To put it in more perspective, here is just one scene in a true epic -- Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, brilliant not just in its script, music, and acting but in the director's ability to make the audience live and breathe the locations and feel the scale of the story:
If this were a Bond movie today, they'd be in some small set consisting mostly of the bar, some neon signs, and some skullduggerous patrons in the shadows. There would be a quick establishing shot of the exterior, and the almost all of the action would take place with close ups of the actors. And it would cost $15 million.
That's true in part, but Forster does a lot of the same in QOS -- the hotel in the middle of the desert is rather too much like Spectre headquarters in Spectre, right down to being in the desert and populated by almost nobody. He has a scene of an SUV driving through the desert -- not only the Aston Martin in Skyfall or the boat in Spectre. The minimalist dogfight in QOS is a lot like the minimalist car chase in Spectre. In each of these films, the minimalism is obvious.
In QoS though the minimalist elements make sense to the story line and the location they're in. Minimalism in a desert does kinda make sense
We get more of Haiti and Italy in QUS, but really the only one of Craig's films that seems to have the scale the script calls for is Casino Royale, and as good as it is, it still does not measure up to the early Bonds.
Out of interest, what specifically are you stating that it doesn't measure up to?
I miss this about the old films. However, Skyfall did this successfully with the Skyfall manor by really taking full advantage of the set and using its destruction in the finale. London was also very well used in Skyfall, especially when compared to London's use in Spectre.
I definitely think SF had a great atmosphere throughout but especially in Scotland, they nailed the whole serene, quiet but cold and bleak landscape that personifies Scotland. Shanghai I can understand since that was a lot of trickery and mostly second unit work but before I researched it I figure Craig and all actually went to Shanghai so it was successful in that regard. Matt what are the differences between SF's London and SP's London?
Just to illustrate my point, how many Scots did we meet? How many homes or buildings did we see beside the manor house? They flew a plane through some mountains and showed Bond and M standing outside a car. It's as minimalist as Shanghai -- virtually identical in concept. The road/landscape, the exterior of a building, the interior of the building, and almost no people.
Contrast this with Turkey in From Russia with Love or Japan in You Only Live Twice. Just no comparison.
That minimalist tone was necessary to that section of SF to show that Bond and M were isolated and far from help. Besides, in Turkey and London they showed plenty of locals, markets, etc.
1) Minimalism doesn't require a massive budget -- minimalism is the Dr. No set with the spider. But the modern version is minimalism costs millions and millions. The gist of my argument is not that they can't use minimalism but that the fact it costs hundreds of millions and takes years to film is absurd.
2) Here are some screenshots from From Russian with Love, made for much, much, much less in 2016 dollars than Quantum of Solace, and the latter. If you're asking me which one immerses me as the viewer in the locales versus which ones gives me glimpses simply to establish we're in some tropical locale, the answer is obvious. Out of fairness, I tried to find screenshots that had the actors in them and not merely establishing shots of a city or neighborhood:
But that's all there really are. What you've posted is hardly better. That could be from Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic (the other side of the island), Barbados, Jamaica, etc. These are very generic port and tropical shots. Compare those to Istanbul, where there's no mistaking the specificity of the location.
The fact that there's enough to say "Take our word for it, it's Haiti" is not compelling and supports what I'm saying. It takes hundreds of millions to film these lackluster. generic images? If Haiti lacks the qualities to be visually breathtaking, then why even bother to film so much there?
It's as minimalist as Shanghai -- virtually identical in concept. The road/landscape, the exterior of a building, the interior of the building, and almost no people.
Sounds like Mendes' aesthetic to me more than a new Bond style itself. His films, American Beauty and especially Road to Perdition feature this sparse, ponderous, minimalist style (Conrad Hall's cinematography).
QoS featured great location 'feeling' - especially in Sienna and Haiti.
