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
What we know the the sequence calls for Bond to jump from a bridge onto one train, then onto a second, and then into the water. This, to me, is an illogical progression: why does Bond need to jump onto the trains to get into the water? Why does he need to jump into the water at all?
I suspect that Bond will be chasing the second train, which I will now refer to as the "target train". Because it is a train, and therefore can only run on railway lines, Bond knows where the train will be; he doesn't have to worry about it taking a sharp left and losing it. So he gets ahead of the target train, and uses the bridge to jump onto the first train, probably because they will be travelling alongside one another at some point and/or because Bond cannot directly access the line used by the target train. Bond will then jump from the first train to the target train.
It is here that the outline reveals Bond jumps into the water, though I cannot for the life of me work out why. Short of being on fire, Bond has no reason to jump from bridge to train to train to water; and if he was on fire, then common sense dictates that he wouldn't bother with the train-hopping and would instead go straight for the water. So, Bond clearly has a reason for jumping across the trains, and I suspect this is because there is something on-board the target train that he wants. Why else would he risk life and limb if not to board it?
Now, assuming Bond is indeed on the target train, jumping from it to the water is again an illogical progression. Jumping from a moving vehicle is a very dangerous thing to do, and there are much safer, much more obvious solutions to the problem of getting off - like, say, uncoupling the carriages and coasting to a halt. There is only one reason I can think of to jump off a moving train: because the train is a very unsafe place to be, and disconnecting the couplings will not slow part of the train down in time. I suspect that, because of Bond's actions while on-board, the target train will either derail or collide with the first train. A collision is unlikely, given that the original concept had people riding on the roof of the trains; they'd almost surely die. And it would also be very difficult to film. But I could see Bond causing the target train to derail, and leaping off to be thrown clear of the accident.
So there is plenty of stuff for Bond to do, and a dozen ways to make it more exciting. So Bond doesn't have to push through two dozen people riding on the train. Big deal.
he pulls off a spang brothers event...
Actually, the train sequence will likely (and hopefully) resemble that of the sequence in MI:I, hopefully not shot for shot. But it will likely be something similar, filming-wise, to that of the end train sequence with Hunt chasing Jim on the top of the train.
The music is different, but the filming is the same.
I'm sure Bond's will be good too. Motorcycles on trains. trainS. That blows my mind.
I won't say anything else, but this: the original concept for the sequence had people riding on top of trains. However, the Indians weren't too happy about this because it's illegal to ride on top of trains there (no doubt it still happens, despite their claims that it doesn't). They were apprehensive about giving permission to shoot in certain locations because of "security concerns", but EON managed to get permission after making a mock-up of the stunt. When they removed the people from riding on top of the trains, they got full permission; call me a cynic, but I suspect India wanted the filming to take place all along - they just made up a reason to slow the process down and get what they wanted in the name of making a more positive image for themselves. Apparently they also want Daniel Craig to be a spokesperson for Indian Railways as well. It won't be product placement (or "promotional consideration", as it's called in Hollywood), but a series of ads on Indian television. An Indian Railways train would be featured in the film for the stunt, but a lot of the engines have a large INDIAN RAILWAYS logo painted on them, so even though it will be obvious, it won't be out of place (I have nothing against placing brands where one could expect to find them; for example, when Bond chases Carlos through the Miami air terminal in CASINO ROYALE, there is a large ad for Heineken in the background ... but because Carlos is using the commercial sector of the airport to change - he uses a changing room - that ad is in a place where I would expect to find it; so, too, the Coke Zero cans on the bar in QUANTUM OF SOLACE - my local pub does the same thing). There hasn't been any word on whether Craig will do it or if it's a pre-requisite of filming.
But the point is, it will be completely different to the train sequence in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE. And based on what we know about the sequence, it's probably going to put MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE to shame. The planned sequence contains one of the most dangerous stunts that someone could actually attempt.
I hope they go a limited CGI (but safe) route. Meaning, STUNT DOUBLE
It's dangerous, because jumping a moving vehicle onto another is very, very dificult. If one of those vehicles is a train, it's harder still because if something goes wrong, you cannot simply stop a train the way you could a car - trains take about a kilometre to stop. Michelle Yeoh of TOMORROW NEVER DIES fame did it in POLICE STORY 3 (known Stateside as SUPERCOP):
And even though it went perfectly, she still broke her arm. No doubt EON will, at the very least, go in for removing safety lines and harnesses in post-production (which is a conventional CGI move; practically every film with stunt work does it in some form or another).
