It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I wonder how long this film will spend in Morrocco? I'm getting really curious as to the story.
I first thought it could be a good place for the PTS but we had Turkey in SF (very different, but the same vibe) and I doubt they would do it. I do wonder what van Hoytema will do with these locations!
Unfortunately for me, it will again be the first week of December before I see Bond 24. (I just hope it is not pushed back even further!) Patience is my middle name, but they better not make it even later for me. (I was especially irked as Korea - right next door - had Skyfall a full month ahead of us.)
Martin Campbell was born to direct Bond movies. Next to Mendes his CV may look second rate to you, but he made two better Bond movies, one of which I would regard as a modern day classic. There's a point at which this kind of recruitment isn't risky in the slightest. Hiring Hoyte Van Hoytema is not risky. It's like buying Diego Costa, a proven goalscorer. Risk is buying Danny Welbeck and assuming he'll make your football club a title winning side.
It's all well and good hiring revered directors and craftsmen, but if we're sat here after B24 still praising the work of Campbell and Meheux above everyone since, one has to wonder whether that is the right trajectory to be on.
I know you think SF is on a par with CR, but I don't personally don't and I'd hazard a guess the majority of people would agree. £1bn and Oscars is not an indication of Bondian quality.
I'm glad they're going for revered 'talent', but what would be truly great is if B&M could break that talent, now that would be interesting.
But I'd be happy for Campbell to direct another Bond film. He's not past it and he has given us two wonderful Bond films indeed. A Bond film is not just another film. I so agree with you, RC7, about Campbell.
All I can say is this: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/4960/skyfall-vs-casino-royale-on-rotten-tomatoes-metacritic-imdb-update-11-9-2014#latest :-).
I think in essence the more general movie lovers -not being Bond fans- equally like Skyfall and Casino Royale. I think it are the fans who are rating CR much higher than SF. Mostly because for them it lacks a lot of "typical" Bond elements (a typical story from A to B, typical Bond music, typical Bond locations). While the more general movie reviewer think Skyfall excells in an "arty" way, with an eye for themeology and an approach to story that is less clearly defined and more multilayered.
BUT in all honesty. A lot is about taste as well :-). Despite your criticism @RC7, I can't help but feel electrified with the way the Bond franchise has been heading too ever since CR and SF :-). I just love being a Bond fan these days....and SF basically fulfilled all my desires and wishes for the perfect Bond film (CR too).
I don't think CR is 'typical' in any way, shape or form. It dispenses with many of the staples that one had come to expect from the Bond canon. Fans and the public bought into it because it was genuinely fresh, exciting and, for a great many, the impossible made possible. SF on the other hand takes the 'typical' elements, MP, Q, DB5 amongst other things, and puts them front and centre.
I actually really enjoy SF, what I don't understand is this hipster-like appropriation you and others have afforded it. Thematically it's really well executed, but using phrases such as 'an approach to story that is less clearly defined and more multilayered' is total horse shit. There are swathes of logic that are just downright nonsense and no amount of posturing about it's 'arty' credentials can hide that.
Thats pretty much bang on the money RC7.
I also am bemused as to this little sect of fans who kick off if one dares to criticise SF for its ludicrous gaps in logic and credibility. I enjoy it and think its certainly top 10 material without a doubt. But its utterly unarguable that Silva's scheme is utter bollocks and relies on 97% luck and supernatural premonition on his part.
But it seems to some on here that if you hold that position it means you are an SF hater and unless you praise the film and Mendes unreservedly it means you cant be an SF fan.
I really think the choice for van Hoytema is a signal that EON didn't want to go for a typical "action cinematographer". I mean, look at his CV. Mostly very "arty" movies with very real atmospheres. How will he shot ski chase scenes? Will he turn Bond 24 in a true "wintery sensation" like OHMS was?
And where in lies the issue? The GP's influence and contribution mainly stems from a financial perspective and let's be honest; every Bond film has been a financial success. An utterly ridiculous film like DAD made a relative killing at the BO and that's because the GA will always go to see a Bond film. However, as fans here who post on this site we're vocal enough to be a main source of news, info and speculation so much so other sites and media outlets cite us on a regular basis; so of course if Bond fans rate CR higher than SF surely that accounts for sound reasoning. More often than not we know what we're talking about, we know what we like and we know what makes a good Bond movie. DAD may have been a financial success and even got a bunch of good reviews from reviewers who aren't even ardent Bond fans but the fans themselves spoke and in doing so were instrumental to some degree in facilitating the series taking a more credible direction.
SF's a good movie but it's not great and tries to camouflage many of its flaws with an air of artistic pretensions. I think SF's real success as a Bond movie is that it's presented as a far more entertaining Bond movie after 6 years since CR. I think you should try and watch CR and SF back to back and I think you'll notice just how better conceived and executed CR is without trying to be too clever or overly thematic.