That's true in part, but Forster does a lot of the same in QOS -- the hotel in the middle of the desert is rather too much like Spectre headquarters in Spectre, right down to being in the desert and populated by almost nobody. He has a scene of an SUV driving through the desert -- not unlike the Aston Martin in Skyfall or the boat in Spectre. The minimalist dogfight in QOS is a lot like the minimalist car chase in Spectre. In each of these films, the minimalism is obvious.
We get more of Haiti and Italy in QUS, but really the only one of Craig's films that seems to have the scale the script calls for is Casino Royale, and as good as it is, it still does not measure up to the early Bonds.
Really? The desert is a significant part of Bolivia. We get a nice helping of the city and the rural in QOS. Where QOS succeeds and SP fails in the dogfight/car chase comparison, is that a desert isn't populous - but Rome is. So not having any other cars in the car chase is inauthentic.
I'm curious to know the aspect of culture you identify in CR. A few establishing shots to soak up the scenery isn't enough. The Bond novels are travelogues, not snapshots of different cultures. So where that translates on screen in the early Bond films is Bond's visit to Jamaica in DN (the local woman at the start carrying the bananas on her head, Pussfella's club, plus so much more that all takes place in Kingston. But then we visit the beaches of Jamaica, so we get to see both) and in FRWL (the Cold War feeling is most ambient in Istanbul, with the Bulgarians working for the Russians, plus we see Hagia Sophia, the gypsy camp lifestyle, etc). As I said in my post in the previous page - that's one area that QOS succeeds in. Yes, we shift from one location to another very quickly, but for the short time we're there, we're treated to different aspects of their culture, as opposed to simply getting a quick establishing shot and some wide angles. We visited Montenegro for a long period in CR, but I didn't learn anything about the culture there from the film - in fact, it wasn't even Montenegro we're seeing in the film, it's Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic, and the two locations don't look similar at all.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
You keep saying "culture," which I've never referred to. I've only talked about locations, and now unimpressive they seem to be vis a vis the staggering amounts of money they spend to make the bond movies, just one of the areas where they don't seem to get much return on investment. If a quick shot of a palm tree and a warehouse is enough to make you feel like you've been to Haiti, that's fine, but it doesn't convince me.
If you think I'd be satisfied with a palm tree next to a warehouse, then you clearly haven't been understanding my posts.
And if you want locations in a film, there are plenty of other films that globe trot. The culture aspect I'm referring to is an integral part of Bond, and to me, that goes hand in hand with "location".
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
That's great for you. I'd just settle for visually impressive locations in Bond films. The generic stuff we tend to get today just doesn't do it, though I will say that some of the scenes in Rome and in the Alps in Spectre tried a lot harder than the previous two films.
The fact that Casino Royale realized that Montegnegro by itself was not visually interesting and had to find a substitute location plays into exactly the point I'm making.
And that's great for you. I prefer something a little deeper than the superficial, but I guess the latter is the target audience of CR06.
Film: Tomorrow Never Dies | Girl: Teresa di Vicenzo | Villain: Max Zorin | Car: Aston Martin Volante | Novel: You Only Live Twice | Bond: Sir Sean Connery
If you think I'd be satisfied with a palm tree next to a warehouse, then you clearly haven't been understanding my posts.
And if you want locations in a film, there are plenty of other films that globe trot. The culture aspect I'm referring to is an integral part of Bond, and to me, that goes hand in hand with "location".
I think that the point being made is that the vast budget is not palpable on the screen. As costs escalate spectacle doesn't. I appreciate that this is to some extent a choice and propensity of current film making. However the Lair in Spectre was truly underwhelming, and the house in Skyfall never felt really to me at all, plus the dullest car chase in the history of cinema with two cars, no people and no drama.something of value has been if not lost then absent. God I miss the cold war and Ken Adam sets!
