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
Personally, if a film is well done I do not mind if other areas double for the areas that are in the script. I really don't. What matters is the quality of the finished product.
Sure, I would prefer, just for my own satisfaction, that if Norway were mentioned we would see Norway on screen. But I totally understand some areas being just too expensive, in this day and age. I want the money well spent, and I want lovely locations, great cinematography, with excellent cast, etc. And yes, if it is to be Norway I hope for at least a shot showing real Norway, fjords preferably, but just an establishing shot is okay for me.
The way the film is told, edited, and held together, whether many things are filmed in a studio or on location ... they can mix it, and use a variety of shots and filming locations, as long as the finished product is excellent in every way - then I'm happy. I'm not going to get in a froth because something was filmed in Pinewood instead of on the streets in Morocco or inside an actual hotel in Rome, etc.
I want it believable, and lovely, and seamless as it goes with the storytelling - but I'm not going to pick it apart and complain about which scenes were filmed where, as long as the final film is a beauty with great storytelling.
--> pdns71.ultradns.com ("name server" domain)
--> 156.154.64.71 (IP address)
In case you don't know, MarkMonitor is the actual company that is registering the various movie domain names for Sony Pictures.
But in order to track down the several hundreds of names that were registered in 2014, you need to sign up for a paid account to retrieve all domain names. Whois only shows the movie names till the letter "B". DomainTools does it for you if you apply for a "Free" trial in which you give away your credit card nr.
The site locations are:
DomainTools:
http://reversens.domaintools.com/?nameserver=ultradns.com
https://secure.domaintools.com/free-trial/
Who Is:
http://www.who.is/nameserver/pdns71.ultradns.com/
Once you have access, you can basically check all registered movie names from Sony Pictures that were made in 2014. Anyone wanna try :-P?
Or we can wait a fairly short time and we'll know it, I think. :)
I think this is the way how back in 2011 someone checked for possible titles registered in August/September 2011, and then he found "Skyfall".
So either someone in here wants to add a trial (I don't have a credit card, and it's not for billing purposes), or one waits until someone else does it.
Therefore we can rule "Bond 24" out.
Not talking about the interiors.
Don't forget that "Skyfall" still is/was a rather grim and dark Bond film. London and Scotland aren't exactly paradises. But it worked. Just like the locations in "From Russia With Love": Dark, gritty, but it enhanced the look and feel of the overall film.
Second Unit Director Alexander Witt and the second unit traveled to Shanghai in China to shoot establishing shots and driving sequences. The crew worked nights in the busy week leading up to the Chinese New Year to capture the exhilarating, ever-changing metropolis that is one of the most dynamic cities in the world. An aerial unit piloted by Marc Wolff was granted rare access to the skies above the city to shoot from a helicopter on loan from the Chinese Government. Production Designer Dennis Gassner and the art department then worked to create the rest of the Chinese environment on sound-stages at Pinewood Studios.
***
I'd like to know who was helming the camera for that particular scene, just out of natural curiosity. I also found this note on the list of crew for Skyfall, also on IMDb:
Lanny Dong ... second assistant director: splinter unit, Shanghai (uncredited)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Also, I don't mind exterior shots doubling for other places either, if well done, realistic, etc. Again, for me, it is the overall quality of the film that counts most.
This be feature with Alexander Witt [url="
Here's a photo from before filming even began and in it you can clearly see the shot that Mendes wanted and it is the same shot that is later used in the film:
I agree up to a point but after SF's lack of locations I'm going to feel pretty short changed if they start claiming we're in Norway and all we get is some stock footage of a fjord and then a log cabin with some snow filmed in Austria. Why not just set it in Austria then?
Why cant DC be filmed actually on location anywhere? Its a long way from the globetrotting days of Rog when he was actually filmed at Iguacu Falls, the floating palace at Udaipur and the Eiffel Tower. If that was today DC would never have gone to any of them. What happened to Cubby's maxim of putting the money on the screen instead of paying expensive fees to big name directors and DOPs?
The irony is of course that in the 80s we had all these amazing locations filmed for real but by journeymen directors and DOPs but now we have a director and DOP who could do such places justice we never leave Pinewood as theres no money spare to actually film on location.
You're correct that the quality of the film is the most important thing and location doubling can be done well; it just seems that we are getting the thin end of the wedge when Bond - with its globetrotting reputation - is being shown up by films like MI that feature such an extensive sequence of Cruise hanging off the Burj Khalifa for real while DC never leaves the studio.
I'm happy with the new cinematographer and Witt is still on board, so I'm still quite optimistic this will be done very well indeed. Would I like all to be filmed (or a even 80%) on the actual location as stated in the story? Yes, in a way. But that is just a tiny detail. I care much more about how it turns out.
They do have money after Skyfall's success, and I don't think they are going to skimp in any detrimental way. Shooting snowy scenes in Austria may be quite practical and lovely. I don't mind it being called Norway (or anywhere else) if it serves the story well, which includes it looking realistically enough similar to Norway.
As for the aerial shot of Shanghai; it could have been Deakins, Witt, or someone else. I'd like to know, but won't lose sleep over it. Lovely, memorable sequence.
What Eon did with Shanghai worked well enough I think as the script didn't really call for the actual city to be showcased beyond what was done.
SF compensates with lots of other location shooting. London itself is a prime location in SF, that was fully exploited. I also have a new appreciation for the Scottish highlands thanks to SF.
Looking forward to lots of good location shots in B24. I am sure there will be some good stuff, as there always is.
And my response is so....??? Do you want them to build a skyscraper just to get one shot???