I also said that it's a matter of opinion. And our opinions are there to be respected. But if someone says "that's totally horse shit", then I find that less respectful. Why reacting in such hyperboles? Let us respect each other's opinion. I always say "Let's agree to disagree" instead of comparing arguments with horse shit. The latter I never do....
Also, if someone says "If you hold that position then you are an SF-hater", then I think it's merely an emotional feeling that is created by some arguments. I think it's wrongly assuming things, because I never said in words that someone is "a Skyfall-hater". That's assuming things that were never said. Try to come with arguments and don't assume things to strengthen your arguments.
One more time again. I don't think certain people are "always wrong with Skyfall". I can only give my opinion strengthened by my arguments. So again, the sheer "bullocks" plot from Silva didn't irritate me a thing, because HOW he did it still thrilled me. Yes, perhaps the explanation towards his actions should have been better, but it also made it possible to make his actions more "grand", more "evil" and "psychotic". That's my opinion. I guess....the movie worked with me, because its impact actually made me think less of the farfetched "how" and "when" of Silva's actions.
Certain fans may call that "artistic pretensions". I respect that. But I disagree with it wholeheartedly. I think for me the "artistic pretention" you are referring to was something that made "Skyfall" stand out in a good way. It resulted from my part in more deeper discussions about themeology and political developments in movies. Something that I think we should do more. Still, it's all.....opinion off course :-).
I really think the choice for van Hoytema is a signal that EON didn't want to go for a typical "action cinematographer". I mean, look at his CV. Mostly very "arty" movies with very real atmospheres. How will he shot ski chase scenes? Will he turn Bond 24 in a true "wintery sensation" like OHMSS was?
I hope not. Except for OHMSS, I found all other Bond films that had a "snow sequence", felt rather forced. For instance the PTS in AVTAK and TSWLM. They were just 'there' for the action. Same for the ski chase in TWINE, allthough that snow sequence I liked slightly more. Perhaps best "snow sequences" after OHMSS was the one in FYEO.
And even then, I think it's time for a Bond film that has "winter" written all over it, from start to finish. Perhaps even the 2nd part of the film, the climatic finale, should be filmed in the villain's expensive villa in the Alps. Just an idea.
I think Hoyte van Hoytinga could lens Bond 24 in such a way that it feels both warm and cosy (like we all feel during Christmas) and cold and harsh (like winter usually is in Austria).
I think it's time DC had a snow setting, and of course that setting won't be for the whole film. There will reportedly be scenes in Italy for example.
Hmmmm, then we should cancel Austria as location no :-)?
Cancel? Who talked about cancellation. Imo just make it short and sweet.
I think the problem with these kind of scenes nowadays - and I include Inception in this- is that they lack a sense of danger. OHMSS was superb because it is a stripped back exercise in action. There are three components - sweeping aerial cinematography, the visceral mid shots and close ups from Willy Bogner and a pulsing score. As soon as you start throwing in vehicles and explosions left, right and centre it vapourises any sense of threat.
My biggest worry with anything along these lines is the inevitably of CGI. It has to be done for real IMO.
I suspect, from some bits and pieces I've heard, Austria is a significant part of the film.
Yep.
I heard that they will not only film in one particular part of Austria (like Bregenz in QOS).
Both giant ski slopes will be used for filming (in the more touristic wintersports city of Sölden, which has like 140 km of ski slopes) as well as a three day-shooting schedule by the production team inside a small, cosy town, located at 5,000 ft, and that is usually full of snow in winter (the Austrian village of Obertilliach)
I reckon Sölden will be used extensively for action sequences and ski sequences. While Obertilliach will be used for a few days to shoot the actual cosiness of a village. Anyway, I can't believe now that "Bond 24" will only have a PTS in the snow and nothing more. It'll be a true "winter Bond film" I think ;-).
Sölden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sölden
Sölden is also a popular ski resort and regularly hosts the first World Cup races of the season; a giant slalom for both men and women is usually scheduled for late October on the Rettenbach glacier. The races in October 2011 started at 3,040 m (9,974 ft) and finished at 2,670 m (8,760 ft). Elevation: 1,350 m (4,429 ft) (Sölden village) - 3,250 m (10,663 ft). Lifts: 36. Terrain: 146 km (91 mi) total - (62 km red, 51 km blue, 27 km black, 6 km Skiroute).
Obertilliach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obertilliach
Obertilliach, a popular Nordic paradise, also has a well-earned reputation as a great venue for beginner skiers and families. Wide, rolling trails are ideal for those just getting their snow legs, and none of its runs are rated expert. Located at Kartitsch Saddle in Upper Lesach Valley, Golzentipp is a great mountain for winter sports enthusiasts.
It's in swedish but still:
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt?programid=2151
Listen from 1:13:37