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
when the series started, air travel was still expensive and only other people's dads got to do it ... normal dads just had Trader Vic style tiki bar décor in the rec room to get that experience, but air travel was a growing industry and there was peer pressure to spend scarce disposable income travelling abroad
in the early films, getting off the plane and checking into the hotel room was just as much a part of the fantasy as saving the world and getting the girl
nowadays every last frat boy has been to more continents than I have, and most of those once-exotic locations Connery went to have a Planet Hollywood
so nice as the scenery could look, travel is no longer part of the wish-full-fillment aspect of the films
what now is? in Casino Royale Craig spends more time fiddling with his cellphone than he does looking at the scenery around him, perhaps its having the cheapest most all-inclusive cellphone plan that's the fantasy experience for viewers today?
at any rate, mocking up a cool looking cellphone prop shouldn't cost that much, what are they spending these obscene budgets on?
I'm sure he expects at least $15 million to appear in a movie.
Obviously, he couldn't have been paid that up front for "The Imitation Game". I suspect he took a relatively nominal sum plus a large percentage of the box office gross. But that percentage doesn't show up as a production cost.
That's one reason why the Mission Impossible movies have lower production costs than Bond films (usually about 40% lower). Tom Cruise owns 22% of the franchise. He doesn't take a salary (or not much of one) but he gets about 11% of the gross (22% the production company's 1/2), so he ends up with $60-70 million. If he got paid that up front, the production costs would be much closer.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited October 2016
Movies like The Imitation Game and a James Bond movie are apples and oranges. Among the major differences are the action sequences that make up a chunk of a Bond film and which cost exponentially more since they are no longer done solely with practical photography. Spectre for example used around 1,500 effects shots (Wow! Compare that to the 90 effects shots of Blade Runner.) Because of the series’ place and prestige in the industry, there’s no going back from that, at least not in significant amounts. It will be too obvious to viewers and the rest of the industry and so much about market dominance is about perception (importance of market share is another significant aspect of Bond movies not shared by small movies like The Imitation Game).
How do you make a low-budget, yet beautiful to watch Bond movie? Leave out the action sequences! With the $14 Million budget for The Imitation Game, you can make a feature-film length adaptation of QoS, the short story, including the flashbacks and all the location requirements they entail...but with absolutely no modern action sequence embellishments!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Because of the series’ place and prestige in the industry, there’s no going back from that, at least not in significant amounts. It will be too obvious to viewers and the rest of the industry and so much about market dominance is about perception (importance of market share is another significant aspect of Bond movies not shared by small movies like The Imitation Game).
I agree. It's the points I made above comparing Bond to other major releases that occur in other products.
I think one of the reasons why I'm less enamoured by the current set of Bond films is due to Craig's portrayal and the way the writers have adapted to suit him. He's too much of the flawed Bond and Craig's interpretation of someone affected by vices, ego etc. isn't 100%. Many times he comes across as pouty, slightly childish and too moody. Connery and Moore had their share of less than stellar scripts and some less than great films - but they still carried their roles consistently. Brosnan carried well, but was affected by inconsistent writing of his character.
They could have 10,000 SFX shots -- the issue isn't what the production people tout to pump up their bills. The issue is the end product -- which is underwhelming for all the money that is spent.
This reminds me of when David Lee Roth, of Van Halen fame, was talking up the band's latest album in the 1980s and bragged that there were more than 140 tracks on one song. I remember thinking, how could anyone possibly discern all those sounds? Bigger, better, faster, more doesn't always translate into better filmmaking.
An easy way to gauge this is to ask some fundamental questions:
1) Were the buildings falling in Spectre better than the ones in Inception? (For that matter, was the Alpine lair better than the one in the same movie?) Even adjusted for inflation, Inception was the cheaper movie by tens of millions.
2) Was the Spectre lair (or the hotel in Quantum of Solace) more imaginative and visually arresting than the volcanic lair in You Only Live Twice? I'm not talking about personal tastes as regards aesthetics. I'm talking about a couple of near-deserted buildings in the middle of the desert versus a volcanic lair with helipad, rocket, control room, monorail, and hundreds of extras.
