SKYFALL's PTS

Quote :

ISTANBUL - Anatolia News Agency



The historic Varda Railway Bridge in the southern province of Adana’s Hacıkırı village will be a filming location for scenes for the next James Bond film, the longest film series in the world that is celebrating its 50th year in 2012.

The 172-meter-long and 98-meter-high bridge, which was built in 1912 by Germans, will feature in the opening 15-minute part of the series’ 25th film along with Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia Museum and the Aegean province of Fethiye.

The production team, which has been preparing the venues, will start filming in February. The Varda Bridge will be shown for 10 minutes in the film and its star Daniel Craig will also participate in the filming there, according to reports. The 200-person production team will come to Turkey in January for three months.

The Varda Bridge has been the subject of photographers and filmmakers before, appearing in many advertisements. The film’s producers, impressed by the story behind the bridge’s construction, will promote the bridge to the world by filming close shots and providing information about it in the film. Producers Barbara Brocoli and Michael Wilson have previously held talks with Turkish Culture and Tourism Minister Ertuğrul Günay about the issue.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/adanas-old-bridge-to-host-james-bond.aspx?pageID=238&nID=9710&NewsCatID=381





Varda Railway Bridge









Fethiye







Hagia Sophia Museum

This has a ring of truth about it, since the Konkan railway was originally planned but then scrapped when India was dropped. The Hagia Sophia would be a nice tribute to the scene in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

There's some good-looking locations in there. I think I like the Varda bridge more than the bridge that was being planned for use in India. The waterfall looked stunning, but the whole thing felt a bit too look-at-me-look-at-me for my tastes. The Varda bridge has a kind of subtlety to it that India lacked.

It's a shame the film will only spend fifteen minutes in Turkey, what with all these great-looking locations.

I really like the look of Fethiye in particular. Very cinematic. I agree that the karstic Taurus Mountains and shrubs are much more interesting than the Konkan one. I'm guessing there'll be a lot of inter-cutting here.

Looks good. Just be careful not to blow up the bridge. Lots of water scenery though.

Any time I see water, I get nervous. The blue speedo may not be far away.

Why use the Hagia Sophia again? Why not Sultan Akhmat Mosque instead? It was mentioned fairly prominently in Fleming's FRWL as being near the spot where Kerim Bey assassinated Krilencu.

Yep, that's a mighty fine bridge. It's a beautiful bridge, as Oddball would say.

All these Turkish locations look stunning, especially Fethiye. I hope Bond be there more than just in the PTS!

I'm surprised no-one picked up on this:

Quote :

The film’s producers, impressed by the story behind the bridge’s construction, will promote the bridge to the world by filming close shots and providing information about it in the film.

Although the only way I think they could do it would be if Bond was on a sabotage mission with another agent, and they had to place the explosives very precisely.

I'd really hate to see that bridge blow up.

Don't worry, Shark. They'll do it in CGI.

:)

They'd have to use CGI. There's no way Turkey would let them blow up a one hundred year-old bridge for s***s and giggles.

Sharky wrote:

I'd really hate to see that bridge blow up.

I'm not saying it will be. I'm just saying that I think the only way the story could reasonably explain the history of the bridge and "provide facts" about it would be if the history and construction of the bridge formed an important part of the sequence. And the only reason that I can think of to explain why Bond would need to know about the structure of the bridge would be if he had to bring it down.

Not more bleeding CGI. I miss the genius of Derek Meddings.

Okay let's assume that, as a part of the scene, the bridge has to come down. And that the Turks emphatically say no when production wants to destroy the actual bridge. How would you propose this sequence is filmed then, Sharky?

Model work and miniature sets. Like how they achieved it in MOON.

And The Living Daylights, with the bridge in Afghanistan.

Seriously, if the film is going to celebrate the films, they should pay more attention to what made them a success. In this case, model work was used because CGI hadn't evolved, and it has proven to be infinitely better than what CGI has achieved. So instead of doing CGI like they did in the 40th anniversary film, instead of using it because technology has improved and it'll be better than in DAD, why not use model work again?

Hang on, the suggestion that the bridge would be brought down was only a theory. And I only created that theory to explain the line in the article talking about how the history of the bridge and its features would be included. For all we know, the bridge will only be featured in the establishing shot of the PTS, with a train crossing it and all the actual actions of the PTS take place on-board the train once it has crossed the bridge.

I know, but if the bridge was to come down in the film, model work would ideal, not CGI.

I like the locations. We'll see how it plays out.

FieldsMan wrote:

And The Living Daylights, with the bridge in Afghanistan.

Seriously, if the film is going to celebrate the films, they should pay more attention to what made them a success. In this case, model work was used because CGI hadn't evolved, and it has proven to be infinitely better than what CGI has achieved. So instead of doing CGI like they did in the 40th anniversary film, instead of using it because technology has improved and it'll be better than in DAD, why not use model work again?

I love model work, especially when they have dvd-extras features, showing the little models getting blowed up. :cherry:

Goldeneye had some neat model work for the attack on the Severnaya station, which was featured in the extras package.

Why is everyone automatically assuming CGI would be used for bridge destruction? It's not like the Bond films stopped doing model work after 1999.

Can't remember much in the last two films. At least none of it was featured on those blog video diaries.

The infamous sinking house in CR was pretty much practical and I thought well done as an effect. I don't see why they couldn't go practical with a bridge destruction. Bond movies never went overtly CGI after Die Another Day for a good reason.

You're right, though it was a rig designed by Chris Corbould, not a model. There's also some dodgy CGI there that lets the sequence down (some of the exterior shots of the house falling).

The irony though is that DAD is the last Bond I can think of with extensive model work. There's tonnes of it. Moon's base, the hovercraft chase, the ice palace and biodomes (great sets too by Peter Lamont), and some of the North Korea and plane stuff later on. I actually remember seeing a great meter long model of the semi-destroyed Antonov 124 in the top floor at the London Science Museum, when they had a Bond exhibition back in Janury '03.

Sharky wrote:

You're right, though it was a rig designed by Chris Corbould, not a model. There's also some dodgy CGI there that lets the sequence down (some of the exterior shots of the house falling).

The irony though is that DAD is the last Bond I can think of with extensive model work. There's tonnes of it. Moon's base, the hovercraft chase, the ice palace and biodomes (great sets too by Peter Lamont), and some of the North Korea and plane stuff later on. I actually remember seeing a great meter long model of the semi-destroyed Antonov 124 in the top floor at the London Science Museum, when they had a Bond exhibition back in Janury '03.

My understanding with the ice-surfing sequence was that it was written into the script as they were shooting and thus most of it had to be done with computerst. It's been a while since I've brushed up on the details of DAD's production but for some reason that rings a bell.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

They'd have to use CGI. There's no way Turkey would let them blow up a one hundred year-old bridge for s***s and giggles.

Sharky wrote:

I'd really hate to see that bridge blow up.

I'm not saying it will be. I'm just saying that I think the only way the story could reasonably explain the history of the bridge and "provide facts" about it would be if the history and construction of the bridge formed an important part of the sequence.

Docents gave the history of the Hagia Sophia in FRWL, the pyramids of Giza in Spy and various glass artifacts in MR. It's an old Bond tradition. No need for explosives and demolition.