› ›

SPECTRE Production Timeline

1…399400402404405…870

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i just think his role isn't as big as the others which are your principal cast.... he may be used in similar fashion to how he was used in CR and QOS - just to pop in and out..... unless he is off'd... but i really hope he isn't, i love his character and i want to see them expand on it a bit before his time is up.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    My money is that he's Blofeld and could turn up one last time in B25 where Craig finally gets his vengeance. Just because 60's Blofeld wasn't hands on in operations. (Except in OHMSS) He could easily enjoy posing as an underling just to off Quantum/Spectre agents that screw up.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    HASEROT wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    The DB5 in Skyfall isn't the same car as in Casino Royale.

    The Casino Royale car is left-hand drive. The DB5 in Skyfall is right hand drive. You'd have to tear the car apart and install many, many new parts (assuming you could find them for a half-century old car) to convert it to the other side.

    I called as Aston Martin dealer and asked if it would even be possible. He said you'd have to spend at least $40,000, if you could get the parts. "Why would you do it?" he asked.

    hans_zpsc7708f41.jpg

    Don't be a dick, dude, I like you. This isn't like you to post something like that. The guy gave an answer - a really good one, actually - to Murdock. Let's not tear him apart for it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    An excerpt from the articles of Wikipedia. Isn't this interesting? I thought it was all along.
    Despite speculation that SPECTRE would return for the Daniel Craig era of Bond films, 007 has instead tackled an underground terrorist organisation similar to SPECTRE, known as Quantum. They first appeared unnamed in 2006's Casino Royale and reappeared in 2008's Quantum of Solace. In the Bulgarian subtitles of Quantum of Solace, the name Quantum was translated as SPECTRE, with the title changed to "Spectre of Solace" ("Спектър на утехата").

    Thoughts?
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Murdock wrote: »
    My money is that he's Blofeld and could turn up one last time in B25 where Craig finally gets his vengeance. Just because 60's Blofeld wasn't hands on in operations. (Except in OHMSS) He could easily enjoy posing as an underling just to off Quantum/Spectre agents that screw up.

    I hate speculating in this thread, but as I'm a bit excited right now, I'll add my two cents. Perhaps Mr. White has been Blofeld all along, but hasn't been THE Blofeld. He's just some guy in Quantum, doing his work. Suddenly, there's a shift in power, Mr. White makes some moves, drops his Quantum code name, Mr. White, and heads SPECTRE as Blofeld. Bond 25 is titled The Garden of Death.

    /Dream over
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    Also, I'll have my very own 'scoop' for you all tomorrow. I've been recently attempting to write some articles for another site to very good success, and I have a great post planned for tomorrow. Will post the link and update the title when it's complete.

    Just for the record, I got the 'gig' to be able to post on this site with my article talking about how there would most likely be the all new Aston Martin in Bond 24. I'm very happy to be 1:1 with my first article.

    See you tomorrow. Stay tuned ;)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2014 Posts: 4,399
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    Don't be a dick, dude, I like you. This isn't like you to post something like that. The guy gave an answer - a really good one, actually - to Murdock. Let's not tear him apart for it.

    i am not trying to be a dick...... in the grand scheme of it all, who cares? - it's a continuity flub - and an intentional one for sake of giving back a little nostalgia to the fans for the 50th.... he gave a very thoughtful answer, which i am not trying to rip apart..... but it's getting rather annoying this whole argument back and forth about the DB5 in SF, as well as hinging the legitimacy of a film based on one little detail... it's childish..... no it's not the one from CR, everyone knows that it's the GF DB5 - but if some people want to believe that between CR and SF, Bond had it modified so be it.... who really cares, because what difference does it make?
  • TriggerTrigger
    Posts: 183
    StirredNotShaken wrote: »
    Something that I thought of, from all the reporting and discussion: shouldn't the film's title be SPECTRE, all capitals, since SPECTRE is an acronym?

    True, but the word Spectre means other things that could also relate to the film's story and the organisation itself. Remember Bond used the actual word to tease Largo when he said "the spectre of defeat". So it can be used as another word for a ghost/spirit/shadow, and another definition I saw was "something widely feared as a possible unpleasant or dangerous occurrence". ie, a threat. Either way I think the brilliance of this title is that it works taken as what it primarily is meant to be-the name of an evil organisation, and likewise it works if taken as an individual word and it's associated meanings.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.