3) Have any of the car chases -- any -- in the last four Bond films eclipsed those in even the mundane Fast and Furious series, which have cost millions less to produce than the Bond films in each of the years that both came out.
And on and on.
The best chases and action sequences really don't require much. I'd take the foot chase in Casino Royale, for instance, over any of the other chases by vehicle in Craig's Bond films. It's not about spending huge sums of money to lay a swatch of destruction, real or CGId, but about making the chase itself engaging.
The Imitation Game managed to create more tension in the scene where six guys show up to unplug a computer than any of the car chases in the Bond films. I'm guessing it was a lot cheaper to film the former.
. . . travel is no longer part of the wish-full-fillment aspect of the films
what now is? i
The interesting thing about that statement, though, is that far more people want to travel today than ever before. It's the norm for young people, who are prepared to go into debt or sacrifice material things such as cars and homes so they have the money to do so -- which then begs the question, what is it they so want to see?
And that's where the modern Bond films fall down. The 1960s ones let the audience soak up the local sights. Indeed they very carefully scouted for such, and they embedded them in the films as much as possible. The newer films pay lip service -- just enough to suggest the film takes place where it claims but spending less time on locations and more time on sets and close ups of actors.
It's not just a matter of quick shots of tourist attractions, but of finding ways to make the locations emerge as destinations. Even a relatively crappy Bond film like The Man with the Golden Gun had the good sense to let Scaramanga live in an exotic house on his own little island. In that case, the exterior and interior of the house were the star, while the power station or whatever got short shrift, in part because it was just some studio set.
Because of the series’ place and prestige in the industry, there’s no going back from that, at least not in significant amounts. It will be too obvious to viewers and the rest of the industry and so much about market dominance is about perception (importance of market share is another significant aspect of Bond movies not shared by small movies like The Imitation Game).
I agree. It's the points I made above comparing Bond to other major releases that occur in other products.
I think one of the reasons why I'm less enamoured by the current set of Bond films is due to Craig's portrayal and the way the writers have adapted to suit him. He's too much of the flawed Bond and Craig's interpretation of someone affected by vices, ego etc. isn't 100%. Many times he comes across as pouty, slightly childish and too moody. Connery and Moore had their share of less than stellar scripts and some less than great films - but they still carried their roles consistently. Brosnan carried well, but was affected by inconsistent writing of his character.
I agree, the level of moodiness and unresolved relational conflicts in the recent Bond movies have gone up. However, I truly believe that this approach has been well-thought out so that modern viewers will relate to Bond and if box office is a good indicator, it works!
They could have 10,000 SFX shots -- the issue isn't what the production people tout to pump up their bills. The issue is the end product -- which is underwhelming for all the money that is spent.
This reminds me of when David Lee Roth, of Van Halen fame, was talking up the band's latest album in the 1980s and bragged that there were more than 140 tracks on one song. I remember thinking, how could anyone possibly discern all those sounds? Bigger, better, faster, more doesn't always translate into better filmmaking.
An easy way to gauge this is to ask some fundamental questions:
1) Were the buildings falling in Spectre better than the ones in Inception? (For that matter, was the Alpine lair better than the one in the same movie?) Even adjusted for inflation, Inception was the cheaper movie by tens of millions.
2) Was the Spectre lair (or the hotel in Quantum of Solace) more imaginative and visually arresting than the volcanic lair in You Only Live Twice? I'm not talking about personal tastes as regards aesthetics. I'm talking about a couple of near-deserted buildings in the middle of the desert versus a volcanic lair with helipad, rocket, control room, monorail, and hundreds of extras.
3) Have any of the car chases -- any -- in the last four Bond films eclipsed those in even the mundane Fast and Furious series, which have cost millions less to produce than the Bond films in each of the years that both came out.
And on and on.