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_aug11b.php3?s=bond23&id=02935
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_aug11d.php3?s=bond23&id=02939
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_aug11e.php3?s=bond23&id=02941
@shadowonthesun, no spoiler tags yet as far as I know. When some updates arrive we'll get that with it I guess. All the simple, needed, things should come first.
I supopse the film could have omitted the tunnel and just shown people on top of the train as if there was never a tunnel there, and Roger Deakins would be clever enough to shoot the film so that the audience has no idea the tunnel is there, but based on the way the Indians wouldn't give permission to shoot there to begin with, it makes me think EON intended to use the tunnel anyway.
Chandralekha Mukherjee, executive director, information and publicity, Indian Railways, told DT, "We'd given them all the permissions. They wanted to shoot in the Sabarmati yard and had asked to shoot on two gauges - broad gauge and meter gauge - and they wanted these for seven-hour stretches every day for seven days in a row, and we'd agreed. All had been worked out."
She added that several meetings were held to ensure that permissions were granted, while ensuring that passengers would not be inconvenienced. "They also wanted to shoot between Mumbai and Goa on the hero train, and wanted a special shot where a motorcycle from a bridge would jump on to a train, and the coach on which he'd jump needed to be re-enforced, and we agreed.
The matter was finalised by September 13. But a week later, we were informed that after an international discussion, the production team decided not to shoot in India. We've been very cooperative with them. We had ourselves hoped that the movie would be shot here."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-interviews/Bond-could-have-shot/articleshow/10115343.cms
Not much new information here but at least something about the stunt has come out of the silly "India shoot cancelled" reports.
Well, that is new, so let's see what happens...
I'd like to hear why there's so much back and fourth with this India situation. I wonder if we'll know the reasons for this one day? No where has anything reported this as 'confirmed' news. It's a recent news article so real or not, members of the forum will likely want to discuss it.
Likewise, the demanded that the train scenes be re-written to remove the people riding on top of it because "it doesn't happen in India". Who are they kidding? It no doubt does happen despite being illegal, and India only cares about looking good on film. Their loss.
This business with people riding on trains is a joke, there are plenty of videos online with indians doing rather crazy and impressive stuff whilst on the outside of a train.
Anyway, what ever, if SA are willing to be more reasonable cooperating then let's just keep it there. All those complaining about too many locations can let out a sigh of relief, granted that all of this is true of course.
-Is filming in India completely canceled or just the filming of the train scenes?
-Will the scenes that will be filmed in South Africa portray South Africa in the movie or will SA be India in Bond 23?
-Will they need to rewrite the script extensively?
Now that they will shoot the train sequences in SA I hope they will shoot the Blue Train.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/064/cache/trains-south-africa_6489_600x450.jpg
And like I said, filming has never been confirmed for South Africa. The only report that has come out has said that the South Africans will be happy to take over if negotiations with the Indians break down. You're assuming that if filming does not take place in India, then it will take place in South Africa - but nobody has ever said that. There's no way to answer that without know exactly what the script calls for and knowing exactly what EON's stance on shooting in India is.
The Indians bluffed EON into making changes to the planned scenes in order to depict India is a more positive light, and to get international exposure for a government-run entity (Indian Railways is owned by the government). The Bond films are a powerful vehicle; OCTOPUSSY was (allegedly) shown every night in Punjab from its release until 2011, and possibly beyond. So another Bond film in India would be a big deal. EON know this, so they may have decided to back out of shooting there entirely to get the Indians to play ball. After all, filming wasn't scheduled to take place until January. EON may be upset that the Indian government is requesting changes to the script, and they're willing to bet that the government will feel that having filming take place there is more important than having a film that portrays the country in a certain light. EON don't really have anything to lose; if the Indian government does not give them what they want, they can always go elsewhere.
http://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/bond_23_report_sep11b.php3?s=bond23&id=02957
But my main point still stands - we just don't know enough about the film to be able to answer those questions of yours with absolute certainty.
Probably have to wait a good month, folks!