149 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

The paint done on Masterson's body is neat and shiny, Feilds is the exact opposite.

Wow, what a massive difference that is. I feel a whole lot better now.

The photos speak for themselves. Feild's dead body dripping in oil is alot more graphic then Jill Masterson's neatly painted golden corpse. I don't know how else I can explain it better then that. The only simularities is the angle of the body lying and the camera shot but that dosen't really matter, what's IN the image does and they are as opposite as night and day.

[sharpshooter]

The only simularities is the angle of the body lying and the camera shot but that dosen't really matter, what's IN the image does and they are as opposite as night and day.

Well, obviously. It is all the same except for the substance. And the 'only' similarities far outweigh the new content. In the large scheme of things, it does matter. In my eyes, it is just a re-hash of what has gone before. Gold, oil - who cares. It is still the same result.

[tdalton]

The only simularities is the angle of the body lying and the camera shot but that dosen't really matter, what's IN the image does and they are as opposite as night and day.

Well, obviously. It is all the same except for the substance. And the 'only' similarities far outweigh the new content. In the large scheme of things, it does matter. In my eyes, it is just a re-hash of what has gone before. Gold, oil - who cares. It is still the same result.

Completely agreed. What I would have liked to have seen would have been a moment where Bond, as well as the audience, is completely and totally shocked by what we see on the screen. We've seen this sequence before in Goldfinger, and it would have been refreshing to see EON take the chance to do something really shocking along the lines of what they did with the torture sequence in Casino Royale.

[Mister E]

The only simularities is the angle of the body lying and the camera shot but that dosen't really matter, what's IN the image does and they are as opposite as night and day.

Well, obviously. It is all the same except for the substance. And the 'only' similarities far outweigh the new content. In the large scheme of things, it does matter. In my eyes, it is just a re-hash of what has gone before. Gold, oil - who cares. It is still the same result.

Honestly, I find your view as valid as someone who just heard about these pictures and not even saw them. Or you are simply over emphasizing on simularities that are inconsequential. The oil has a tremendous impact on that image like if it was blood and note the small pool of it on the floor, that just adds the effect even more. Masterson's body doesn't have that graphic effect, you don't see gold paint anywhere but on her body and the light makes the image alot more romantic. Here there is so romaticism, it's a dead body smuthered in dripping oil.

[Dangerous Liaison]

I agree completely with you Mister E. I think it's how much more visually graphic it is that sets it apart from Goldfinger's original image.

Edited by Dangerous Liaison, 06 October 2008 - 02:01 AM.

[Royal Dalton]

So, why bother to mimic the Goldfinger imagery at all then, if the two scenes are so different?

[Mister E]

So, why bother to mimic the Goldfinger imagery at all then, if the two scenes are so different?

Why not ? Again, it never hurts to draw from an earlier film. Same ideas with a different goal, one that is light hearted and another that is alot more straight faced and dark.

[bondrules]

It's the same, IMHO

Like making a X movie....ok, so instead of germany, it's in france....or the main character is from the US, and not from the UK....or he has 2 children instead of three, an so on....but in both stories he is a serial killer who skins his victims, was a shrink, was missing a lung and smoked angel dust


you get the idea

[Mister E]

It's the same, IMHO

Like making a X movie....ok, so instead of germany, it's in france....or the main character is from the US, and not from the UK....or he has 2 children instead of three, an so on....but in both stories he is a serial killer who skins his victims, was a shrink, was missing a lung and smoked angel dust


you get the idea

*grabs head* All I am going to say is your wrong.

[Royal Dalton]

So, why bother to mimic the Goldfinger imagery at all then, if the two scenes are so different?

Why not ? Again, it never hurts to draw from an earlier film.

Because the original was an iconic piece of Bond imagery, and it's been done already.

What they've done here might even serve to undermine the horror of this scene. Because when most people see it, they'll be thinking about the scene from Goldfinger, and not about the scene that's unfolding on the screen in front of them.

Same ideas with a different goal, one that is light hearted and another that is alot more straight faced and dark.

I'd hardly call a scene where someone is found suffocated to death by being covered in gold paint lighthearted, Mister E!

[Hockey Mask]

As I said before I like the idea. I am interested to hear how it is received by virgin-eyes in the theater.

By the way, I bet 60% of the QOS audience hasn't even seen Goldfinger.

[Mister E]

Because the original was an iconic piece of Bond imagery, and it's been done already.

No, it's a simular iconic image with another goal in mind. The simularities don't outweigh the content.

What they've done here might even serve to undermine the horror of this scene. Because when most people see it, they'll be thinking about the scene from Goldfinger, and not about the scene that's unfolding on the screen in front of them.

