No Time to Die production thread

17787797817837841208

Comments

  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited May 2020 Posts: 13,765
    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    Craig Bond overcomes each villain's plot similar to Connery in Dr No. That's all.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,338
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.
  • Slots for 2021 releases are filling up. A decision needs to be made fairly quickly.
  • edited May 2020 Posts: 17,740
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    @FatherValentine likes to stir the pot.

    Advice for him: don't watch NTTD-- it won't satisfy. It's already a failure. Wait til the next guy-- he and his films will be perfect. Trust me.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    If it's tiring you can just turn in. You seem to have a real problem accepting any opinion other than Daniel Craig is the messiah.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    @FatherValentine likes to stir the pot.

    Advice for him: don't watch NTTD-- it won't satisfy. It's already a failure. Wait til the next guy-- he and his films will be perfect. Trust me.

    Hi Peter, not sure we've had the pleasure. Sorry you think that disliking SP is such an unlikely opinion to hold that me 'stirring the pot' is the only possible explanation.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2020 Posts: 7,546
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    If it's tiring you can just turn in. You seem to have a real problem accepting any opinion other than Daniel Craig is the messiah.

    I've never seen @mtm claim Craig is the messiah, but your post was the one saying Connery was so much better than Craig. All @mtm's post seemed to be saying was that they're both good.

    Craig's Bond justified, through his actions, whatever "reputation" he has as an agent in those films. Never once was I taken out of one of his films by thinking, "wow, everyone thinks he's so great, but what has he done really?", nor has anyone I know who's seen the films. I think to argue otherwise is to really be searching for something to complain about.

    Connery and Craig were both heavily involved in all the plots that they were the center of, to my recollection. As were Laz, Moore, Dalt, and Broz. And before you get at me as well, Craig isn't my favourite Bond (but he's up there for sure).
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    If it's tiring you can just turn in. You seem to have a real problem accepting any opinion other than Daniel Craig is the messiah.

    I've never seen @mtm claim Craig is the messiah, but your post was the one saying Connery was so much better than Craig. All @mtm's post seemed to be saying was that they're both good.

    Craig's Bond justified, through his actions, whatever "reputation" he has as an agent in those films. Never once was I taken out of one of his films by thinking, "wow, everyone thinks he's so great, but what has he done really?", nor has anyone I know who's seen the films. I think to argue otherwise is to really be searching for something to complain about.

    Connery and Craig were both heavily involved in all the plots that they were the center of, to my recollection. As were Laz, Moore, Dalt, and Broz. And before you get at me as well, Craig isn't my favourite Bond (but he's up there for sure).

    I wasn't getting at anyone, just replying to comments. My initial comment was in response to @HildebrandRarity, and didn't drag in anyone who didn't want to be a part of the conversation. My debate with @mtm has been ongoing for a few days, and has built out of a debate about NTTD. And I don't believe I am complaining, just explaining why I hold the opinions I do when asked.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    @FatherValentine likes to stir the pot.

    Advice for him: don't watch NTTD-- it won't satisfy. It's already a failure. Wait til the next guy-- he and his films will be perfect. Trust me.

    Hi Peter, not sure we've had the pleasure. Sorry you think that disliking SP is such an unlikely opinion to hold that me 'stirring the pot' is the only possible explanation.

    @FatherValentine , have you seen where SP rates for me? It’s in the bottom two or three.

    Anyways, you do seem like a passive aggressive gaslighter. Just my opinion.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    @FatherValentine likes to stir the pot.

    Advice for him: don't watch NTTD-- it won't satisfy. It's already a failure. Wait til the next guy-- he and his films will be perfect. Trust me.

    Hi Peter, not sure we've had the pleasure. Sorry you think that disliking SP is such an unlikely opinion to hold that me 'stirring the pot' is the only possible explanation.

    @FatherValentine , have you seen where SP rates for me? It’s in the bottom two or three.