    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world. The fact that Bond isn't the one-dimensional superman he was in some previous films, the fact that MI6 isn't untouchable, the fact that even good and beloved characters can die and that our hero can't save everyone, ... all of these things make a film more realistic already. Meanwhile it's okay to create a parallel universe in which some aspects of life are romanticised or simplified to fit the escapist tone of the film. As long as the story obeys its own internal logic, we're good.
    Why do people often call Nolan's Batman films "realistic"? Not because everything that takes place in these films happens in real life too, but rather because characters are faced with more dilemmas and contradiction, because actions have far-reaching consequences which the story won't simply ignore, because we are asked much less to suspend our disbelief concerning Batman's gadgets than before, etcetera. But if you really want to be the one with the adverse opinion, you can of course focus on one stupid detail, enlarge it and then make the case that these films are totally unrealistic and whatnot. That's usually the role little children play: they don't understand that even when the hero dies, a film can still have a happy end, that even when the laws of physics are sporadically defied, a film can still be more realistic because much more nuance and causality is built in.

    Also, SF can hardly be called 'gadget driven'. That one brief moment where the DB5 pulls a goldfinger surely isn't enough to make the film "gadget driven". It's neither a plot point nor a game changer. This is like saying that because of Linda Hamilton's nipples being visible during her love making scene with Michael Biehn, The Terminator is a porn film.

    People need to roll with it. Even a film as serious as SF is allowed a few wink-winks to the fans. LTK went further still. That film is about as serious and brutal as they come, yet Q brings explosive toothpaste in the mix, and that's before he dresses up as a local and talks in a broomstick. And as for continuity, bringing continuity issues to a Bond related debate means you lose before you've begun. The weakest arguments are usually the continuity ones. We know by now that more than half of the Bond films suffer from continuity issues. We know by now that if continuity is what you seek, you might as well never watch a Bond film apart from perhaps the first five. Generally beloved films like OHMSS, TLD and CR have some serious continuity issues in that respect. Are we going to call them out on those or are we going to watch them as intended? If you must insist on explaining where the DB5 got its makeover from since the gamble session with Dimitrios - and you're unhealthily obsessive about these things if you do - then accept the fact that some tech geek at MI6 fixed it for Bond and let it go. Seriously, you have no business watching Bond films if you are so exhaustingly strict about these things. Before CR, James Bond healed from cuts and bruises almost from one scene to the next. He could be drugged or knocked out but before CR it never took him much time to recover; he'd wake up and operate at full capacity almost immediately. James Bond could receive instructions from M in London, take the first plane to another country and almost immediately find M and his entire MI6 crew fully equipped and stationed in some local HQ. If any of those things bother you, stay away from the Bond films. They must be an intellectual torment to you; in fact, I'd hate to be your psychiatrist.

    Lastly, the same people who complain about SF being a dire, unpleasant, bleak movie, now attack it on the basis of its little nudge to Goldfinger. Wow. And not even in a SF thread but in a Spectre related thread, barely a day since the press conference! Talk about obsession...

    So following your reasoning they actually can do whatever they want because it's Bond anyway.

    I'm sorry, where did I write that?

    You attack the film's alleged realism on the basis of two or three very small things. I point out that these two or three very small things do not necessarily destroy the realism of the film. Then you somehow conclude from this that anything goes as far as I'm concerned?

    Right...

  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Daniel Craig on the new Aston Martin DB10 "I have'nt wrecked this one yet, but I will".
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.
    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world.
    LOL, yeah- imagine a TOTALLY 'realistic' Bond movie.... it would be boring as Heck. Lots of surveillance & intel gathering & interpreting... maybe some deep cover work... not so much getting laid or stuck in car chases or directly confronting the head of a secret evil society much less killing him...
    Let's not even discuss Ethan Hunt locked up at Guantanamo or Bruce Wayne committed...

    :))

    Actually, there are spy series that are very realistic and thrilling: The Sandbaggers and Queen & Country. But they are in essence the anti-Bond. No exotism, more time spent arguing at Whitehall than being in the field, lots of time investigating, the "villains" are not larger than life but anonymous Eastern bureaucrats (in the Sandbaggers) or low-life terrorists (Q&C). Again, not Bond material. I love all three, but for different reasons.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    jake24 wrote: »
    So I'm under the impression that Moneypenny's going to be behind the desk in Spectre, and she hints at this in the following interview.


