SPECTRE Production Timeline

1242243245247248870

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    @Gustav_Graves - Bond went to Beijing? Someone should've told the second unit. .
  • Posts: 11,119
    Pajan005 wrote: »
    But "double" or not, I also think Beijing worked perfectly. For me, IT REALLY FELT that Bond was visiting Beijing, 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 Beijing (with all its colours and neon). For me it truly felt that Bond WAS there.

    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.

    You are putting my remarks out of perspective here. I said that it FELT that Bond was there, not that Bond actually WAS there. Please read my entire post....before losing the bigger picture of what I want to say.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    edited October 2014 Posts: 432
    You are putting my remarks out of perspective here. I said that it FELT that Bond was there, not that Bond actually WAS there. Please read my entire post....before losing the bigger picture of what I want to say.

    Yes, that's what I meant. By the way, the Shanghai scenes are to me some of the best looking parts in the series. What's better is that there is no dialogue. But, still great suspense and immersion all thanks to the hypnotic look of the visuals
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Pajan005 wrote: »
    But "double" or not, I also think Beijing worked perfectly. For me, IT REALLY FELT that Bond was visiting Beijing, 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 Beijing (with all its colours and neon). For me it truly felt that Bond WAS there.

    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.

    You are putting my remarks out of perspective here. I said that it FELT that Bond was there, not that Bond actually WAS there. Please read my entire post....before losing the bigger picture of what I want to say.

    Taken out of perspective? You mean It FELT like he was in Beijing?
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Pajan005 wrote: »
    But "double" or not, I also think Beijing worked perfectly. For me, IT REALLY FELT that Bond was visiting Beijing, 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 Beijing (with all its colours and neon). For me it truly felt that Bond WAS there.

    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.

    You are putting my remarks out of perspective here. I said that it FELT that Bond was there, not that Bond actually WAS there. Please read my entire post....before losing the bigger picture of what I want to say.

    Taken out of perspective? You mean It FELT like he was in Beijing?

    Sorry, I meant to say Sjanghai off course hehe. I got confused with the two biggest cities of China...
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    edited October 2014 Posts: 432
    RC7 wrote: »
    Taken out of perspective? You mean It FELT like he was in Beijing?

    I guess what he meant was that the whole Shanghai part was well done which makes you think that Bond is actually there. and that's the point here. If it's well done you can forget the fact that it's not filmed there.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Pajan005 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Taken out of perspective? You mean It FELT like he was in Beijing?

    I guess what he meant was that the whole Shanghai part was well done which makes you think that Bond is actually there. and that's the point here. If it's well done you can forget the fact that it's not filmed there.

    Exactly :-).
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 3,274
    "It's more satisfying when they actually shoot on location"

    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.
    That is correct. Likewise, a lot of the "Istanbul"-scenes in SF, were shot in other parts of the country. Adana for example. Nothing to be criticized here. They got it right here.

    But that wasn't really my point. So since I feel misunderstood, let me clarify:

    I do not mind doubling. I don't. It is how they take advantage of any given location which is a key factor for me. I'm not saying that they should make something that looks like it came out of a tourist video, like Brazil in MR, for example, but...
    So please ask yourself the question: If you didn't know beforehand that Bond actually wasn't in Beijing Shanghai for real....would you still have been gutted and disappointed? Off course not. At least, not for me.
    ...I would still have been disappointed, because I didn't feel they took advantage of having Bond doing stuff in Shanghai. It might as well have been in almost any foreign neonlit city in the world.

    In contrast: In MI3 you have Hunt gliding between two real famous tall buildings there and parachuting from a one of them, leading to a chase in downtown Shanghai where havoc is created on the street. Great stuff.

    And yes... I was actually expecting some sort of action sequence or setpiece in SF there. Not just a fist fight, where I could hardly see who was who.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    I would not have much against if Austria is supposed to be Norway as long as they make the right way. Although is it really confirmed that Austria is a double for another location? What if takes place there?
  • Posts: 3,274
    It doesn't, Pajan005. Read earlier posts.
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    Zekidk wrote: »
    It doesn't, Pajan005. Read earlier posts.

    Ok, thanks.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I think some people are missing the point here.