    Anyways, you do seem like a passive aggressive gaslighter. Just my opinion.

    I am passive aggressive? You are the one who tagged me in a comment without addressing me directly.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    Actually wouldn't that ethos apply to Connery Bond if you're looking for the character to be justified.

    Rather than just understood up front as the best, as he's always been past and present. And based on performance in the field, it's justified as well.

    No, not in the slightest. Connery's Bond thwarts Spectre in DN. They attempt revenge in FRWL and he wins out. Then he stops Goldfinger and earns the respect and love of the US intelligence and political services. Then he averts nuclear devastation in TB and YOLT. He keeps getting better. Craig's Bond, whose achievements are all supposed to be one timeline, remember, comes nowhere close.

    CraigBond stops Le Chiffre as much as ConneryBonds Goldfinger I.e he’s barely involved in stopping Goldfinger.
    I struggle to see how he didn’t defeat the other baddies he’s met either.

    This stuff is tiring.

    If it's tiring you can just turn in. You seem to have a real problem accepting any opinion other than Daniel Craig is the messiah.

    What are you talking about? If you can counter the points I made in my post, do so. If not, leave it.
    I could well say you’re treating Connery like the messiah; where does that get us?
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    For the record, Daniel Craig has absolutely earned his high praise and reputation as an actor and for his portrayal of Bond. He takes the role seriously, has got himself into excellent shape each time, looks great, and has contributed to many great moments in his 4 films because of his approach to the character. I agree with you there 100%. Any issue I have with his tenure is due to the creative decisions behind the camera, poor writing often, and the direction the series has taken.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.

    Funnily enough I think the problem with that is that’s how they found the road when they arrived! Some sort of car club had been having fun there I think...?

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Yes it’ll be interesting to see how he gets from the Aston to the Toyota. It certainly looks like a lot of fun to have a fully off road car chase though. I can’t remember seeing that in anything before.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Craig's Bond may not have directly saved as many lives as other Bonds, but I don't think a lot of innocent people died throughout the course of his films. That is to say, I don't think he's ever really notably failed to save innocent lives in his films.

    CR was primarily about the funding of terrorism, QoS about dictatorships and the distribution of finite resources (sure, he lost Fields, but Connery lost Masterson). Equally important, if more complex, issues than "pay us $1,000,000 or we'll nuke the world". Not to knock that type of plot either.

    You might have an argument for Skyfall, given the MI6 employees and Severine. I don't count Ronson, the covert operatives, M, etc., because at the end of the day they're all civil servants in a dangerous job, like Bond himself. Severine, not innocent either. Dangerous people playing dangerous games.

    And then there's Spectre, where he saves all of the innocent lives in Mexico City, and dismantles a terrorist organization working towards global surveillance, another complex plot that doesn't directly lead to the death of innocent people, no, but is dangerous all the same.

    I guess my point is Craig's Bond's effectiveness shouldn't be rated only on a scale of innocent lives directly saved.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2020 Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    Even if that were true, why would MI6 give good reputations based on ‘innocent lives saved’ rather than big missions successfully concluded? You think M and Tanner go through their annual appraisals and say “well there’s no way of telling who our best spies are as no-one stole any nuclear bombs for us to recover this year” :D
    Or will you just attack me again rather than answering?
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    For the record, Daniel Craig has absolutely earned his high praise and reputation as an actor and for his portrayal of Bond. He takes the role seriously, has got himself into excellent shape each time, looks great, and has contributed to many great moments in his 4 films because of his approach to the character. I agree with you there 100%. Any issue I have with his tenure is due to the creative decisions behind the camera, poor writing often, and the direction the series has taken.