    I'm not surprised at all. So much "fear" was brought into the world by certain members in here, that she would be in the field again. With no proof at all. Well, I say then: You really haven't watched "Skyfall" properly then. Because in the end of that film, she actually admits that taking a desk job is the best thing to do. We actually see her behind a desk. So why should Sam Mendes destroy that continuity :-).
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited December 2014 Posts: 2,138
    Bond producer finds cure for cancer http://postimg.org/image/7jgsifd4v/

    This is what I first thought when I saw this on the shelves the other day lol.
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    The DB5 in Skyfall isn't the same car as in Casino Royale.

    The Casino Royale car is left-hand drive. The DB5 in Skyfall is right hand drive. You'd have to tear the car apart and install many, many new parts (assuming you could find them for a half-century old car) to convert it to the other side.

    I called as Aston Martin dealer and asked if it would even be possible. He said you'd have to spend at least $40,000, if you could get the parts. "Why would you do it?" he asked.

    Wherever side the steering console is on is irrelevant. The PTS of QoS takes place 13 minutes after CR yet Bond is in a different suit. It's a minor continuity flub. I still like to think the DB5 is the same one from CR. I like to think that within 6 years, MI-6 got tired of Bond smashing up multiple government issue DBS's so they forced him to get his DB5 modified OR, It was already armed to the teeth since Dimitros was an arms smuggler and likes to flaunt his wealth so he owns a suped up car for his own protection.

    It's a fictional universe for crying out loud. A universe where people can hollow out volcano's to live in them, buy underwater cities and space stations the size of Manhattan or even a seaplane with an obviously visible Gatling gun mounted to the bottom. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility for a Government agency or a Rich criminal to have an old car modified to be a killing machine.

    if people get that bent out of shape and over analyze a rather insignificant continuity flaw in a film.... good god, they must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring person alive..

    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Guys can you not just agree to disagree and move on or perhaps take it private this post is suppose to be to discuss production developments rather than qaubble.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    Guys can you not just agree to disagree and move on or perhaps take it private this post is suppose to be to discuss production developments rather than qaubble.

    My motto too @SirHilaryBray, my motto too :-). Shall we re-affirm it together @Matt_Helm ;-)?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2014 Posts: 4,399
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)

    you're crude attempt at sarcasm is rather juvenile.... got nothing else, so now you resort to insulting my intelligence?... you going to take your ball and run home too?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Decorum gentlemen.
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    @Matt_Helm, this is ridiculous.
    "Realistic" Bonds can be interpreted in many ways; it doesn't have to mean literally ripped from our world.
    LOL, yeah- imagine a TOTALLY 'realistic' Bond movie.... it would be boring as Heck. Lots of surveillance & intel gathering & interpreting... maybe some deep cover work... not so much getting laid or stuck in car chases or directly confronting the head of a secret evil society much less killing him...
    Let's not even discuss Ethan Hunt locked up at Guantanamo or Bruce Wayne committed...

    :))

    Actually, there are spy series that are very realistic and thrilling: The Sandbaggers and Queen & Country. But they are in essence the anti-Bond. No exotism, more time spent arguing at Whitehall than being in the field, lots of time investigating, the "villains" are not larger than life but anonymous Eastern bureaucrats (in the Sandbaggers) or low-life terrorists (Q&C). Again, not Bond material. I love all three, but for different reasons.

    The first two seasons of The Sandbaggers are the greatest piece of story telling about the clandestine world ever made ( and originally conceived )for TV. Simply fantastic! Those were the days when you were really rewarded for being a fan of the genre ( unlike today were you hardly can find even one writer able to write a coherent and original novel,let alone movie script.)
  • Matt_HelmMatt_Helm
    Posts: 908
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Matt_Helm wrote: »
    Well just like Tosca tales of espionage simply aren't for everyone. If you have to extra analyse a movie to notice these kind of things you might better stick to Transformers (just to make it easier for you - the cars are robots. Hope that helps.)

    you're crude attempt at sarcasm is rather juvenile....got nothing else, so now you resort to insulting my intelligence?