The best chases and action sequences really don't require much. I'd take the foot chase in Casino Royale, for instance, over any of the other chases by vehicle in Craig's Bond films. It's not about spending huge sums of money to lay a swatch of destruction, real or CGId, but about making the chase itself engaging.
The Imitation Game managed to create more tension in the scene where six guys show up to unplug a computer than any of the car chases in the Bond films. I'm guessing it was a lot cheaper to film the former.
Again, these are Bond movies...apples and oranges. In future years, the stakeholders for The Imitation Game can always bask in the glow of their past success and say, "ahhh, the beautiful success of our movie... " but that's where it stops ) ...while EON and Sony will be busy pondering on how they're going to execute the next one.
The James Bond Series is a victim of its own success because it's gotten too big and in many ways, it's in a class and category of its own that will sadly prevent it from ever reflecting too much on artistic integrity. As far as EON and Sony are concerned, it's all about box office, market share and ROI. It's more financially predictable to produce one Bond movie with, let's say, a conservative likelihood of a 25% return, than it is to produce 100 "little" movies that each have a potential for a 50% return.
I've long let go of any notion of the Bond films being artistically pleasing in the fullest sense, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying them to the utmost.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Spectre for example used around 1,500 effects shots (Wow! Compare that to the 90 effects shots of Blade Runner.) !
and Interstellar, a film that mostly takes place in space, only had about 600 effects shots.
That in itself is evidence of how the Bond films are seen by their financiers. Surely someone in production knew about the 600 effects shots of Interstellar, and yet when it was determined they'd need 1,500 for SP, I'm sure they were tasked to account for the necessity of each and every effect, and then they green-lit all of it!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I agree, the level of moodiness and unresolved relational conflicts in the recent Bond movies have gone up. However, I truly believe that this approach has been well-thought out so that modern viewers will relate to Bond and if box office is a good indicator, it works!
I agree that it has found its mark with certain viewers.
I've long let go of any notion of the Bond films being artistically pleasing in the fullest sense, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying them to the utmost.
-{ cheers to that. And that's something that I would say the Brocollis believe in too. Despite its broad appeal Bond has had elements of artistic expression and true artisans behind the scenes in Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Lamont, Derek Meddings, Maurice Binder to name a few. While Bond is broad and a blockbuster action flick - they have overt and hidden elements of quality with the English film-industry influence.
To go along with Gassy Man's point though, I do believe this has declined in recent years. This potentially could have something to do with the influences of the family type production - the consistent people involved in production that lasted up until CR.
I tell you, there's no going back from that ) Tragically, if you decide to go old school, you'll get left behind by the smaller competitors who are cutting corners to make slick looking movies.
cheers to that. And that's something that I would say the Brocollis believe in too. Despite its broad appeal Bond has had elements of artistic expression and true artisans behind the scenes in Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Lamont, Derek Meddings, Maurice Binder to name a few. While Bond is broad and a blockbuster action flick - they have overt and hidden elements of quality with the English film-industry influence.
-{ The true secret to their success...securing, and in some cases, grooming these geniuses.
To go along with Gassy Man's point though, I do believe this has declined in recent years. This potentially could have something to do with the influences of the family type production - the consistent people involved in production that lasted up until CR.
For the record here in AJB, before the reboot I was a proponent to ending the EON series, feeling that it's been squeezed almost dry of any artistic potential left. I also promoted the view of the Bond rights lapsing into public domain so that qualitative competition will cause the best adaptations of Bond to emerge from the rest.
Sad to say, the best recourse for an artistically satisfying telling of Bond is back to its original format, in the form of the continuation novels that have been hit and miss.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I tell you, there's no going back from that ) Tragically, if you decide to go old school, you'll get left behind by the smaller competitors who are cutting corners to make slick looking movies.
cheers to that. And that's something that I would say the Brocollis believe in too. Despite its broad appeal Bond has had elements of artistic expression and true artisans behind the scenes in Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Lamont, Derek Meddings, Maurice Binder to name a few. While Bond is broad and a blockbuster action flick - they have overt and hidden elements of quality with the English film-industry influence.
