This is a pet peeve I have with location usage, and it’s getting worse. The Daniel Craig Bond movies have no respect for the integrity of a location. Now, I understand that in a case like Bond going to Cuba in Die Another Day, you can’t really film in Cuba. Because, well, Cuba.
But in Casino Royale, almost no place was itself. Venice was Venice, and the Bahamas were the Bahamas, but Madagascar was also the Bahamas, Montenegro was the Czech Republic, and Miami was a combination of England and the Bahamas (again).
In Quantum of Solace, Bolivia, although central to the plot, was never visited. Bolivian locations were filmed in Panama and Chile. Panama also doubled as Haiti.
The whole thing drives me crazy. I understand that filming costs money, but I also understand that the integrity of the Bond films matters to the fans, and real locations are part of that integrity just as real stunts are. Eon wisely backed away from the CGI stunt fiasco of Die Another Day, but they’re actually getting worse in regards to locations. I find it tremendously bothersome. Peeved. I’m peeved.
15 users commented in " Places are themselves: Bond movie pet peeve "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackDeb,
Don’t know where to post. Thought you might like to know:
Screening: “Goldfinger” (1964)
Location: Cedar Lane Cinemas, 503 Cedar Lane, Teaneck, NJ, 07666, USA
Date: Wednesday 25th March 2009
Time: 20:00
Goldfinger is back on the big screen for James Bond fans in New Jersey, USA, this week. Sean Connery’s third outing as 007 will be shown at Cedar Lane Cinemas in Teaneck, NJ, on Wednesday 25th March 2009 from 8pm.
The special ticket price for this event, part of the Big Screen Classics season, is $6.
Doors open at 7:30pm to pre-show organ music with Jeff Barker. All films presented in 35mm prints direct from the studio vaults.
Thanks!
Interesting, but a little niave maybe. Location shooting can cost a tremendous amount of money and depending on the government of the location amazingly hard to shot. Unions are another factor in location shooting and I suspect a major culprit in the decisions made in where these two films where shot. Overall I have no problem for one location being used as another. If it works for a film and suspends your disbelief I say what does it matter?
Zip, let’s use Montenegro as an example. Maybe they couldn’t film there: Why, then, say the Casino Royale was located there instead of in the Czech Republic?
What matters is that the Bond films adhere to a certain standard. Same as stunts.
That is true. But even in older Bond movies the weren’t that strict with location. Some examples
Live and Let Die: San Monique doesn’t exist, it was shot on Jamaica
Moonraker: Filming in outer space wasnt possible, but hey, this movie is full of silliness but it has its moments, especially Drax has good lines
Living Daylights: They didnt go to Afghanistan
Licence to kill: Isthmus doesnt exist, was shot in Mexico i believe.
Above that there are times you see just the tourist attractions, filmed beforehand, without actors and then the action moves to studio, backlot sets or even other country locations.
Even geography is mixed up. They often go from one place to another like its a couple of hour walk when in reality its miles or days apart. Example in the Spy who loved me. The go from Luxor, where the fight Jaws, to Abu Simbel and the interior of the base is all a set.
In the end, i think it is impossible or expensive to go too all places for real, even in Bond movies. Bond movies have a high reputation for locations, like you said. But sometimes even they have to think up something.
I think as long as the put a lot of effort in a good story, scripting and acting (wich lacks sometimes)location is second.
From Holland with Love
Flapflop
Flapflop, good assessment. You’ll notice that both of the fictional locations (Isthmus and San Monique) involved stories where the head of the government was the villain, and these are the ONLY Bond movies where that is the case. If it’s “official” villainy, it’s fictional.
I think every Bond movie needs some good, grounded location work and then obviously can work with sets, as well as locations “dressed” as other locations. I think it’s necessary to the film to have strong locations, and if they have that, then other locations can be substitutes.
But in QOS colonel Medrano wants to use Quantum to arange a coup in Bolivia and then take over that country, so technically thats also a “official” villain. But he’s no leader yet, thats true.
Apart from that the teaser of Octopussy never says in wich country were in but it looks a lot like Castro’s Cuba (uniforms and cigars).
Later in Octopussy we have the renegade Russian general Orlov who sits at the high council of his country.
And if you really consider, Sanchez isn’t offically leader of Isthmus but has the president on his pay roll.
So you have also a category villains who (want to) take over there own, really existing, country.
From Holland with Love
I was actually thinking exactly of Octopussy, and I think Bolivia fits in with that.
Bond films allow a real country: Rogue villains, opposed by a country’s leadership. Attempted takeovers of a real country or changes of that country’s policies (see also Die Another Day and Korea). Villains pretending to represent a real country (Rosa Klebb).
Bond films require a fictional country: The leader of the country is a villain (LALD), or is helping the villain (LTK).
Maybe interesting if you make a updated version of your book to add a chapter
(geo)politics in James Bond movies.
Interesting title for that chapter: “Remember, your only president for live” (Sanchez to president of Istmus, LTK)
From Holland with love
Flapflop
Not a bad idea.
Okay, I am know I am late to this party, and this thread has nothing to do with this post, but I am finally watching QoS. So what’s the deal with the missing gun barrel opening?!? I really feel cheated and almost feel as though this isn’t a real Bond film. We had it, quite brilliantly, in CR so why not in QoS? This is a real travesty and one I hope that will never happen again!
Okay, since I have finally actually watched QoS until the end I now know that the gun barrel comes at the end. My question is why the end? Are we now going to finally get back to actual James Bond movies and not Bourne rip-offs?
Honestly, I think they overdid the “becoming Bond” thing. We had it down at the end of Casino Royale.
I’ll second that. We established who Bond was and that M could trust him in CR. When M says to Bond in QoS can I trust you, I was like, what this again?
I will admit I enjoyed QoS much more than I thought I would, but the missing gun barrel opening needs to come back! Interestingly enough I feel as though QoS is just another chapter of CR. It’s as if CR was spilt into two films.
Leave A Reply