usually feel slightly detached, slightly disconnected with the story. That makes them different from Bourne.
    Wow! I never once noticed that in more than 20 Bond films!
    And you can say about Bourne what you like, but those locations are for sure not forgettable.

    :-). Yes, call these locations very...eh....'Bourne-esque' locations ;-).
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,543
    bondjames wrote: »
    So again, Bond is not Bourne. Bourne is not Bond.
    I don't think anyone is disputing this at all. At least not what I can see.

    The point that is being made, as I see it, and which I agree with, is that Bond can and should make better use of the locations that they visit. Immerse us in the experience. Teach something about the location or the locals via the script.....incorporate some aspect of the experience into it. This was something that Bond did so well in the past. Examples include (off the top of my head):

    1. Jamaica in DN
    2. Istanbul in FRWL (including Hagia Sophia & Bosphorous - night and day between this film and TWINE), as well as the Orient Express
    3. Nassau in TB including Junkanoo
    4. Japan in YOLT (including saki and sumo)
    5. Switzerland in OHMSS including skiing and bob sledding
    6. Vegas in DAF including Circus Circus and the shows
    7. Louisiana & New York in LALD
    8. Hong Kong/Kowloon/Macau and Thailand in TMWTGG (my favourite because I visited the Thai location that was used where the kid was thrown in the water as well as the Peninsula Hotel with the Rolls Royces) as well as martial arts training
    9. Egypt in TSWLM (absolutely stunning use of pyramid locations and the Karnak temple)
    10. Rio in MR - the cable car sequence and the Carnaval festival


    In SP we got the Day of the Dead, which was great and a return to form. It was just a few shots though, and it was only in the pretitles. A little bit more time in Mexico using those locations would have been nice. Same in Rome which is a truly magnificent locale.

    Some non-Bond examples that come to mind (there are many more of course) which I recall being really good include:

    1. The International - massive shootout at Guggenheim museum in NYC. Great use of Istanbul rooftops, as well as coldness/modernity of Berlin, Germany
    2. Bourne Identity - Paris
    3. Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol - Dubai including sand storm (so Bondian that one)
    4. Mission Impossible 3 - Vatican and Shangai
    5. Angels and Demons - Rome - superb use of churches and other locales
    6. Da Vinci Code - Paris Louvre in particular
    7. National Treasure - Washington DC

    So we can inject Bond like glamour while still using the locations more effectively to teach something about the culture and the people. They did a better job before imho, and it almost seems like the locations are more postcard photographic backdrops these days without being more immersive and all encompassing cultural experiences.

    It's just a preference. No right or wrong.

    We park our cars in the same garage. The earlier Bond films and more so the books, had Bond spend longer in one location and we got to immerse ourselves in more of the culture. The literary Bond is certainly a cultural icon. The modern Bond films have him just rushing from one place to another with barely a chance for us to catch our breath. They do feel more artificial for this reason. I lament the good old days when Bond would only be in 3 locations, including London, his home base, at the most. Sadly, I don't think they'll ever return to these glory days of film making, which is why I am just not as much of a fan of the modern Bond films as I am, the older ones. Although, why Eon just have to give us a globetrotting adventure that moves at 100 miles per hour for every film is beyond me, when these other contemporary films you have listed give us more time to catch our breath and soak up the atmosphere and have still done well at the box office. Sometimes I feel that these other films are more Bond than the modern Bond films themselves.

    It's also a pity that they've just fallen back on the old, tired, fast paced style that a number of the contemporary films utilise, when we got some good, solid character movement in CR and SF. Well, good for an action thriller that is. Spectre could have been such a better film if they'd cut out two of the locations and given us something more along the lines of OHMSS and CR in terms of characterisation (minus the OHMSS montage scene of course ;) ).
Sign In or Register to comment.