No I don't think there's a film ever been made, where the film crew built a skyscraper, unless it was a model for King Kong or Godzilla to lay waste too, but I think the point here is that the sky was added digitally, rather than shoot a building on location in Shanghai. But that's obvious isn't it?
But here are some bits I found earlier on the internet. I enjoy reading about Deakins.
First up, I saved this bit earlier on my computer this a.m., but did not include the source. I can find it later today, if anyone really needs it.
Relative point to the current discussion is that Deakins felt some scenes, such as discussed below, could not have been shot so successfully actually on location.
Talking about the Shanghai fight sequence in the skyscraper, the "jellyfish" part:
For this sequence and many others in SkyfallSkyfall, Deakins made use of a Power-Pod remote head mounted on an Aerocrane jib arm, a technique he has often used in the past. In fact, much of his camerawork followed the approach he and Mendes had developed on their previous collaborations: a mix of careful planning and spontaneity. “It stays the same — its not about the scale of the movie,” says Deakins. “On Jarhead, Sam said to me one day, ‘Here we are, doing a $70 million picture with all these stunts and explosions, and you’re shooting with a handheld Arri 3-C!’ It was the same on Skyfall. Some days, [B-camera operator] Pete Cavaciuti and I would both have handheld cameras on these big stunts. That’s the way Sam and I like to work; we both enjoy being quite instinctive on the day.”
Big action scenes, such as a train crashing through the roof of an under-ground bunker, required multiple camera positions, but in general, the number of cameras was kept to a minimum. Deakins notes, “It varied from day-to-day and depended on the scene, but it wasn’t like we had to do every-thing with five cameras just because it’s a Bond movie. Sam likes to have the main cameras focused on the characters and the dialogue. Sometimes we’d add other cameras to get little pieces, and, of course, with all the complex action sequences, we did use additional units. Both [2nd-unit director of photography] Alex Witt and [splinter-unit director of photography] Peter Talbot shot some fantastic footage.”
*******
And also this, re Skyfall, from an interview at http://200-percent.com/roger-deakins/:
200%: Did you operate the camera yourself for this movie?
RD: I operated the ‘A’ camera completely. Sometimes we ran two cameras on first unit and we had a lot of steadicam work, which I don’t do.
200%: Are the actions scenes shot handheld?
RD: It varies. There is one specific action scene that we shot with 11 cameras and it was like a one take deal. A lot of the action in the film is shot by Pete Cavaciuti, the other camera operator, and myself. We were shooting handheld with two cameras all the time, but a lot of the opening sequence is done with specific shots for which you need very specific pieces of equipment to achieve the shot. Each action sequence is achieved in a different way.
Then, during production, I learned that Craig never set his foot in China. Like others, I was disappointed.
As TheWizardOfIce said: "it just seems that we are getting the thin end of the wedge when Bond - with its globetrotting reputation - is being shown up by films like MI that feature such an extensive sequence of Cruise hanging off the Burj Khalifa for real"
I agree that CR is the best Craig Bond movie, but the fact is that QoS was shot almost entirely on location (one of the redeeming qualities about the movie).
In CR The Bahamas doubled for Madagascar, The Czech Republic doubled for Montenegro and Miami, and London doubled for Uganda and Miami.
I have much respect for many opinions here. But I think the criticism of this "location thing" only starts to boil IF and WHEN we know that real screenplay locations haven't been used.
Because.....do we criticise "Casino Royale" for the fact that NO location inside Montenegro hasn't been used? Do we criticise "Casino Royale" for the fact that it used Karlovy Vary (Czech Republic) as a double for Montenegro? I think NOT.
Why not? Because it worked. People believed that the big chunk of the scenes in/around Hotel Splendide and Casino Royale were filmed in Montenegro. It FELT that way.
Why does "Skyfall" receives so much criticism now? Compared to "Casino Royale" it used way less "doubles" for locations as written in the screenplay. I think the real on-location shooting of Scotland, Turkey (Istanbul) and London were truly wunderful. It added to the more bleaker, grittier feel of the film (a bit like "From Russia With Love").
But "double" or not, I also think Beijing worked perfectly. For me, it really felt that Bond was visiting Shanghai, China. From the crowded airport sequence, shadowing Patrice by 007 in a rental Mercedes, the aerial shots of those typical Chinese motorway roundabouts (with anti-stress blue light), to the aerial shot of Shanghai (with all its colours and neon). For me it truly felt that Bond WAS there.
So please ask yourself the question: If you didn't know beforehand that Bond actually wasn't in Shanghai for real...if you didn't know beforehand that Bond actually wasn't in Montenegro....would you still have been gutted and disappointed? Off course not. At least, not for me.
This is all slightly criticism based on overanalysizing the production of a movie afterwards....and on being unhappy with how the locations inside the movie looked and felt for you. I mean, what more would you really liked to have seen from China, if you already know that for the 50th anniversary the United Kingdom would be playing an integral part in "Skyfall" (more than 75% of its total running time)....? Just like Montenegro/Czech Republic is the most important location for "Casino Royale"....
So before criticising the cinematography and the locations, please also compliment the production designers (on the Pinewood lot) and the gifted make-up and wardrobe designers (Lindy Hemming).
And having said that.....this is what makes "Casino Royale" unique. It will always be one of the best film adaptations based on an original novel. Therefore it's a bit unfair to compare "Skyfall" with "Casino Royale", as "Skyfall" wasn't based on a novel. "Skyfall" for me is one of the best original films, not based on a novel.
I hate to be the one to correct. but Bond was never in Beijing in SF, It was Shanghai.
Otherwise I agree with you are writing here. What matters is that the film is good. It's always better to use the locations. If I was fooled by it, means that the film did a good job of making me believe it.