    Of course Karoly Vary was perfect in CR and I don't have an issue with it in the slightest.

    The reason being that at least they actually filmed on location somewhere and it worked in the story.

    The problem with SF is that after Bond leaves Turkey the only times Craig leaves the studio before he emerges on Whitehall 2 hours later are for the chauffeur shot at Ascot, a pointless scene in a swimming pool at Canary Wharf (there's always time and resources you note to film Craig with his new Sony phone for real) and Patrice from a car in Canary Wharf.

    Sorry Gustav but I don't consider stock footage of some skyscrapers in Shanghai as making me feel that Bond is actually there. The fluorescent skyscraper, his hotel room with its open balcony and the casino are all clearly sets and I never see anything that gives me the belief I am actually in the Far East.

    Contrast this with TMWTGG and TND where there are numerous shots of peasants washing in the canals, people on bicycles and the daily hustle and bustle of life in the Far East. I've never been to Shanghai but I've been to Hong Kong, Macau, Bangkok and Singapore and the thing that strikes you is that they are all teeming with people and feel alive. Shanghai as portrayed in SF is a sterile ghost town of a city. Mendes seems more interested in channelling Blade Runner than trying to make you think you're in China.

    And of course we can't shy away from Hashima island which is extremely lazy.
    CGI (and not particularly good CGI) and a blatant set. Not one single shot for real. Poor.

    When compared with MI:GP it's just not on - Cruise in Red Square, Cruise hanging onto the Burj Khalifa.

    I'll give you that the Istanbul and London locations were well done and probably cost a fair bit and maybe I'm doing the filmmakers a disservice as London doesn't really feel like a proper location when you live there. Maybe to foreigners they were happy to see London.
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    I think some people are missing the point here.

    Of course Karoly Vary was perfect in CR and I don't have an issue with it in the slightest.

    The reason being that at least they actually filmed on location somewhere and it worked in the story.

    The problem with SF is that after Bond leaves Turkey the only times Craig leaves the studio before he emerges on Whitehall 2 hours later are for the chauffeur shot at Ascot, a pointless scene in a swimming pool at Canary Wharf (there's always time and resources you note to film Craig with his new Sony phone for real) and Patrice from a car in Canary Wharf.

    Sorry Gustav but I don't consider stock footage of some skyscrapers in Shanghai as making me feel that Bond is actually there. The fluorescent skyscraper, his hotel room with its open balcony and the casino are all clearly sets and I never see anything that gives me the belief I am actually in the Far East.

    Contrast this with TMWTGG and TND where there are numerous shots of peasants washing in the canals, people on bicycles and the daily hustle and bustle of life in the Far East. I've never been to Shanghai but I've been to Hong Kong, Macau, Bangkok and Singapore and the thing that strikes you is that they are all teeming with people and feel alive. Shanghai as portrayed in SF is a sterile ghost town of a city. Mendes seems more interested in channelling Blade Runner than trying to make you think you're in China.

    And of course we can't shy away from Hashima island which is extremely lazy.
    CGI (and not particularly good CGI) and a blatant set. Not one single shot for real. Poor.

    When compared with MI:GP it's just not on - Cruise in Red Square, Cruise hanging onto the Burj Khalifa.

    I'll give you that the Istanbul and London locations were well done and probably cost a fair bit and maybe I'm doing the filmmakers a disservice as London doesn't really feel like a proper location when you live there. Maybe to foreigners they were happy to see London.

    Maybe thet did not get permission to shoot on the real island? Or maybe it is unsafe because of collapsing buildings?

    Goldfinger wasn't shot at Fort Knox, interior en exterior where studio. Sometimes it isn't possible to shoot on the real location.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,341
    @The Wizard, here is a foreigner who lived in London a couple of years ago. I assure you, London as a set in SF was a fantastic experience. Although familiar, London was an iconic setting, and it was beautifully shot. In fact, the picture of Craig on the roof with the Houses of Parliament in the background currently adorn my desktop.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Zekidk wrote: »
    "It's more satisfying when they actually shoot on location"

    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.
    That is correct. Likewise, a lot of the "Istanbul"-scenes in SF, were shot in other parts of the country. Adana for example. Nothing to be criticized here. They got it right here.