-{ The true secret to their success...securing, and in some cases, grooming these geniuses.
To go along with Gassy Man's point though, I do believe this has declined in recent years. This potentially could have something to do with the influences of the family type production - the consistent people involved in production that lasted up until CR.
For the record here in AJB, before the reboot I was a proponent to ending the EON series, feeling that it's been squeezed almost dry of any artistic potential left. I also promoted the view of the Bond rights lapsing into public domain so that qualitative competition will cause the best adaptations of Bond to emerge from the rest.
Sad to say, the best recourse for an artistically satisfying telling of Bond is back to its original format, in the form of the continuation novels that have been hit and miss.
going through those before and after SFX pics is quite eye opening, no wonder SP has such a superficial feel and look to it. Skyfall had a fair amount of SFX in it but it wasn't nearly as noticeable or rampant then in SP. I appreciate when films use CGI to enhance a scene as opposed to just creating everything, an example is the docking scene from Interstellar, the only CGI in the entire scene is the debris flying off the endurance and wire removal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3lcGnMhvsA
Again, these are Bond movies...apples and oranges.
No, these are contemporary Bond films, and mostly just the Craig ones -- the 1960s ones got the details right. The problem isn't that they're a different kind of movie; the problem is that the lackluster sense of how to spend the money is a current SOP.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9YXuvLfECk
If this were a Bond movie today, they'd be in some small set consisting mostly of the bar, some neon signs, and some skullduggerous patrons in the shadows. There would be a quick establishing shot of the exterior, and the almost all of the action would take place with close ups of the actors. And it would cost $15 million.
In QoS though the minimalist elements make sense to the story line and the location they're in. Minimalism in a desert does kinda make sense
Out of interest, what specifically are you stating that it doesn't measure up to?
"Better make that two."
1) Minimalism doesn't require a massive budget -- minimalism is the Dr. No set with the spider. But the modern version is minimalism costs millions and millions. The gist of my argument is not that they can't use minimalism but that the fact it costs hundreds of millions and takes years to film is absurd.
2) Here are some screenshots from From Russian with Love, made for much, much, much less in 2016 dollars than Quantum of Solace, and the latter. If you're asking me which one immerses me as the viewer in the locales versus which ones gives me glimpses simply to establish we're in some tropical locale, the answer is obvious. Out of fairness, I tried to find screenshots that had the actors in them and not merely establishing shots of a city or neighborhood:
Desert atmosphere with people:
Plus, Haiti doesn't have as many iconic things to look at other than the oceans in comparison with the temple in Istanbul...
"Better make that two."
The fact that there's enough to say "Take our word for it, it's Haiti" is not compelling and supports what I'm saying. It takes hundreds of millions to film these lackluster. generic images? If Haiti lacks the qualities to be visually breathtaking, then why even bother to film so much there?
Really? The desert is a significant part of Bolivia. We get a nice helping of the city and the rural in QOS. Where QOS succeeds and SP fails in the dogfight/car chase comparison, is that a desert isn't populous - but Rome is. So not having any other cars in the car chase is inauthentic.
I'm curious to know the aspect of culture you identify in CR. A few establishing shots to soak up the scenery isn't enough. The Bond novels are travelogues, not snapshots of different cultures. So where that translates on screen in the early Bond films is Bond's visit to Jamaica in DN (the local woman at the start carrying the bananas on her head, Pussfella's club, plus so much more that all takes place in Kingston. But then we visit the beaches of Jamaica, so we get to see both) and in FRWL (the Cold War feeling is most ambient in Istanbul, with the Bulgarians working for the Russians, plus we see Hagia Sophia, the gypsy camp lifestyle, etc). As I said in my post in the previous page - that's one area that QOS succeeds in. Yes, we shift from one location to another very quickly, but for the short time we're there, we're treated to different aspects of their culture, as opposed to simply getting a quick establishing shot and some wide angles. We visited Montenegro for a long period in CR, but I didn't learn anything about the culture there from the film - in fact, it wasn't even Montenegro we're seeing in the film, it's Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic, and the two locations don't look similar at all.