    Oh, apologies for misquoting you @FatherValentine but correct me if i am wrong, he did save a lot of people in CR when he stopped that tanker at airport, in QOS he saved Camille in that desert hotel when he could have leave the hotel & Corrine from her boyfriend at the end. In SF he tried to save M(although failed at that but it made more real), in SP he try to stop that helicopter to falling off on Mexicans. Yes, you can say that he haven't saved millions of people like Connery did by stopping nuclear attack in TB, but to be honest i am actually glad they are taking a different approach in Craig era, saving more lives through nuclear explosion doesn't mean better plot, it's all in the execution. It would help if you could go into details of what exactly bothering you about Craig's bond, constructive criticism is always welcome ;)
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Craig's Bond may not have directly saved as many lives as other Bonds, but I don't think a lot of innocent people died throughout the course of his films. That is to say, I don't think he's ever really notably failed to save innocent lives in his films.

    CR was primarily about the funding of terrorism, QoS about dictatorships and the distribution of finite resources (sure, he lost Fields, but Connery lost Masterson). Equally important, if more complex, issues than "pay us $1,000,000 or we'll nuke the world". Not to knock that type of plot either.

    You might have an argument for Skyfall, given the MI6 employees and Severine. I don't count Ronson, the covert operatives, M, etc., because at the end of the day they're all civil servants in a dangerous job, like Bond himself. Severine, not innocent either. Dangerous people playing dangerous games.

    And then there's Spectre, where he saves all of the innocent lives in Mexico City, and dismantles a terrorist organization working towards global surveillance, another complex plot that doesn't directly lead to the death of innocent people, no, but is dangerous all the same.

    I guess my point is Craig's Bond's effectiveness shouldn't be rated only on a scale of innocent lives directly saved.

    Your last point is a fair one. In fact you make some good points throughout.

    From what I remember from the Mexico scenes in SP, doesn't he cause the problems by creating the explosion? Also, he endangers the people by getting in the helicopter. Otherwise they would just have taken off and there would have been no immediate danger? I may have missed something because I've seen it only three times I think.

    Also, I am not trying to get into a tallying session between him and Connery. I obviously don't mind Bond losing people and don't expect him to save everyone. I just wish he was depicted as being a bit more obviously and stereotypically heroic. I think you can still have the themes and plots being the same, but have some genuine selfless heroism thrown in. The way he withstands the torture in CR counts towards this, of course.

    Have you seen Man of Steel? I couldn't really pinpoint why I hated it so much, but then it hit me that he doesn't save a single innocent person in that film while dressed as Superman. Early in the film he saves people but only when he is not in costume. That's why, despite its faults, I prefer BvS because at least we get to see Superman being a hero in costume.

    Anyway, just using that as a comparative example. Please don't pick the analogy apart because I haven't thought it through!
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    For the record, Daniel Craig has absolutely earned his high praise and reputation as an actor and for his portrayal of Bond. He takes the role seriously, has got himself into excellent shape each time, looks great, and has contributed to many great moments in his 4 films because of his approach to the character. I agree with you there 100%. Any issue I have with his tenure is due to the creative decisions behind the camera, poor writing often, and the direction the series has taken.

    Oh, apologies for misquoting you @FatherValentine but correct me if i am wrong, he did save a lot of people in CR when he stopped that tanker at airport, in QOS he saved Camille in that desert hotel when he could have leave the hotel & Corrine from her boyfriend at the end. In SF he tried to save M(although failed at that but it made more real), in SP he try to stop that helicopter to falling off on Mexicans. Yes, you can say that he haven't saved millions of people like Connery did by stopping nuclear attack in TB, but to be honest i am actually glad they are taking a different approach in Craig era, saving more lives through nuclear explosion doesn't mean better plot, it's all in the execution. It would help if you could go into details of what exactly bothering you about Craig's bond, constructive criticism is always welcome ;)

    CR I don't have an issue with at all (it might be my favourite one of all time, actually).

    Otherwise you make some good points. However, the only reason that helicopter was falling onto the people in Mexico was because he got in it and immediately started fighting! Had he let it go it would have flown off and everyone would have been safe, surely? I am not sure he should be given credit for solving a problem that he created!

    See my reply to @NickTwentyTwo above. That may make things clearer about my reservations on the films from QoS to SP. I suppose I don't. have a problem with anything Craig's Bond does, so much as I miss what he doesn't do. If that makes sense?

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited May 2020 Posts: 7,546
    Sciarras plot in Mexico City was to blow up the stadium full of people, which Bond prevents by exploding the device in the building while listening in on Sciarras conversation. Bond says to M at their meeting, “better a city block than a stadium full of people”.

    It’s interesting your position on CR, because one way to look at it is that he fails that mission; Mr. White ends up with the money he’s been sent to keep out of the hands of terrorism.

    I have seen Man of Steel but I don’t remember it well as it’s been awhile; you may very well be 100% correct.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    Even if that were true, why would MI6 give good reputations based on ‘innocent lives saved’ rather than big missions successfully concluded? You think M and Tanner go through their annual appraisals and say “well there’s no way of telling who our best spies are as no-one stole any nuclear bombs for us to recover this year” :D
    Or will you just attack me again rather than answering?

    I am sorry, I wasn't aware you asked me a question. Apologies if I missed a post.

    I wasn't attacking you, by the way. And I apologise if that's how it came across. It is difficult to convey tone on here sometimes.

    You said that things were getting tiresome. I do have to wonder what is tiring about this? Is it because people don't agree with your opinions, no matter how many times you try to explain? We just disagree, and nothing you can tell me can make me like SP more than I do.

    If I can make an analogy, it's like being a fan of The Beatles and being told that Oasis are just as good because they are doing the same things, with the same chord progressions etc. Well, that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if Oasis are writing songs that are identical to what The Beatles wrote. I liked the original and I don't like the copy.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    Sciarras plot in Mexico City was to blow up the stadium full of people, which Bond prevents by exploding the device in the building while listening in on Sciarras conversation. Bond says to M at their meeting, “better a city block than a stadium full of people”.

    It’s interesting your position on CR, because one way to look at it is that he fails that mission; Mr. White ends up with the money he’s been sent to keep out of the hands of terrorism.

    I have seen Man of Steel but I don’t remember it well as it’s been awhile; you may very well be 100% correct.

    Oh yeah, good point about the plot at the beginning of SP. Completely forgotten about that. Hold my hands up to that one. I have said previously that it is clearly the best scene in the film. Thanks for putting me right.

    I don't really have any 'position' on Craig. Just observations and thoughts in response to people questioning why I generally like his films a lot less than up until 2002.

    I love CR because I love Fleming, and its got plenty of the book in it.
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.

    Funnily enough I think the problem with that is that’s how they found the road when they arrived! Some sort of car club had been having fun there I think...?

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Yes it’ll be interesting to see how he gets from the Aston to the Toyota. It certainly looks like a lot of fun to have a fully off road car chase though. I can’t remember seeing that in anything before.

    Thanks, didn't knew that bond crew wasn't responsible for that. I think this was the article that i read when they were filming.
    https://gtspirit.com/2019/06/05/bond-25-james-bond-filming-norway-disrupted-bmw-club/
    Sciarras plot in Mexico City was to blow up the stadium full of people, which Bond prevents by exploding the device in the building while listening in on Sciarras conversation. Bond says to M at their meeting, “better a city block than a stadium full of people”.

    It’s interesting your position on CR, because one way to look at it is that he fails that mission; Mr. White ends up with the money he’s been sent to keep out of the hands of terrorism.

    I have seen Man of Steel but I don’t remember it well as it’s been awhile; you may very well be 100% correct.