Undermine ? How so ? The oil is dripping off her body and is collected in a small pool below her. I hardly call that undermining the scene. The substitution for blood is very easy to see.

I'd hardly call a scene where someone is found suffocated to death by being covered in gold paint lighthearted, Mister E!

Maybe lighthearted was the wrong word, sorry. I should say glamorous.

[Royal Dalton]

Because the original was an iconic piece of Bond imagery, and it's been done already.

No, it's a simular iconic image with another goal in mind. The simularities don't outweigh the content.

It's exactly the same. They even used a still from Goldfinger as a reference. The only difference is the substitution of gold with oil. And what is this other goal of which you talk, sir?

What they've done here might even serve to undermine the horror of this scene. Because when most people see it, they'll be thinking about the scene from Goldfinger, and not about the scene that's unfolding on the screen in front of them.

Undermine ? How so ?

Because a good number of people will be thinking: "Hey, that's just like that scene in Goldfinger!" rather than paying attention to the film they're watching.

[Mister E]

Because the original was an iconic piece of Bond imagery, and it's been done already.

No, it's a simular iconic image with another goal in mind. The simularities don't outweigh the content.

It's exactly the same. They even used a still from Goldfinger as a reference. The only difference is the substitution of gold with oil. And what is this other goal of which you talk, sir?

What they've done here might even serve to undermine the horror of this scene. Because when most people see it, they'll be thinking about the scene from Goldfinger, and not about the scene that's unfolding on the screen in front of them.

Undermine ? How so ?

Because a good number of people will be thinking: "Hey, that's just like that scene in Goldfinger!" rather than paying attention to the film they're watching.

Hardly. The film is over forty years old and most people watching QUANTUM OF SOLACE would be casual film fans who most likely never saw the movie at all.

[Mister E]

It's exactly the same. They even used a still from Goldfinger as a reference. The only difference is the substitution of gold with oil.

Again, it's like you never saw the photos and just heard the comparison. The gold paint was neatly applied to the body and brightened by the lamp next to it made it glitter. Oil is dark and messy, it's dripping off the body like blood. Far more graphic and intense. I really don't understand how people aren't getting this, it's not rocket science. Two images with entirely different atmospheres, all you need is eyes to see this.

And what is this other goal of which you talk, sir?

One wants to show glamour, the other is far more crude.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

That's why I keep my expectations low.

Expecting dreck and getting dreck wouldn't make me happy. I have no interest in setting my expectations that low... if they were, I wouldn't bother to go to the theater.

I didn't say I was expecting "dreck." Trust me. I wouldn't be making EON/Sony richer with my money if I thought that. What I am expecting a decent action picture that's equal to or better than the Brosnan films and that is low compared to some folks here who seem to be expecting the best Bond film ever made.

[00Twelve]

For some reason, and I could very well be wrong, it seems like those who are dreading this image/scene are assuming that the entire scene is going to progress like the one from GF, shot for shot, and that Bond's going to stare in disbelief, maybe go up and check her pulse. Maybe he'll then scramble to find the phone and call Felix. And tell him to get up there, b/c "the girl's dead...no, Fields. Agent Fields. And she's covered in oil. Greene's oil."

[Harmsway]

That's why I keep my expectations low.

Expecting dreck and getting dreck wouldn't make me happy. I have no interest in setting my expectations that low... if they were, I wouldn't bother to go to the theater.

I didn't say I was expecting "dreck." Trust me. I wouldn't be making EON/Sony richer with my money if I thought that. What I am expecting a decent action picture that's equal to or better than the Brosnan films and that is low compared to some folks here who seem to be expecting the best Bond film ever made.

For me, "dreck" is more or less synonymous with the quality of the Brosnan era. If QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't a significant improvement on the Brosnan era in most areas, I'll feel downright cheated. There's no excuse for that level of mediocrity.

For some reason, and I could very well be wrong, it seems like those who are dreading this image/scene are assuming that the entire scene is going to progress like the one from GF, shot for shot, and that Bond's going to stare in disbelief, maybe go up and check her pulse. Maybe he'll then scramble to find the phone and call Felix. And tell him to get up there, b/c "the girl's dead...no, Fields. Agent Fields. And she's covered in oil. Greene's oil."

Nah. It'll be different. But Bond still opens the doors of the room and sees her on the bed, covered in oil... it's going to be a moment that suddenly, out of the blue, shouts "Hey, remember GOLDFINGER!" and then returns us to the film we're involved in. It's distracting.

[Mister E]

it's going to be a moment that suddenly, out of the blue, shouts "Hey, remember GOLDFINGER!" and then returns us to the film we're involved in. It's distracting.