And if you want locations in a film, there are plenty of other films that globe trot. The culture aspect I'm referring to is an integral part of Bond, and to me, that goes hand in hand with "location".
The fact that Casino Royale realized that Montegnegro by itself was not visually interesting and had to find a substitute location plays into exactly the point I'm making.
Okay, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm trying to get more out...
What else about the new films ain't like the old ones? We've covered big budgets and superficial locations?
"Better make that two."
I think that the point being made is that the vast budget is not palpable on the screen. As costs escalate spectacle doesn't. I appreciate that this is to some extent a choice and propensity of current film making. However the Lair in Spectre was truly underwhelming, and the house in Skyfall never felt really to me at all, plus the dullest car chase in the history of cinema with two cars, no people and no drama.something of value has been if not lost then absent. God I miss the cold war and Ken Adam sets!
in the early films, getting off the plane and checking into the hotel room was just as much a part of the fantasy as saving the world and getting the girl
nowadays every last frat boy has been to more continents than I have, and most of those once-exotic locations Connery went to have a Planet Hollywood
so nice as the scenery could look, travel is no longer part of the wish-full-fillment aspect of the films
what now is? in Casino Royale Craig spends more time fiddling with his cellphone than he does looking at the scenery around him, perhaps its having the cheapest most all-inclusive cellphone plan that's the fantasy experience for viewers today?
at any rate, mocking up a cool looking cellphone prop shouldn't cost that much, what are they spending these obscene budgets on?
http://en.mediamass.net/people/benedict-cumberbatch/highest-paid.html
I'm sure he expects at least $15 million to appear in a movie.
Obviously, he couldn't have been paid that up front for "The Imitation Game". I suspect he took a relatively nominal sum plus a large percentage of the box office gross. But that percentage doesn't show up as a production cost.
That's one reason why the Mission Impossible movies have lower production costs than Bond films (usually about 40% lower). Tom Cruise owns 22% of the franchise. He doesn't take a salary (or not much of one) but he gets about 11% of the gross (22% the production company's 1/2), so he ends up with $60-70 million. If he got paid that up front, the production costs would be much closer.
How do you make a low-budget, yet beautiful to watch Bond movie? Leave out the action sequences! With the $14 Million budget for The Imitation Game, you can make a feature-film length adaptation of QoS, the short story, including the flashbacks and all the location requirements they entail...but with absolutely no modern action sequence embellishments!
I agree. It's the points I made above comparing Bond to other major releases that occur in other products.
I think one of the reasons why I'm less enamoured by the current set of Bond films is due to Craig's portrayal and the way the writers have adapted to suit him. He's too much of the flawed Bond and Craig's interpretation of someone affected by vices, ego etc. isn't 100%. Many times he comes across as pouty, slightly childish and too moody. Connery and Moore had their share of less than stellar scripts and some less than great films - but they still carried their roles consistently. Brosnan carried well, but was affected by inconsistent writing of his character.
"Better make that two."
This reminds me of when David Lee Roth, of Van Halen fame, was talking up the band's latest album in the 1980s and bragged that there were more than 140 tracks on one song. I remember thinking, how could anyone possibly discern all those sounds? Bigger, better, faster, more doesn't always translate into better filmmaking.
An easy way to gauge this is to ask some fundamental questions:
1) Were the buildings falling in Spectre better than the ones in Inception? (For that matter, was the Alpine lair better than the one in the same movie?) Even adjusted for inflation, Inception was the cheaper movie by tens of millions.