    But that wasn't really my point. So since I feel misunderstood, let me clarify:

    I do not mind doubling. I don't. It is how they take advantage of any given location which is a key factor for me. I'm not saying that they should make something that looks like it came out of a tourist video, like Brazil in MR, for example, but...
    So please ask yourself the question: If you didn't know beforehand that Bond actually wasn't in Beijing Shanghai for real....would you still have been gutted and disappointed? Off course not. At least, not for me.
    ...I would still have been disappointed, because I didn't feel they took advantage of having Bond doing stuff in Shanghai. It might as well have been in almost any foreign neonlit city in the world.

    In contrast: In MI3 you have Hunt gliding between two real famous tall buildings there and parachuting from a one of them, leading to a chase in downtown Shanghai where havoc is created on the street. Great stuff.

    And yes... I was actually expecting some sort of action sequence or setpiece in SF there. Not just a fist fight, where I could hardly see who was who.

    Then we do slightly disagree here. The fact is: Based on the story/screenplay, the role of China in the movie is rather minor compared to China being featured in "M:I 3". Every attempt to create more action, more chases in downtown *any Chinese big city* would look rather forced if you ask me.

    Compare the role of China in "Skyfall" with the role of Netherlands in "Diamonds Are Forever": Integral to the plot, but not the main location for the 2nd half of the movie. And to be honest, you have that in every Bond film. The Bahama's in "Casino Royale", Egypt in "The Spy Who Loved Me", Haïti in "Quantum Of Solace".

    So it's a bit unfair to say that the scenes in China in "Skyfall" could have been better no?

  • Posts: 11,119
    zebrafish wrote: »
    @The Wizard, here is a foreigner who lived in London a couple of years ago. I assure you, London as a set in SF was a fantastic experience. Although familiar, London was an iconic setting, and it was beautifully shot. In fact, the picture of Craig on the roof with the Houses of Parliament in the background currently adorn my desktop.

    Agreed.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 3,274
    Then we do slightly disagree here.

    Compare the role of China in "Skyfall" with the role of Netherlands in "Diamonds Are Forever": Integral to the plot, but not the main location for the 2nd half of the movie. And to be honest, you have that in every Bond film. The Bahama's in "Casino Royale", Egypt in "The Spy Who Loved Me", Haïti in "Quantum Of Solace".

    So it's a bit unfair to say that the scenes in China in "Skyfall" could have been better no?
    Of course they could have been better. Like TheWizardOfIce so excellently pointed out, it takes more than CGI and some "Blade Runner" establishing shots to make some of us feel that Bond is actually there, unlike DAF and TSWLM which you mentioned, which felt authentic.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Then we do slightly disagree here.

    Compare the role of China in "Skyfall" with the role of Netherlands in "Diamonds Are Forever": Integral to the plot, but not the main location for the 2nd half of the movie. And to be honest, you have that in every Bond film. The Bahama's in "Casino Royale", Egypt in "The Spy Who Loved Me", Haïti in "Quantum Of Solace".

    So it's a bit unfair to say that the scenes in China in "Skyfall" could have been better no?
    Of course they could have been better. Like TheWizardOfIce so excellently pointed out, it takes more than CGI and some "Blade Runner" establishing shots to make some of us feel that Bond is actually there, unlike DAF and TSWLM which you mentioned, which felt authentic.

    Again, I disagree. But I already pointed out my point previously. On top of that perhaps I can say that CGI for me is NO problem at all. As long as it is done in such a way that beforehand NO one notices it. After watching "Skyfall" for the first time in cinema back in 2012, I never noticed it.

    The "CGI-criticism" only started after, like I previously said, we Bond "nerds" start overanalyzing the film. And that criticism is only based on previous articles about production, in which you actually can see with examples HOW that CGI was applied. So I find it than pretty unfair to bring in the "CGI-argument".

    Yes, in DAD and QOS the CGI was overused and too straight-in-your-face that it made all of us angry.

    But we are in 2014 now. And in my opinion CGI improves so much, that our human eyes can not notice it anymore. Just look at the new Planet-film, "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes". Man, that movie MUST win an Oscar for best special (computer generated) effects. In that movie CGI is actually a blessing.