    Expressing notions like some people "must be the saddest, most anal, and most boring persons" when they notice these things, you don't need me to insult your intelligence. You are obviously capable of doing this very much on your own.
  • O6GO6G
    Posts: 80
    All we need now is Michael Buble singing the theme song!
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    The DB5 in Skyfall isn't the same car as in Casino Royale.

    The Casino Royale car is left-hand drive. The DB5 in Skyfall is right hand drive. You'd have to tear the car apart and install many, many new parts (assuming you could find them for a half-century old car) to convert it to the other side.

    I called as Aston Martin dealer and asked if it would even be possible. He said you'd have to spend at least $40,000, if you could get the parts. "Why would you do it?" he asked.

    True but don't over think it. They didn't explain except that's the car in the Bond mythos. One of the few times Bond theme snuck into the film was with that car. Hmmm and I think same with CR but very faintly...

    Anyway I just explained in my head to myself as same car but with a few optional extras installed ....and converted to RHD lol.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    The DB5 in Skyfall isn't the same car as in Casino Royale.

    The Casino Royale car is left-hand drive. The DB5 in Skyfall is right hand drive. You'd have to tear the car apart and install many, many new parts (assuming you could find them for a half-century old car) to convert it to the other side.

    I called as Aston Martin dealer and asked if it would even be possible. He said you'd have to spend at least $40,000, if you could get the parts. "Why would you do it?" he asked.

    True but don't over think it. They didn't explain except that's the car in the Bond mythos. One of the few times Bond theme snuck into the film was with that car. Hmmm and I think same with CR but very faintly...

    Anyway I just explained in my head to myself as same car but with a few optional extras installed ....and converted to RHD lol.

    If you watch the extras on the Skyfall DVD Mendes explains its his own personal DB5.

  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    Sölden filming location schedule.
    From December until February, Sölden will be one of the locations for SPECTRE.

    10. – 12. Dec. 2014: Road up at the Glacier, road tunnel at the Glacier
    07 – 10. Jan. 2015: 3S Cable Car and ICE Q Restaurant
    12 – 13. Jan. 2015: Road up at the Glacier, road tunnel at the Glacier
    09 – 17. Feb. 2015: Road up at the Glacier, road tunnel at the Glacier

    The exact dates and times of close downs and restrictions are not known yet because all depends of the weather condition.

    Source: http://www.soelden.com/james-bond-007-en


  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    New article and photo from Obertilliach set.

    GrCOmrT.jpg

    http://www.tt.com/home/9347464-91/james-bond-in-tirol-ruhe-vor-dem-sturm-in-obertilliach-und-sölden.csp
  • marketto007marketto007 Brazil
    Posts: 3,277
    For those wondering, here are the 3S Cable Car.

    suii7JL.jpg
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    I'm trying to curb my enthusiasm but it keeps getting better and better [-O<

    Thanks especially for that last photo @Marketto007 :-bd
  • Pajan005Pajan005 Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts: 432
    marketto007 wrote: »
    For those wondering, here are the 3S Cable Car.

    suii7JL.jpg

    Wow. That would be perfect for a villain's base. Is it just being used as a hotel for the crew? Or do you think it is part of the filming?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    O6G wrote: »
    All we need now is Michael Buble singing the theme song!

    Or Michael Buble never to sing again.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    SirHilaryBray wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    The DB5 can be easily explained in two possible ways.

    1. It was modified by Q Branch so Bond could stop destroying DBS's

    2. Alexander Demitrios already had it decked out with weapons and gadgets seeing as he's an arms smuggling criminal.

    The DB5 in Skyfall isn't the same car as in Casino Royale.

    The Casino Royale car is left-hand drive. The DB5 in Skyfall is right hand drive. You'd have to tear the car apart and install many, many new parts (assuming you could find them for a half-century old car) to convert it to the other side.

    I called as Aston Martin dealer and asked if it would even be possible. He said you'd have to spend at least $40,000, if you could get the parts. "Why would you do it?" he asked.

    True but don't over think it. They didn't explain except that's the car in the Bond mythos. One of the few times Bond theme snuck into the film was with that car. Hmmm and I think same with CR but very faintly...

    Anyway I just explained in my head to myself as same car but with a few optional extras installed ....and converted to RHD lol.

    If you watch the extras on the Skyfall DVD Mendes explains its his own personal DB5.

    Cool didn't know that ..or missed it. Thanks!!

    :D
Sign In or Register to comment.