2) Was the Spectre lair (or the hotel in Quantum of Solace) more imaginative and visually arresting than the volcanic lair in You Only Live Twice? I'm not talking about personal tastes as regards aesthetics. I'm talking about a couple of near-deserted buildings in the middle of the desert versus a volcanic lair with helipad, rocket, control room, monorail, and hundreds of extras.
3) Have any of the car chases -- any -- in the last four Bond films eclipsed those in even the mundane Fast and Furious series, which have cost millions less to produce than the Bond films in each of the years that both came out.
And on and on.
The best chases and action sequences really don't require much. I'd take the foot chase in Casino Royale, for instance, over any of the other chases by vehicle in Craig's Bond films. It's not about spending huge sums of money to lay a swatch of destruction, real or CGId, but about making the chase itself engaging.
The Imitation Game managed to create more tension in the scene where six guys show up to unplug a computer than any of the car chases in the Bond films. I'm guessing it was a lot cheaper to film the former.
And that's where the modern Bond films fall down. The 1960s ones let the audience soak up the local sights. Indeed they very carefully scouted for such, and they embedded them in the films as much as possible. The newer films pay lip service -- just enough to suggest the film takes place where it claims but spending less time on locations and more time on sets and close ups of actors.
It's not just a matter of quick shots of tourist attractions, but of finding ways to make the locations emerge as destinations. Even a relatively crappy Bond film like The Man with the Golden Gun had the good sense to let Scaramanga live in an exotic house on his own little island. In that case, the exterior and interior of the house were the star, while the power station or whatever got short shrift, in part because it was just some studio set.
I agree, the level of moodiness and unresolved relational conflicts in the recent Bond movies have gone up. However, I truly believe that this approach has been well-thought out so that modern viewers will relate to Bond and if box office is a good indicator, it works!
Again, these are Bond movies...apples and oranges. In future years, the stakeholders for The Imitation Game can always bask in the glow of their past success and say, "ahhh, the beautiful success of our movie... " but that's where it stops
The James Bond Series is a victim of its own success because it's gotten too big and in many ways, it's in a class and category of its own that will sadly prevent it from ever reflecting too much on artistic integrity. As far as EON and Sony are concerned, it's all about box office, market share and ROI. It's more financially predictable to produce one Bond movie with, let's say, a conservative likelihood of a 25% return, than it is to produce 100 "little" movies that each have a potential for a 50% return.
I've long let go of any notion of the Bond films being artistically pleasing in the fullest sense, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying them to the utmost.
That in itself is evidence of how the Bond films are seen by their financiers. Surely someone in production knew about the 600 effects shots of Interstellar, and yet when it was determined they'd need 1,500 for SP, I'm sure they were tasked to account for the necessity of each and every effect, and then they green-lit all of it!
BTW, here's where I read about the effects count for SP: http://www.awn.com/vfxworld/shaken-not-stirred-steve-begg-and-visual-effects-spectre
I agree that it has found its mark with certain viewers.
-{ cheers to that. And that's something that I would say the Brocollis believe in too. Despite its broad appeal Bond has had elements of artistic expression and true artisans behind the scenes in Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Lamont, Derek Meddings, Maurice Binder to name a few. While Bond is broad and a blockbuster action flick - they have overt and hidden elements of quality with the English film-industry influence.
To go along with Gassy Man's point though, I do believe this has declined in recent years. This potentially could have something to do with the influences of the family type production - the consistent people involved in production that lasted up until CR.
"Better make that two."
I tell you, there's no going back from that
-{ The true secret to their success...securing, and in some cases, grooming these geniuses.
For the record here in AJB, before the reboot I was a proponent to ending the EON series, feeling that it's been squeezed almost dry of any artistic potential left. I also promoted the view of the Bond rights lapsing into public domain so that qualitative competition will cause the best adaptations of Bond to emerge from the rest.
Sad to say, the best recourse for an artistically satisfying telling of Bond is back to its original format, in the form of the continuation novels that have been hit and miss.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS