Too Many Locations?

One of my complaints about the Craig movies is that I think they are cramming too many exotic locations into these movies, without giving any of them enough screentime to develop them. Visiting cool places around the world is a basic element of the Bond formula, but I like it better when they pick a location and stick with it for most of the movie, like Japan in YOLT or Greece in FYEO.

Here are the locations they visited in QOS:
Opening scene: Siena, Italy
Back at M16 HQ: London
Meeting Camille: Haiti
Tosca scene: Austria
Greene's Party: Back in Italy
Most of remaining scenes: Bolivia
Finding Vesper's Ex: Russia

I think that some of the older movies like Octopussy had just as many locations, or more, but the number of locations isnt really what bugs me. Its the throwaway scenes like Haiti that really could have taken place anywhere. If the only point of the scene is a straight action foot chase, you arent getting any cool local scenery or local culture, which is the main reason to bring a film to an exotic location. The older movies like Octopussy at least tried to make it feel like you were at the location, even if some of those attempts came out horribly stereotypical (Germans riding around eating sausage in the car?).

Anyone else feel this way?

Yep. There was a point when air travel was the exclusive preserve of the rich or those with an expense account but it's not been like that since the turn of the century. Now that some low-cost carriers are flying long-haul it's even more stupid.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Yep. There was a point when air travel was the exclusive preserve of the rich or those with an expense account but it's not been like that since the turn of the century. Now that some low-cost carriers are flying long-haul it's even more stupid.

Yeah its perfectly reasonable for him to be able to jump locations quickly, with the government funding everything, but I just think it makes the movie a muddled mess of unmemorable locations.

I think that a lot of action movies in the past decade or two do the same thing. They just jump from Paris to Bangkok to Brazil to Hong Kong to New York to 10 other locations, and by the end of the movie you have no sense of setting or location

I think that is exactly the point: they want to add more "action" by a quick change of locations. It adds to the general air of speed and urgency. A fight that takes place all over the earth is just more important than a fist-fight in Bolivia...It's a cheap trick to create the illusion of a super important mission.

Are you sure it's Tosca? I've always wanted to know which opera it is, but forgot to check.

Kath wrote:

I think that is exactly the point: they want to add more "action" by a quick change of locations. It adds to the general air of speed and urgency. A fight that takes place all over the earth is just more important than a fist-fight in Bolivia...It's a cheap trick to create the illusion of a super important mission.

Are you sure it's Tosca? I've always wanted to know which opera it is, but forgot to check.

Wikipedia says Tosca. I know very little about opera, so thats what I'm going by haha.

I agree that the location change adds to the urgency and makes the movie more fast paced, but its definitely not a quality I enjoy in a movie, or at least not for 120 minutes straight. I enjoy the movies where Bond is casually playing cards, and slowly investigating things, and seducing women, until the last quarter of the movie where action picks up and things become more urgent. Its not healthy plot-wise to have things running at 100% speed the whole time.

I have a number of problems with this film but 'locations' is not one of them.

Haven't looked at it since 2015 I think.

In my opinion SPECTRE had too many locations as well. Mexico was the only location which really made sense and made you feel like you were there. Rome, Austria, Morocco and London could have been replaced by pretty much everything. The London finale was especially completely unnecessary and the final showdown should have taken place at Blofeld's lair.

In QoS Italy was justified though. The movie begins there because that's where the previous one had ended, and then Bond goes to Talamone because that's where Mathis lives. Admittedly both Haiti and Austria seem to be overlooked. I think QoS' biggest flaw is that it's too fast paced and it should have been half an hour longer so that the movie could breathe.

Greene's Party takes place in Bolivia, though, not in Italy. So once the movie moves to Bolivia the film does settle down.

Kath wrote:

I think that is exactly the point: they want to add more "action" by a quick change of locations. It adds to the general air of speed and urgency. A fight that takes place all over the earth is just more important than a fist-fight in Bolivia...It's a cheap trick to create the illusion of a super important mission.

Are you sure it's Tosca? I've always wanted to know which opera it is, but forgot to check.

It is. Mr. White himself says "It seems Tosca is not for everyone".

The series has always had an element of globe-trotting travelogue. I agree in this era of cheaply accessible air travel its ability to make us feel envious of where Bond gets to go is lessened, but it seems unlikely to change now.

KingCobra686 wrote:

Wikipedia says Tosca.  I know very little about opera, so thats what I'm going by haha.

I agree that the location change adds to the urgency and makes the movie more fast paced, but its definitely not a quality I enjoy in a movie, or at least not for 120 minutes straight.  I enjoy the movies where Bond is casually playing cards, and slowly investigating things, and seducing women, until the last quarter of the movie where action picks up and things become more urgent.  Its not healthy plot-wise to have things running at 100% speed the whole time.

Yes, me too, I also prefer the casino scenes in CR. It seems odd that they have changed the style so dramatically in the next film.
But if you look at our "have a wish" threat for 25 you see a call for action scenes. They have to make many different people with different tastes happy. Fleming's novels are much more slow-paced and I would prefer that, too.
But there lies the rub. Fleming purists, such as myself, and strict Bond-fans like different things.

Walecs wrote:

It is. Mr. White himself says "It seems Tosca is not for everyone".

Ah, thanks. I had forgotten about Mr White, thanks for pointing that out!
I thought it was The Tales of Hoffmann because those large eyes totally looked like the resort of a puppet maker to me.



I think that's why they're going for more and more exotic locations and, unfortunately, for many locations. Yes, we can probably afford to fly around like Bond, but not every third day.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The series has always had an element of globe-trotting travelogue. I agree in this era of cheaply accessible air travel its ability to make us feel envious of where Bond gets to go is lessened, but it seems unlikely to change now.  

In the age of Kontiki tours, I understand nu-Bond's need to globe trot. 

The travelogue idea was initially exclusive to one location - Jamaica, Turkey, Japan, Switzerland, etc. Then it evolved to cover more ground. One of the best things about TND in my eyes is that time is spent in Hamburg and Saigon, despite the urgency of the narrative. 

But six flights for Bond in the shortest Bond film... A little excessive.

Not to mention many people actually interested in travel suggest ditching the tours and "living like a local" - which is what Fleming instills anyway. The gypsy camp stuff in FRWL highlights this.

FieldsMan wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The series has always had an element of globe-trotting travelogue. I agree in this era of cheaply accessible air travel its ability to make us feel envious of where Bond gets to go is lessened, but it seems unlikely to change now.  

In the age of Kontiki tours, I understand nu-Bond's need to globe trot. 

The travelogue idea was initially exclusive to one location - Jamaica, Turkey, Japan, Switzerland, etc. Then it evolved to cover more ground. One of the best things about TND in my eyes is that time is spent in Hamburg and Saigon, despite the urgency of the narrative. 

But six flights for Bond in the shortest Bond film... A little excessive.

Not to mention many people actually interested in travel suggest ditching the tours and "living like a local" - which is what Fleming instills anyway. The gypsy camp stuff in FRWL highlights this.

What are Kontiki ours? Can't find the right thing on google...

Agreed. But, curiously enough, the idea of spreading many flights over a short span of time is Fleming, too. And I mean "Fleming" and not Bond. Or even better "Fleming's Publisher". Fleming objected against the plan to write Thrilling Cities, because he would only have something like three days for each city. If you read the book, you get detailed descriptions of his experiences with air travelling (including a burning engine on a double Friday 13th because he was crossing the date-line), the menu, gift bags received, stops at airports etc.
All reports try to veer away from the usual tourist stuff and to dive into the local's customs and cultures. This is a very healthy blend of Fleming and his creation. He even writes how it felt like to adapt to so many different cultures during so short a span of time. He compares it to Around the World in Eighty Days. So, yes, it's probably that they fail to make the locations look original, to transport this feeling of local culture. As so many have pointed out, the locations look exchangeable. Probably it would work, even if it were many, if they did actually feel like the places they are to represent.
And, coming to think of it, SF does a bloody good job with that...

Tours that last for a couple of weeks and cram as many destinations in as possible. It's usually just so people can say "I've been there". 

