Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Ken Adam As Production Designer?


8 replies to this topic

#1 Dalton

Dalton

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 July 2002 - 11:32 AM

Watching the latest few Bond movies, I've really noticed that although Peter Lamont does a fantantastic job with the movies, the scope of the sets don't seem as dramatic as Ken Adam's did.

Since Moonraker the sets do seem more realistic, but not epic enough in my opinion. (I hope to eat my words when seeing the Ice Palace in DAD)

I'd just like to see what Adam could do with a new Bond movie, 25 years on.

What do you think?

#2 Hardyboy

Hardyboy

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 472 posts

Posted 05 July 2002 - 05:25 PM

From your lips to EON's ears. I've been missing Ken Adam myself; but from what I've seen of the Ice Palance set there is a stong Adam influence, and so maybe some of the Adam magic will rub off.

#3 Dalton

Dalton

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 July 2002 - 05:49 PM

Hope so.

#4 Mourning Becomes Electra

Mourning Becomes Electra

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts

Posted 05 July 2002 - 05:51 PM

Well to be fair, no film since Moonraker really required larger than life sets. Did a hollowed out volcano really belong in LTK? :) With more down to earth (so to speak) films come more down to earth sets. The Ice Palace set seems to fit the larger than life personality of Graves and his probable plans for world domination. And Lamont showed with Titanic he's more than capable of doing sets with a grand scope.

MBE

#5 Dalton

Dalton

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 196 posts
  • Location:England

Posted 05 July 2002 - 06:01 PM

I'm not knocking Peter Lamont, I think he's one of the best in the business at the moment.

All I am saying is that i'd like to see what Ken Adam would come up with if he had a crack at another Bond.

#6 mrmoon

mrmoon

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPip
  • 939 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 05 July 2002 - 06:06 PM

If I had my way, Adam would be production designer on every Bond picture, I love Lamont's work, but Ken Adam IS a genius. It doesn't matter about the scale of the set, every set Ken Adam designed was shear brilliance. Take for example the corridor at the end of TSWLM on Atlantis, where Bond is chased by Jaws, absolutely awesome.

#7 Donovan

Donovan

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 974 posts

Posted 07 July 2002 - 04:31 PM

My observation is the difference between Ken Adam and Peter Lamont is that Adam incorporates some expressionism into his designs, and Lamont prefers realism.

The effect is that Adam's sets had more of a magical quality to them. They made you feel like you were definately somewhere else-in another world. Had Peter Lamont designed the "tarantula room" in "Dr. No", or Spectre's headquarters in "Thunderball", I imagine they would be more "form follows function". In other words, a four-walled room is likely to be comprised of equally-balanced dimensions instead of creative/imaginative designs.

I think the best example of Peter Lamont's approach is the Soviet conference room in "Octopussy". Old school 007 would show the Soviets as more hard-boiled with a less comfortable-looking set. While the Soviet room is impressive in scope and operation, it is very warm and colorful. Overall, very lovely. It somehow doesn't feel like a cold war situation. Think of Adam's military sets in "You Only Live Twice" and "The Spy Who Loved Me". They convey the appearance of an area where serious decisions are made.

My favorite Ken Adam set characteristics are the sloping ceiling and polished metal surfaces. They're everywhere in his Bond films. I have to say I loved that he's always seen with a cigar, even in his DVD interviews. There's no doubt that Peter Lamont is a very accomplished and successful set designer, but his contributions to Bond lack the magic of Ken Adam.

By the way, I was very sorry to see M's office discarded for the Brosnan Bond films.

-Joe

#8 Harmsway

Harmsway

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13293 posts

Posted 08 July 2002 - 02:30 AM

I think that Lamont's realistic contributions are very good - but I say bring back Allan Cameron (TND). His sets had a good Bondish feel. Loved the stealth ship and Carver's media center. Very Bondy indeed.

Donovan: The office had to be discarded. MI6 has switched buildings as well as heads of office.

#9 Blofeld's Cat

Blofeld's Cat

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 17542 posts
  • Location:A secret hollowed out volcano in Sydney (33.79294 South, 150.93805 East)

Posted 08 July 2002 - 03:34 AM

Ken Adam cleverly used false perspective and angles to create seemingly granderous sets, such as the volcano and the supertanker cavern. Diagonal lines tend to draw the eye outwards thus giving the illusion of stretching a view to appear bigger than it is. Decorators utilise the same technique by using wallpaper with a diaginal pattern to make a small roon seem bigger.

Other than the interior of the stealth ship in Tomorrow Never Dies, I don't think this technique has been fully utilised effectively since the days of Ken Adam. Certainly not on a regular basis.