    Another interesting thing to note is bond already destroyed that briefcase so those spectre agents cannot explode that stadium anymore. Although what would someone like bond would have done, he isn't someone who would let those bad guys get away even if they can't harm anyone at that moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.
    Regarding the "Bond isn't relevant anymore" thing, you have to see the other side of the coin. In the first films, Bond was this great secret agent, who'd accomplish bigger and bigger things, until he basically saved the world in Thunderball. After that, everybody at MI6 would go on with what he'd suggest. The scenes with Moneypenny, Q or M, particularly in the Moore days, were on autopilot. They would just use some unordinary setting, like Abu Simbel or the wreck of the Queen Elizabeth to make them stand out.
    That's quite different from the books, where M keeps on having reservations on Bond, with a tenser relationship which they finally brought to the films when Judi Dench got the part.

    During the Brosnan and Craig years, the writers could have definitely come up with something more original. There may have been too many instances of a second act that's about Bond having to prove to his allies that he's the right guy for the job, with Skyfall being also in many ways a meta comment on the whole history of the franchise even more than on the particular Bond character played by Craig. But there was also a need to justify that a guy with such past achievements wouldn't get too much help provided by the MI6 or the CIA to crush an opponent, so he would have to stand on his own.

    Interesting. I always appreciate alternative points of view on Bond.

    I think the problem is that, despite it being reboot, the franchise now relies upon the idea of Bond being a brilliant agent. But if you discount everything prior to Craig, which we should if it is a new timeline, then Craig's Bond has done nothing to justify having such a good reputation.

    That depends on how general audience pursue it, box office result's and critics seems to be impressed with Craig Film's. Personal preference can be different, i don't have any issue with that but when you say "Craig had done nothing to justify that reputation" that is highly wrong. Craig isn't my favorite bond but he did earn that respect he is getting at the moment. Don't forget that he is the only actor in the series who was involved quite a lot in performing his own stunts (especially in QOS). Yes, he isn't exactly winning in every single films against bad guys like Connery, his film's have more bittersweet ending but that's because he isn't playing a cinematic bond, his film's are far more complex than that.

    Hi @Resurrection. I think you have slightly misquoted me there. I didn't write that Daniel Craig has done nothing to earn his reputation, but that his version of James Bond, within the films, hasn't. By that I mean he hasn't saved many innocent people throughout the series - not directly anyway.

    Even if that were true, why would MI6 give good reputations based on ‘innocent lives saved’ rather than big missions successfully concluded? You think M and Tanner go through their annual appraisals and say “well there’s no way of telling who our best spies are as no-one stole any nuclear bombs for us to recover this year” :D
    Or will you just attack me again rather than answering?

    I am sorry, I wasn't aware you asked me a question. Apologies if I missed a post.

    I wasn't attacking you, by the way. And I apologise if that's how it came across. It is difficult to convey tone on here sometimes.

    You said that things were getting tiresome. I do have to wonder what is tiring about this? Is it because people don't agree with your opinions, no matter how many times you try to explain? We just disagree, and nothing you can tell me can make me like SP more than I do.

    No, it's because we have a brand new behind-the-scenes video to chat about on this, the NTTD Production thread, and yet people are still complaining why Craig's Bond is really bad, despite folks moaning about that on every thread around here. That's why it's tiresome. Please don't put words in my mouth before you've asked why I think it's tiresome.
    If I can make an analogy, it's like being a fan of The Beatles and being told that Oasis are just as good because they are doing the same things, with the same chord progressions etc. Well, that doesn't matter to me. I don't care if Oasis are writing songs that are identical to what The Beatles wrote. I liked the original and I don't like the copy.

    Fine, don't watch it any more, case closed. Thanks for your time.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,338
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.

    Funnily enough I think the problem with that is that’s how they found the road when they arrived! Some sort of car club had been having fun there I think...?

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Yes it’ll be interesting to see how he gets from the Aston to the Toyota. It certainly looks like a lot of fun to have a fully off road car chase though. I can’t remember seeing that in anything before.

    Thanks, didn't knew that bond crew wasn't responsible for that. I think this was the article that i read when they were filming.
    https://gtspirit.com/2019/06/05/bond-25-james-bond-filming-norway-disrupted-bmw-club/

    Ha! Yes that's the one, thanks. I know it'll cost money but you'd think it wouldn't be too hard to CG out some tyremarks? Presuambly they have to do that in the Matera chase what with all the sliding about.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,338
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    OUQfamH.jpg
    uuE2raJ.jpg
    ZdKXKYc.jpg
    rW05fKK.jpg
    Wax4PNd.jpg
    ev0s7XS.jpg
    XTzt6XU.jpg
    UuqNeXF.jpg
    FOZuLTv.jpg
    LVfn7Ir.jpg
    naZg0xz.jpg
    k7rtjhr.jpg
    Va4fgFC.jpg
    aeAdvD0.jpg
    N90dnhO.jpg
    GO41fw1.jpg
    rjNOqGC.jpg
    lWebCxc.jpg
    dkKh1m8.jpg
    LVDmtjq.jpg
    Acpbe71.jpg
    vYKHzGr.jpg
    kb8FNkm.jpg
    PCx1edZ.jpg
    9nM4ADc.jpg

    I'm just going to quote these again for anyone who's missed them due to the usual 'I don't like Bond movies less than 45 years old' discussion.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Didn't we read somewhere, that the bridge got a bit damaged and left with heavy black line while performing the stunts.

    Funnily enough I think the problem with that is that’s how they found the road when they arrived! Some sort of car club had been having fun there I think...?

    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Contraband wrote: »
    Screencaps: Scotland location, second unit and stunt crew

    Thanks Contra, surprised no-one seems interested in this..?
    Contraband wrote: »
    Wax4PNd.jpg

    This is the one that interests me: they don't usually put those stunt driver rigs on top of cars for just standard driving scenes, do they? They're there for stunt driving, which suggests the V8 sees a bit of action. I'm not sure there was any hint of that before, was there?

    (Not much clearance on those wheelarches either! :) Have they lowered them?)

    There was the high-speed driving on the Atlantic Road. I imagine whatever action the V8 sees happens somewhere in that sequence, either before or after the shots they filmed on the AR.

    It was just crushing on the Atlantic road in the helicopter bits we saw at the time. This Scotland stuff is all doubling for Norway so it looks like things presumably get a bit hairier for it while it’s there.

    Indeed, but there was more happening there than what we saw at the time, I believe – not just A to B driving. One article mentioned that they did a test stunt on a closed track the day before they started shooting on the Atlantic Road, where the Toyota was seen overtaking the Aston, and the Range Rovers doing some high-speed bits. I imagine whatever happens in that sequence progresses in danger from the AR shots to what they filmed in Scotland.

    Yes it’ll be interesting to see how he gets from the Aston to the Toyota. It certainly looks like a lot of fun to have a fully off road car chase though. I can’t remember seeing that in anything before.

    Thanks, didn't knew that bond crew wasn't responsible for that. I think this was the article that i read when they were filming.
    https://gtspirit.com/2019/06/05/bond-25-james-bond-filming-norway-disrupted-bmw-club/
    Sciarras plot in Mexico City was to blow up the stadium full of people, which Bond prevents by exploding the device in the building while listening in on Sciarras conversation. Bond says to M at their meeting, “better a city block than a stadium full of people”.

    It’s interesting your position on CR, because one way to look at it is that he fails that mission; Mr. White ends up with the money he’s been sent to keep out of the hands of terrorism.

    I have seen Man of Steel but I don’t remember it well as it’s been awhile; you may very well be 100% correct.

    Another interesting thing to note is bond already destroyed that briefcase so those spectre agents cannot explode that stadium anymore. Although what would someone like bond would have done, he isn't someone who would let those bad guys get away even if they can't harm anyone at that moment.

    Yes that's a good point. Bond has that single minded focus like in CR and when he chases Mitchell in QoS.
Sign In or Register to comment.