I've no issue with the use of locations in SF. The markets and rooftops of Istanbul add local colour (which Newman didn't take advantage of with his music) in such a short amount of time. Staging the fight between Bond and Patrice in a skyscraper against the neon jellyfish gives a greater sense of Shanghai than "Montenegro" in CR - again in a much shorter time frame. The floating casino in Macau was very evocative considering the it wasn't shot in China, and the scenes in Scotland couldn't have happened anywhere else for character and thematic reasons. 

The only reason CR changed the location from France to Montenegro was because they wanted to show something new (France had already featured in AVTAK and GE), but I didn't get a sense of the local culture by watching it. 

Despite QOS's globetrotting, I do appreciate Forster's incorporation of local culture - it's just that it happens all too quickly. Siena's iconic rooftops and Palio, the opera in Austria (there was no real need for Quantum to visit Austria just for a meeting though is there?) and I do feel I get a sense of the South American countries from watching QOS - I just don't think Forster's message has a place in a Bond film.

An additional 15 minutes or so on the runtime and a less slavishly Bourne-aping approach to the editing of the action sequences, and it's my guess QOS would be more kindly regarded.

FieldsMan wrote:

Tours that last for a couple of weeks and cram as many destinations in as possible. It's usually just so people can say "I've been there". 

I've no issue with the use of locations in SF. The markets and rooftops of Istanbul add local colour (which Newman didn't take advantage of with his music) in such a short amount of time. Staging the fight between Bond and Patrice in a skyscraper against the neon jellyfish gives a greater sense of Shanghai than "Montenegro" in CR - again in a much shorter time frame. The floating casino in Macau was very evocative considering the it wasn't shot in China, and the scenes in Scotland couldn't have happened anywhere else for character and thematic reasons. 

The only reason CR changed the location from France to Montenegro was because they wanted to show something new (France had already featured in AVTAK and GE), but I didn't get a sense of the local culture by watching it. 

Despite QOS's globetrotting, I do appreciate Forster's incorporation of local culture - it's just that it happens all too quickly. Siena's iconic rooftops and Palio, the opera in Austria (there was no real need for Quantum to visit Austria just for a meeting though is there?) and I do feel I get a sense of the South American countries from watching QOS - I just don't think Forster's message has a place in a Bond film.

Ah, I see. Those trips are similar to those organised bus tours which partly just drive by tourist attractions. Bad news in the age of the selfie-stick.
Do you say that this is the reason why Bond visits so many different places now?

I didn't mean that anyone has issues with SF. It just occurred to me that they have learned from their mistake in QoS.
I also love the chase in the tube because you can't get much closer to the heart of London than the tube. And that is a very nice dive into local culture.
I simply love SF because I love seeing Scotland; but I think it is also this contrast to loud, brimming cities which gives those scenes their unique character. The scenes in the remote areas of Scotland are pretty much the opposite of everything you would expect in a Bond movie, IMO. And this remoteness is pretty much Scotland, at least in my worldview.

I thought they had moved the casino from France because they wanted to hide their shady casino in a much more unknown and remote location. This casino is only half-legal or something and they didn't want to have it "next door".

I think Bregenz is just a product placement?
How to get more viewers? Well, try Bond-tourism...

I usually dislike ecocriticism but I have a soft spot for that message that our most valuable substance is water instead of oil. Yes, it feels a bit misplaced and still...I mean, this iconic exchange of a girl covered in gold by a girl covered in oil is a very clever translation of "Bond" to contemporary culture. It has its moments.

Kath wrote:

I simply love SF because I love seeing Scotland; but I think it is also this contrast to loud, brimming cities which gives those scenes their unique character. The scenes in the remote areas of Scotland are pretty much the opposite of everything you would expect in a Bond movie, IMO. And this remoteness is pretty much Scotland, at least in my worldview.

Many of those scenes were shot in England not Scotland. Just as much of Shanghai was doubled by London.

Well, the difference doesn't show!
Still feels like Scotland to me.

Kath wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Tours that last for a couple of weeks and cram as many destinations in as possible. It's usually just so people can say "I've been there". 