Eh, not to me. I'll remember that film moment but I can still make a distinction.

[Royal Dalton]

It's exactly the same. They even used a still from Goldfinger as a reference. The only difference is the substitution of gold with oil.

Again, it's like you never saw the photos and just heard the comparison. The gold paint was neatly applied to the body and brightened by the lamp next to it made it glitter. Oil is dark and messy, it's dripping off the body like blood. Far more graphic and intense. I really don't understand how people aren't getting this, it's not rocket science. Two images with entirely different atmospheres, all you need is eyes to see this.

Everybody knows that the oil's supposed to symbolise blood. That's not even the issue.

And what is this other goal of which you talk, sir?

One wants to show glamour, the other is far more crude.

There's nothing glamourous about a dead body covered in gold paint. If anything, it's a lot more twisted than somebody covered in a load of gloop.

[Mister E]

Everybody knows that the oil's supposed to symbolise blood. That's not even the issue.

And yet you are still missing the point.

If anything, it's a lot more twisted than somebody covered in a load of gloop.

No it isn't when it's neat, glittering, and meant to look as pretty as the girl it's covered in. Death is anything but neat.

[stamper]

hahaha, this discussion is hilarious. People dissing the reference, you talk as if no Bond movie have ever referenced another Bond movie,

[00Twelve]

For some reason, and I could very well be wrong, it seems like those who are dreading this image/scene are assuming that the entire scene is going to progress like the one from GF, shot for shot, and that Bond's going to stare in disbelief, maybe go up and check her pulse. Maybe he'll then scramble to find the phone and call Felix. And tell him to get up there, b/c "the girl's dead...no, Fields. Agent Fields. And she's covered in oil. Greene's oil."

Nah. It'll be different. But Bond still opens the doors of the room and sees her on the bed, covered in oil... it's going to be a moment that suddenly, out of the blue, shouts "Hey, remember GOLDFINGER!" and then returns us to the film we're involved in. It's distracting.

I'm gonna go ahead and keep an open mind, anyway. I'm confident that Forster, Craig, etc. will find a way to properly distinguish contexts enough to the point that not as many as you're predicting will find the scene as distracting. We haven't even seen it yet. I'm hoping (even expecting) to be pleasantly surprised. We're all just going off of one picture. Not any of the shots surrounding it, or the script, or anything except the most bare of details. She's dead, it's a message to Bond, she's naked on the bed in the Masterson pose. That's all we know. I just tend to think they've thought this out more than what we're assuming. Maybe I'm just naive.

[Joey Bond]

It'll actually be pretty cool if Arnold could sneak like very subtly the three "Goldfinger" notes the moment we see her.

[Royal Dalton]

Everybody knows that the oil's supposed to symbolise blood. That's not even the issue.

And yet you are still missing the point.

I'm not missing the point, because there is no point. You can dress it up with as much psychological babble as you like, but it's still just a lazy visual gag that's going to pull people out of the film.

[Harmsway]

Not any of the shots surrounding it, or the script, or anything except the most bare of details. She's dead, it's a message to Bond, she's naked on the bed in the Masterson pose. That's all we know.

We also know that as soon as Bond sees the body, M shows up, lectures him, and Bond is clapped in handcuffs.

[doubler83]

120 replies because of ONE picture.

I love this place.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

I'm gonna go ahead and keep an open mind, anyway. I'm confident that Forster, Craig, etc. will find a way to properly distinguish contexts enough to the point that not as many as you're predicting will find the scene as distracting. We haven't even seen it yet. I'm hoping (even expecting) to be pleasantly surprised. We're all just going off of one picture. Not any of the shots surrounding it, or the script, or anything except the most bare of details. She's dead, it's a message to Bond, she's naked on the bed in the Masterson pose. That's all we know. I just tend to think they've thought this out more than what we're assuming. Maybe I'm just naive.

Then both us are naive, because I agree.


Honestly this doesn't bother me one tick. I just watched Goldfinger on Saturday night in fact and this scene in QoS still doesn't bother me even after that. I like it. Come on, we know Forster's not a hack so lets just wait and see what they have in store for us.

[Harry Fawkes]

I think it is exciting the way the paid homage to Goldfinger. Great!

[Mister E]

I'm not missing the point, because there is no point. You can dress it up with as much psychological babble as you like,

Psychological babble ? This is coming from observation using my eyes, this isn't complex. It's getting increasingly obvious that you just want to revel in your own ignorace. Or you just need to get your eyes examined.

but it's still just a lazy visual gag that's going to pull people out of the film.

Do you even know what you are typing anymore ? Don't answer that, I know the answer.