    ALSO, for the most part in "Skyfall". The explosion you can see on the MI6-headquarters was....was so goddamn credible and believable. It made that actual "fart"-explosion in TWINE look ridiculous!

    So I respect the remarks in here. But also with CGI I would say: Keep using it that way! :-)


    Seriously, I can understand the criticism people have about "Skyfall" s plot. But when it comes to location shooting, recreating locations within Pinewood studios and on "double" locations, and also the use of CGI effects, I wholeheartedly disagree with my respected fellow poster @TheWizardOfIce :-).
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    For anyone who is concerned about using actual locations (and I can see where both sides are coming from. I myself am impartial to this) GoldenEye would be a prime example to use here. Whilst much of the film takes place in Russia, Pierce Brosnan never actually shot there are far as I can tell. Most of the scenes that he filmed set in Russia were shot at various locations around London and the UK.
    Either many people are oblivious to this, or they're not bothered by it. If the story works, and all the elements come together the audience for the most part wont care. The amount of model shots in GoldenEye are staggering. But I think they look fine. Each to their own I guess.

    I am wondering what the production crew are building in Austria, when shooting doesn't commence for several months yet. Unless it's a second unit scene perhaps?
    Either way, we better find out what they're up to. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist)
  • Posts: 11,119
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who is concerned about using actual locations (and I can see where both sides are coming from. I myself am impartial to this) GoldenEye would be a prime example to use here. Whilst much of the film takes place in Russia, Pierce Brosnan never actually shot there are far as I can tell. Most of the scenes that he filmed set in Russia were shot at various locations around London and the UK.
    Either many people are oblivious to this, or they're not bothered by it. If the story works, and all the elements come together the audience for the most part wont care. The amount of model shots in GoldenEye are staggering. But I think they look fine. Each to their own I guess.

    I am wondering what the production crew are building in Austria, when shooting doesn't commence for several months yet. Unless it's a second unit scene perhaps?
    Either way, we better find out what they're up to. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist)

    I do agree with you @Benny. For me it's another good example. Do you think certain people become slightly biased to certain Bond films? Hence the use of arguments for or against a movie in such a way that it's not relevant anymore or that's it's not seen into perspective anymore? Me included off course, because I think I am judging "Skyfall" on its merits. But I think that perhaps I am way way too biased.... :-S.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 3,274
    CGI for me is NO problem at all. As long as it is done in such a way that beforehand NO one notices it. After watching "Skyfall" for the first time in cinema back in 2012, I never noticed it.
    Yeah, well, CGI-choppers instead of real choppers? I'd prefer the real thing.
    Yes, in DAD and QOS the CGI was overused and too straight-in-your-face that it made all of us angry.
    "All of us"? Comparing the CGI-fest in DAD to QoS is... how did you put it?.... "unfair" I would say.
    But we are in 2014 now. And in my opinion CGI improves so much, that our human eyes can not notice it anymore.
    Yeah, let's just do everything in front of a green screen and just add CGI. As long as it "looks" real.

    This is exactly the point I'm trying to make: CGI and "authenticity" doesn't belong in the same sentence.
    Benny wrote: »
    GoldenEye would be a prime example to use here. Whilst much of the film takes place in Russia, Pierce Brosnan never actually shot there are far as I can tell.
    So you are saying that this is a CGI-model of Brosnan? ;-) Or perhaps Brosnan in a CGI-tank filmed in front of a green screen :-) Looks damn real. Like in authentic ;-)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited October 2014 Posts: 11,139
    Benny wrote: »
    For anyone who is concerned about using actual locations (and I can see where both sides are coming from. I myself am impartial to this) GoldenEye would be a prime example to use here. Whilst much of the film takes place in Russia, Pierce Brosnan never actually shot there are far as I can tell. Most of the scenes that he filmed set in Russia were shot at various locations around London and the UK.
    Either many people are oblivious to this, or they're not bothered by it. If the story works, and all the elements come together the audience for the most part wont care. The amount of model shots in GoldenEye are staggering. But I think they look fine. Each to their own I guess.

    I am wondering what the production crew are building in Austria, when shooting doesn't commence for several months yet. Unless it's a second unit scene perhaps?
    Either way, we better find out what they're up to. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist)

    See, that's a testament to Campbell 's stewardship as a Bond director. I praised him for his use of locations for CR and he did an amazing job with the locations and the perception of them better than any Bond director for the last 19 years.

    And @Gustav, I think you need to get your eyes checked, mate because there were many obvious CG shots that were identifiable upon first viewing of SF.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote: »
    And @Gustav, I think you need to get your eyes checked, mate because there were many obvious CG shots that were identifiable upon first viewing of SF.

    I think you are commenting this way because you are getting tired or irritated by me. It shows certain disrespect for my posts and arguments. As if I am blind. Kindly stop this kind of banter or simply say something like "I respect you, but I disagree wholeheartedly". Like I do. OK?

    I enjoyed "Skyfall" very very much. I still think it is, next to "Casino Royale", a masterpiece. So this joy clouded my judgement on first view? Such bullocks.

  • edited October 2014 Posts: 3,274
    With all respect Gustav_Graves, but when referring to the CGI in SF with "NO one notices it", you kind of deserve that quote from 00ego.

    Craigs CGI-pasted face on a motorbike, made most of the audience in the theatre laugh, I remember.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Zekidk wrote: »
    So you are saying that this is a CGI-model of Brosnan? ;-) Or perhaps Brosnan in a CGI-tank filmed in front of a green screen :-) Looks damn real. Like in authentic ;-)

    No, I'm saying that was the back lot of St. Petersburg at Leavesden Studios.


  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    And @Gustav, I think you need to get your eyes checked, mate because there were many obvious CG shots that were identifiable upon first viewing of SF.

    I think you are commenting this way because you are getting tired or irritated by me. It shows certain disrespect for my posts and arguments. As if I am blind. Kindly stop this kind of banter or simply say something like "I respect you, but I disagree wholeheartedly". Like I do. OK?

    I enjoyed "Skyfall" very very much. I still think it is, next to "Casino Royale", a masterpiece. So this joy clouded my judgement on first view? Such bullocks.

    In all honesty, for someone who professes to be a film 'nerd', I find it strange that you wouldn't notice the very obvious CGI in SF. I'm not saying your lying, but it strikes me as odd, as there are a number of moments during the film where it seems pretty blatant to me.
  • edited October 2014 Posts: 11,119
    Zekidk wrote: »
    In all respect Gustav_Graves, but when referring to the CGI in SF with "NO one notices it", you kind of deserve that quote from 00ego.

    Craigs CGI-pasted face on a motorbike, made most of the audience in the theatre laugh, I remember.

    YES, I didn't notice it. It's as simple as that. Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI. Just like Silva's mutilated jaw. And THAT kind of CGI I don't mind. It makes the action more real, and it is way better than actually SEEING the double (which made many of Moore's movies very pastiche and cheesy)!

    If you are saying that the audience in the theatre was laughing about "that CGI-pasted face", then I feel very sceptical about that quote. Prove it. In my case, when the audience was laughing, I only heard laughter during the crane sequence on the train and when 007 jumped on the metro on the very last moment. I even heard Playboy-whistles when some girl silhouettes were showing up during the main title sequence. But not during the scene you mentioned.
  • Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote: »
    In all respect Gustav_Graves, but when referring to the CGI in SF with "NO one notices it", you kind of deserve that quote from 00ego.

    Craigs CGI-pasted face on a motorbike, made most of the audience in the theatre laugh, I remember.

    YES, I didn't notice it. It's as simple as that. Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.
    And I thought it was awful. Would have preferred a shot of Craig sitting on a bike in front of a green screen. At least that wouldn't have made me cringe.
    If you are saying that the audience in the theatre was laughing about "that CGI-pasted face", then I feel very sceptical about that quote. Prove it.
    Really? That's as stupid as me asking you to prove that you didn't notice it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.
  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Actually, as it is CGI, I can only say it was damn jolly good CGI.

    The facial replacement was poor. They could've avoided it with better shot choice. If I pause any of the bike shots in question the head looks very like the Blood Stone Bond.

    That's what I mean. IF you PAUSE :-). Seriously a case of overanalysing. Have you ever checked the doubles for Roger Moore when you put it on pause?
Sign In or Register to comment.