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
So here we go, the 9-day forecasts as of Monday 22nd of December ;-):
Sölden (including ski conditions):
Obertilliach:
Altaussee:
Lienz:
You might also check http://www.wetter.at/wetter/oesterreich for up-to-date weather information. Let's hope it gets colder in Austria during the early start of 2015 ;-). Although the ski conditions are quite good right now already in Austria, it would be nice if some more fresh snow arrives before the crew arrives. Anddd......a little suffering from weather like during filming of the stock car chase in OHMSS would be awesome hehe.
Wunderful travel article from Helen Coffey (Telegraph), who went to Sölden and spoke with the assistant manager of the Ice Q restaurant and Das Central Hotel (only 5 star hotel in Sölden). She even did some skiing herself on the Rettenbachferner Glacier ;-).
No :-). Thank you @Zekidk. I'd rather like to find it out with extensive research that does not include the criminal SonyLeaks ;-). And even if I am wrong in the end, then I don't mind anyway.
Also, do not forget that new filming has been included in the shooting schedule. Yes, we know that filming on location in Austria is prone to weather conditions. Hence perhaps the inclusion of shooting at Kartitsch. But perhaps they also included this location because of the SonyLeaks...that they wanted to change the action sequence slightly. For all we know, Kartitsch got included in the shooting schedule after the SonyLeaks...late December.
And make no mistake, there has been screenplay alterations after the SonyLeaks.
Apart from skiing in "SPECTRE", I do seem to be right about the inclusion of aerial action sequences GoPro-style. Because the lengthy action sequence seems to be set in the air a lot too. So we could see something like this...but then without skiing:
<youtube>
<youtube>
<youtube>
<youtube>
But now my question. I haven't seen any skiing yet. And in the case we don't see skiing, could we still see those beautiful aerial shots that I was referring to in this topic? Wouldn't it be great if there was a camera attached to the nose of Bond's airplane, so we, cinema visitors on an IMAX-screen, actually experience the flight ourselves?? I have a feeling this could be the case.
What do you think? @Zekidk?
Hi @Gustav_Graves, I'm not @Zekidk, but I hope I can give my opinion.
I think that we will see the experience of the flight ourselves. Judging by this photo:
As you can see not both of the snow planes are the same colour, I think the one on the ground will be filming the one that is in the air. Again we will be seeing spectacular shots as I mentioned. This is my opinion. Do you have any thoughts?
As there are no IMAX screens in original lnaguage in Barcelona, I booked a few days off for the weekend around November 6th. I NEEED to see this film in Amsterdam on IMAX (I am Dutch). So I probably going to travel there.
In any case, it'll be a bit like this. Off course with more stability, a lot of snow, and a real airplane ;-):
https://www.facebook.com/316274095164134/videos/426463737478502/
And....I think again it was Daniel Craig himself who didn't feel like skiing..or at least a completely new kind of skiing (see video above).
Same with me....for me the SF PTS is my favorite. After that the SP PTS.
I noticed the varied levels of pursuit that Bond and Patrice endure during the PTS last night: slight foot chase, vehicle chase, gun fight, motorcycle chase, foot chase atop a train, and finally a fight atop a train.
But yes, with how beautiful the landscape was for all of the snow scenes, I would've appreciated seeing something a bit different than what we received.
Clearly.
Thing is these days can film companies allow people to risk their lives making such amazing footage as this and the clip I posted on page 1 given health and safety, insurance liabilities etc? Things have moved on since the days of Rick Sylvester just skiing off a mountain. How often these days do we see stunts like that that have no safety controls if anything goes wrong?
All the decent stunts of the DC era where the stuntman's body is visibly on the line (crane jump in CR, bike jump onto the train and JCB to train transfer in SF) were done with safety lines attached and it seems these days if you cant have that measure of safety in place then the stunt doesnt go ahead.
With the ski jump the ski hits the parachute and if it had all got tangled up Sylvester would have died, with the TLD cargo net scene BJ Worth nearly got crushed to death against the fuselage of the plane and lets not forget Martin Grace clambering around the train with no safety lines in OP. Of course you make it as safe as you can but for a great stunt there has to be a point where the stuntman crosses the line and risks life and limb. Thats what youre paying him for.
There is no room for error in the stunts in the footage above which is a risk the guys themselves dont mind taking as adrenaline junkies but if they die where does this leave EON if the families want to sue? I think film companies these days err on the side of caution. If a stunt cant be done with safety wires then it is scrapped or done with CGI.
Back in the day Cubby just gave Bumps Willard a wad of cash and told him to go for it.
Although I would have thought that if you get them to sign a waiver exonerating EON from blame and just give them a hefty flat fee for the risk they are taking then you ought to be in the clear. I'm sure guys like this would bite your hand off to be in a Bond film.
Everything you say is pretty much correct, bar the final few lines. I may be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware and from personal experience you cannot, by law, get them to sign a waiver exonerating you as producer.
Do you think that Daniel Craig has gotten a bit....too much influence on the creative/production proces of Bond films @RC7?
I sometimes think Barbara and Michael are so happy with their 'child', that they get a bit....blinded by other things...like for instance creating a perfect film.
Potentially, yes. I always think it's debatable having actors interfering too heavily in the production, which is why I've always defended Brosnan when he's been criticised for simply doing his job. Someone like Cruise is by all accounts a really astute producer and I've heard first-hand stories in that regard (despite him being as bat shit as you'd imagine). I don't know what Dan's role is, but I have to say for a man who makes as few films as he does, I get the impression his nous as a producer isn't all that great, I think it's more a case of seeing someone/something he likes and saying, let's have that. Someone like Cruise is involved at an editorial level.
i0.wp.com/commander007.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Script-B24-17.jpg
I recall that. It's probably why I was subconsciously expecting a multi vehicle chase, or at least some variation.
Obviously you cannot force them to sign a waiver. I mean say 'we'd love you to perform the stunt but you have to sign a waiver that we are not responsible' and then pay them a decent whack to do the stunt knowing if they die they cannot sue you.
Sorry, I worded it wrong. As far as I'm aware, I don't think a production company/studio would actively allow it. They can do the stunt with the necessary risk assessments and insurance in place, but won't get involved in waivers where they can be absolved of guilt because by implication the risks are then too high, either in real terms, or monetary terms, or both. It's a tricky one, I'm not a lawyer, but my experience is that these things are becoming harder and harder to sign off over time. It may be that they do in fact exist in special circumstances, but I would doubt it.
EDIT: I've just recalled a hilarious health and safety story from a while back that you'll love. A friend of mine was working out of Television Centre on a big gameshow and the whole thing revolved around a sh** load of travelators (Yes, already awful). £250,000 worth to be precise, paid for by your licence fee. In a dry run of the game a woman fell off and sprained get ankle. Health and Safety said that the travelators would now only be able to run at a slow walking pace. The show had to be scrapped, costing 250k of these travelators and 250k of set. All because of a sprained ankle.