I've no issue with the use of locations in SF. The markets and rooftops of Istanbul add local colour (which Newman didn't take advantage of with his music) in such a short amount of time. Staging the fight between Bond and Patrice in a skyscraper against the neon jellyfish gives a greater sense of Shanghai than "Montenegro" in CR - again in a much shorter time frame. The floating casino in Macau was very evocative considering the it wasn't shot in China, and the scenes in Scotland couldn't have happened anywhere else for character and thematic reasons. 

The only reason CR changed the location from France to Montenegro was because they wanted to show something new (France had already featured in AVTAK and GE), but I didn't get a sense of the local culture by watching it. 

Despite QOS's globetrotting, I do appreciate Forster's incorporation of local culture - it's just that it happens all too quickly. Siena's iconic rooftops and Palio, the opera in Austria (there was no real need for Quantum to visit Austria just for a meeting though is there?) and I do feel I get a sense of the South American countries from watching QOS - I just don't think Forster's message has a place in a Bond film.

Do you say that this is the reason why Bond visits so many different places now?

...

I thought they had moved the casino from France because they wanted to hide their shady casino in a much more unknown and remote location. This casino is only half-legal or something and they didn't want to have it "next door".

...

I usually dislike ecocriticism but I have a soft spot for that message that our most valuable substance is water instead of oil. Yes, it feels a bit misplaced and still...I mean, this iconic exchange of a girl covered in gold by a girl covered in oil is a very clever translation of "Bond" to contemporary culture. It has its moments.

I was being contemptuous, but the approach of QOS filmmakers was to appease those with shorter attention spans. Perhaps because Haggis/Craig/Foster didn't have the focus or desire to flesh out a coherent story.

It's probably the official reason Eon released to make it seem like they gave it more thought. 

Not sure of the practicality of Fields' death, and it felt more self indulgent than striking, which GF evoked.

FieldsMan wrote:

I was being contemptuous, but the approach of QOS filmmakers was to appease those with shorter attention spans. Perhaps because Haggis/Craig/Foster didn't have the focus or desire to flesh out a coherent story.

It's probably the official reason Eon released to make it seem like they gave it more thought. 

Not sure of the practicality of Fields' death, and it felt more self indulgent than striking, which GF evoked.

I still wonder at whom QoS is aimed. People who waste water? Do we all go home and remember to stop the water while brushing our teeth? They do have a message here. It's just, like you said, I am not sure if a Bond film is the right place to spread that. I do like the approach because that's the kind of thing Fleming would integrate into his novels. It's just that it works out for him and doesn't for them...
That's why I say that Fleming was a genius. He just knew how to handle things.

I am sorry to say that the theory why the casino was relocated has been concocted by myself. It's only my thoughts, not Eon's.

I am not so stupid as to discuss Fields's death with you!

I just meant that exchange of gold with oil is very interesting. In our world, assumedly, the most valuable substance is not gold anymore, but oil. They get a brownie point for that.

Kath wrote:

In our world, assumedly, the most valuable substance is not gold anymore, but oil. They get a brownie point for that.

Which undermines the film's entire basis that the most valuable commodity is water.

We don't know at this point yet...Hence "assumedly".
Come to think of it, it's the perfect red herring. That's why we think that it was all about oil...

Kath wrote:

That's why we think that it was all about oil...

Was it? I thought it was about Vesper.

FieldsMan wrote:

Kath wrote:

That's why we think that it was all about oil...

Was it? I thought it was about Vesper.

You're quoting me out of context.    

My theory was that QoS tells us that water is the most valuable substance of this planet; but, in case we do not know any better, we think for the most part of the film that Quantum are actually discussing oil. And hence my argument that Fields's death was the red herring to make us think so.

How could Fields's oil-related death link to Vesper?  
QoS has two story arches, very common to serial productions. You have one for the episode / film at hand and a larger one which encompasses several episodes / films. Fields's death is the red-herring within the "Quantum has stolen a precious liquid" story arch whereas Bond's cold-bloodedness about it is surely motivated by Vesper's betrayal / death. But the oil isn't related to that story-arch, is it?

I'm afraid that QoS is not about one thing only.