
Kristatos wrote:I think DN's low-budget production values hamper it somewhat, along with the fact that everyone involved was still finding their feet and it didn't quite feel like a fully-formed Bond film, somehow.

stockslivevan wrote:Kristatos wrote:I think DN's low-budget production values hamper it somewhat, along with the fact that everyone involved was still finding their feet and it didn't quite feel like a fully-formed Bond film, somehow.
I can understand that. But as a stand-alone film, what do you think of it?
Personally I don't see how it seems low budget, besides the terrible score.

DN looks like a 1950s adventure film, mainly becasue it is. Still they did a great job with the material and resources.Kristatos wrote:stockslivevan wrote:Kristatos wrote:I think DN's low-budget production values hamper it somewhat, along with the fact that everyone involved was still finding their feet and it didn't quite feel like a fully-formed Bond film, somehow.
I can understand that. But as a stand-alone film, what do you think of it?
Personally I don't see how it seems low budget, besides the terrible score.
Well, I don't know if a score can seem low-budget, but it does date it worse than the other Bond films. It makes the film seem more a product of the '50s than the '60s. And Ken Adam's set for the villain's lair, though as beautifully designed as ever, seems more shoddily constructed than usual. Then there's the infamous "spider on the sheet of glass" shot.
As a standalone film, I dunno. I had seen many other Bond films before I first saw it, so I find it hard to divorce it from the series as a whole. I'm sure that if I had seen it on its initial release in 1962, I would have been blown away by it. Sadly, I wasn't born yet.
Mazer Rackham wrote:DN looks like a 1950s adventure film, mainly becasue it is. Still they did a great job with the material and resources.
stockslivevan wrote:I suppose you could say DN had one foot in the 50s and the other in the 60s. Back projection for example was still a conventional tool used in Hollywood for stuff like the car chase. By TSWLM it looks just too silly with Moore standing in front of back projection while "skiing", and it's supposed to be a 70s production. Still there are exceptions, such as Superman utilizing back projection in an effective way.



Kristatos wrote:But Superman's bluescreen work was considered groundbreaking in 1978, a year after TSWLM. It's like complaining that a film made a year before Jurassic Park has outdated CGI - well, of course it does,
stockslivevan wrote:Kristatos wrote:But Superman's bluescreen work was considered groundbreaking in 1978, a year after TSWLM. It's like complaining that a film made a year before Jurassic Park has outdated CGI - well, of course it does,
I never said there was anything wrong with Superman's, I said it was an exception mostly because it was far better excuted thanks to Geoffery Unsworth's contributions.![]()



Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests