[Potential Spoilers] Official SKYFALL Photo Thread (Part I)

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wonder if Cubby rolls over in his grave at the sight of what Barbara has done to this series:

I'm beginning to think that whatever damage Babs did to the series with that image pales in comparison to the damage you've done by reposting that image at every opportunity and derailing every thread you can find so that you can attack her.

You don't like it. We get that. Now it's time to move the fuck on.

Fuck you, Monkey, you don't speak for me. I'm with Gravy.

dr. strangelove wrote:

First of all...just because Babs says there are no budgetary constraint doesn't necessarily mean it's true. What do you expect her to say?

"Yes, the economy is bad and we're having problems getting the funds we need."

That's not exactly a great way to get people interested in your film. I'm not saying that there are or aren't budget issues, but saying something like "Does it look like we're cutting back?" is a pretty sly way of diverting attention to something else and turning it into a positive. It's a classic PR move.

Except that, over time, if you get a reputation for misleading people, it catches up to you eventually and you get less benefit of the doubt. If you develop a reputation as a snake oil salesman, you'll get treated like a snake oil salesman. She or Wilson could have deflected the subject in a somwhat more honest way. "I'm not going to get into budget amounts but we're going to have more than enough to make a first-class James Bond movie." Or whatever. Then again, the reporter could have come back with a follow-up question (though it's hard to tell if he got a chance).

Craig has a decent rack in that femmynism film he did. We should have entered him in the mammaries contest, which is still raging by the way. Now with pictures too.

Feel free to join in. 14 pairs of Bond-babe boobies are still up and bouncing. It's getting harder and harder, to cast a negative vote.

Erica Ambler wrote:

The Chinese may have sought control over aspects of the script that featured Shanghai.

It certainly sounds ike something the Chinese would do. We know the Indians kept trying to make changes to the script; they wanted the film to be "more representative of India", and so tried to remvoe scenes that featured people riding on top of trains because that supposedly doesn't happen in India (though a quick Google search proves differently). They also wanted the actors - mostly Craig - to endorse government enterprises like Indian Railways as a condition of filming taking place in India.

That said, China had no objections to MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III filming in Shanghai. I think they only really get upset over politically-sensitive issues, like Tibet and Taiwan and so on. They banned Brad Pitt from ever entering the country (on pain of arrest) when he made SEVEN YEARS IN TIBET because it showed the occupation of Tibet as a violent and bloody affair which contradicted Beijing's official account of event, which claims that Tibet joining China was a peaceful episode, with Tibet approaching Beijing and wanting to join because the people wanted to discover enlightenment. The film also showed senior Chinese officials as arrogant and culturally-ignorant. It upset a lot of people in Beijing.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Fuck you, Monkey, you don't speak for me. I'm with Gravy.

I never said that I did speak for you. If you're referring to my comment that "We get that you don't like Babs", well, you can't disagree with me on that one - if you're siding with GS, you have to get that GS doesn't like Babs.

Someone's touchy this morning.

dr. strangelove wrote:

First of all...just because Babs says there are no budgetary constraint doesn't necessarily mean it's true. What do you expect her to say?

"Yes, the economy is bad and we're having problems getting the funds we need."

That's not exactly a great way to get people interested in your film. I'm not saying that there are or aren't budget issues, but saying something like "Does it look like we're cutting back?" is a pretty sly way of diverting attention to something else and turning it into a positive. It's a classic PR move.

Interestingly, I don't think there are "budgetary" issues involved. Not to say that she's been given a blank check, but I think, and this is just my opinion, that she's front-loaded the budget with salaries for Craig, Mendes, Deakins, Fiennes, Bardem, Morgan, Dench, and to a smaller extent Finney and Dame Maggie Smith (allegedly). Money for actual location work and unique, big action stunts appear to be on the absolute back-burner. I hate to harp on THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, but 2 months into the shooting of that movie I already knew that there was a sequence involving Bond swinging onto the back of a moving motorcycle in the streets of Tangier. Three months into filming SKYFALL and all I've seen are bits and pieces of Bond running around with a blue-tooth in his ear, or being driven around in a Range Rover, or Judi Dench checking out her lap-top. With LICENSE REVOKED we got to see in a matter of the first few weeks, Bond on location in Key West, jumping out of a helicopter, shooting at Lupe's jeep. Still, not a peep, not a cricket chirping from the set of SKYFALL....nothing.

This reminds me of a panel from MAD MAGAZINE back in late 1986. They were spoofing TOP GUN, and one character said to the other in the theater that she didn't think a movie about the government glamorizing guns, bombers, fighter pilots, and shooting people were appropriate subjects for entertainment, and her date replied to her: 'Maybe not. But who's going to want to sit through a two-hour movie about a disarmament conference???'

Folks, I'm afraid we're going to get a two hour film about a disarmament conference.

Quote :

I'm a little bummed about the lack of press so far about SKYFALL. They're two months into filming and so far almost nothing is known about this film outside of cast and crew personnel. I'd love to see some teaser photos of Marlohe in a bikini or Dan lighting up a cigarette or something (heaven forbid!). Minuscule Twitter pictures of nondescript locations doesn't exactly do anything for me.

With that said....the secrecy around the project is kind of refreshing, for a change. It's definitely getting me excited for the film. I definitely get the sense that Mendes really wants to keep things under wraps. Also, with the rumors of some "big twist" storyline within SKYFALL, maybe EON decided that after Goldeneye's marketing campaign (where they basically gave away the twist before the film was even released) they want to play it close to the chest to make things as "shocking" as possible.

...and I'm completely fine with "backyard" locations like London and Scotland being the primary backdrop. At least one unique, "wow!" location is needed, though.

I really can't add much to your thoughts. They are spot on perfect. An England-centric film, with most of the action taking place in familiar locales through London and the rest of the U.K. is fine by me, I just don't want them to use locations in England to cover or sub for areas in China or Turkey that look nothing alike. You can't fake being in China. Babs is free to fake whatever else she wants with whomever she wants, but she shouldn't fake it with James Bond.

I totally respect the secrecy of the project and Mendes working conditions, but some press pix wouldn't hurt the film at all, and it would give me something new and fresh to complain bitterly about.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Fuck you, Monkey, you don't speak for me. I'm with Gravy.

I never said that I did speak for you. If you're referring to my comment that "We get that you don't like Babs", well, you can't disagree with me on that one - if you're siding with GS, you have to get that GS doesn't like Babs.

Someone's touchy this morning.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

You don't like it. We get that. Now it's time to move the fuck on.

It's the use of the royal 'we' I dislike. It's as though you're a self-appointed spokesman for some wider "fan community".

I happen to share Gravy's view that Babs is seriously damaging the Bond series. We're not the only ones that feel that way.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I wonder if Cubby rolls over in his grave at the sight of what Barbara has done to this series:

I'm beginning to think that whatever damage Babs did to the series with that image pales in comparison to the damage you've done by reposting that image at every opportunity and derailing every thread you can find so that you can attack her.

You don't like it. We get that. Now it's time to move the fuck on.

Like the burn marks on Camille's back...like the scar that runs along Bond's right cheek....I am going to be the ugly visual reminder to Barbara every time she looks in the mirror. I want to confront her with the damage that she's done to the series. I want to push that picture of Craig in a dress back up into her face because I don't think she gets the entire sense of what she has done. She needs to be made to come to grips with the tragedy that she has created.

So yeah, no, I won't be moving "the fuck on".

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Like the burn marks on Camille's back...like the scar that runs along Bond's right cheek....I am going to be the ugly visual reminder to Barbara every time she looks in the mirror. I want to confront her with the damage that she's done to the series. I want to push that picture of Craig in a dress back up into her face because I don't think she gets the entire sense of what she has done. She needs to be made to come to grips with the tragedy that she has created.

So yeah, no, I won't be moving "the fuck on".

It's a noble mission you pursue Gravy.

Daniel Craig as femmynism Bond was a dark day for the franchise.

So sad, but we endure.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Like the burn marks on Camille's back...

And what, exactly, was wrong with that? She survived a houe fire as a child. I'd be a little more concerned if she came out in perfect physical condition.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

like the scar that runs along Bond's right cheek....

Fleming's Bond had a scar.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I want to confront her with the damage that she's done to the series.

Despite your constant crusading, I haven't seen any proof that Babs was behind it. Or that she forced Craig to do it, as you so like to insinuate.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

She needs to be made to come to grips with the tragedy that she has created.

Gee, the Bond franchise is experiencing some of the greatest critical and commercial successes that it has had in decades. Positively awful.

I'm afraid the only tragedy here is you. See, despite your claims that you want to "confront Babs" - I'm not entirely sure how you're going to do that, since she's not a member of these forums, and these threads cannot be publicly viewed - you're the only person who keeps dragging this up. That video was made a year ago, or more. Most Bond fans have moved on, if they ever paid attention to begin with. But not you. You keep dragging this up, preaching to your choir. Why don't you go visit MI6 or CBn or AJB? I know, you'll need yout tetanus and rabies shots first, but it might do you some good. You are the only person on the entire internet who is still upset about this, and you've somehow managed to convince yourself that you're on a moral crusade. So you're basically like every other religious zealot out there: convinced that they are right because they are the ones believing it.

Monkey, if you re-read Grav's post he is not critiquing the existence of Camille's scar or Bond's scar. He is rather drawing a comparison with those wounds and the pain they remind of, with his quest to keep Bab's perfidy front and centre.

Re femmynism propaganda film. I will suggest that Babs, Craig and Dench were all willing conspirators, however given Bab's boss status and pc rep, I think its safe to say, she was driving the bus - but no doubt though, with willing passengers.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Despite your constant crusading, I haven't seen any proof that Babs was behind it. Or that she forced Craig to do it, as you so like to insinuate.

It was made 10 months ago It was produced by Barbara Broccoli, directed by Sam Taylor Wood, and written by Jane Goldman. It starred Daniel Craig as James Bond and Judi Dench as M. How do you think The International Day of Naggers got permission to use not only those two stars, but to use their cinematic counterparts in the commercial?

As Nikki Finke wrote at Deadline Hollywood about the video: "this is the very definition of ill-advised".

Like our proud troops who successfully repelled a Mexican invasion at the Alamo, or our brave men and women who went over and pushed back the Yankees invasion, saved Atlanta, and forced LIncoln's surrender in The Great War Between The States, shall too I be a fighter and a leader against an unjust cause: the sterilization of James Bond.

The Culture Wars: Episode One has just been released. I am Barbara's phantom menace. I will strike against Barbara Broccoli-Vader when she least expects it. But not today, cause it's time for me to go to bed. Night, night!

I really do not give a shit about the ad.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

How do you think The International Day of Naggers got permission to use not only those two stars, but to use their cinematic counterparts in the commercial?

Sure, Babs had to approve it - but where is it written that Craig was forced into it? Couldn't he have done it because he believed in the cause?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Like our proud troops who successfully repelled a Mexican invasion at the Alamo, or our brave men and women who went over and pushed back the Yankees invasion, saved Atlanta, and forced LIncoln's surrender in The Great War Between The States, shall too I be a fighter and a leader against an unjust cause: the sterilization of James Bond.!

Well, good luck leading your army of two.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I really do not give a shit about the ad.

This. Apparently the only people who care about it are Ambler and GS.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

This. Apparently the only people who care about it are Ambler and GS.

I think it's more of a bother to those who don't find favour with Craig's casting but bear it out, albeit begrudgingly, as it is. Putting on drag in a 'what if?' scenario only rocks their boat more.

But as I've said before, I don't see any Skyfall write-ups preceded with, or inclusive of, any reminders of that video. 6 years ago, many columnists were poking fun at Craig over anything they could use as fodder when reporting about Casino Royale. Not so in 2012.

Of course, a poll by either you or GS could determine how many B&B members really have a problem with it. My own take is...umm, okay...with no residual effect whatsoever

I'd say seeing Bond as both Tarzan and a clown is Octopussy was even more distressing, since this was an actual Bond film.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

dr. strangelove wrote:

First of all...just because Babs says there are no budgetary constraint doesn't necessarily mean it's true. What do you expect her to say?

"Yes, the economy is bad and we're having problems getting the funds we need."

That's not exactly a great way to get people interested in your film. I'm not saying that there are or aren't budget issues, but saying something like "Does it look like we're cutting back?" is a pretty sly way of diverting attention to something else and turning it into a positive. It's a classic PR move.

Except that, over time, if you get a reputation for misleading people, it catches up to you eventually and you get less benefit of the doubt. If you develop a reputation as a snake oil salesman, you'll get treated like a snake oil salesman. She or Wilson could have deflected the subject in a somwhat more honest way. "I'm not going to get into budget amounts but we're going to have more than enough to make a first-class James Bond movie." Or whatever. Then again, the reporter could have come back with a follow-up question (though it's hard to tell if he got a chance).

To be honest, Babs and Michael already have their reputation firmly cemented within the film industry. They sure as hell aren't known for their creativity or artistic vision the way that Cubby and Harry were. Hell, Marc Forster said just that in numerous interviews during the filming of QoS. He said that Babs/MGW are know throughout the industry as being control freaks who don't value director input and are just concerned with making money. The only reason he even took the interview was to decline the offer personally, and even then, the only reason he agreed to direct was because he liked Daniel. It's no coincidence that no director under the Babs/MGW regime, besides Campbell, ever wants to return to do a second film. Keep in mind, it wasn't until recently with QoS that they decided to do something a little different with the franchise (I'm referring to Forster and his style). For all the hoopla around CR's release, it's still pretty much a Brosnan film with a slightly better script based on a Fleming novel. It was a slam dunk, even with the Craig haters out in full force.

Michael and Babs are where they are because of their relation to Cubby and Harry. That's it. Their responsibility is to basically maintain the status quo....do whatever it takes, shallow-minded or not, to maintain the longest running and most profitable film franchise in the world. And if bending the truth or deflecting questions about budget concerns is what they have to do, than they are most definitely going to do that. They aren't in the business of telling the truth, they're in the business of making money. After four years of no Bond and a generally lukewarm reception to QoS, you better believe that Babs and Michael are going to neutralize any negative press there is.

Don't get me wrong...I think SKYFALL will be great, mostly because the cast and crew seem genuinely excited about the story and script they have this time around. And I think that's great. All I'm saying is that even though they're just rumors, it wouldn't shock me to find out that SKYFALL is under some kind of budgetary restraint that other modern Bond films were not (because of this unique situation). In fact, I kind of hope they are, because working within parameters is usually a good thing and breeds more creativity (see: Jaws, Star Wars, plenty others).

dr. strangelove wrote:

In fact, I kind of hope they are, because working within parameters is usually a good thing and breeds more creativity (see: Jaws, Star Wars, plenty others).

I think there is a lot in this, QoS was phenomenally expensive to little real effect imo and its the lack of restraint in stunts, f/x and collateral damage that proves an unwelcome distraction from the realtively low key story of CR. (applies to Dr Who too, much better when some limits are placed on the production as a by the by).

On the other issue I'm not sure I've even seen this feminism advert, but judging from Cowboys and Aliens Mr Craig is certainly in need of a support Bra these days, the dress really doesn't do anything for him mind.

Per Empire's Twitter:

Quote :

First official shot of Bond from SKYFALL to be unveiled tomorrow. Set your alarm clocks (that also double as rocket launchers) for 8am.

https://twitter.com/#!/empiremagazine/status/164415220633190400

Jack Wade wrote:

Per Empire's Twitter:

Quote :

First official shot of Bond from SKYFALL to be unveiled tomorrow. Set your alarm clocks (that also double as rocket launchers) for 8am.

https://twitter.com/#!/empiremagazine/status/164415220633190400

:sleep:

You don't get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. SKYFALL already released their first "official" photo and it was a picture of Daniel Craig's ass-crack peeking out of a pair of plum smugglers.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Per Empire's Twitter:

Quote :

First official shot of Bond from SKYFALL to be unveiled tomorrow. Set your alarm clocks (that also double as rocket launchers) for 8am.

https://twitter.com/#!/empiremagazine/status/164415220633190400

:sleep:

You don't get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. SKYFALL already released their first "official" photo and it was a picture of Daniel Craig's ass-crack peeking out of a pair of plum smugglers.

We also had the first "official plot synopsis" a couple of weeks ago and it was the same description from the November press release, word for word.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

You don't get a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression. SKYFALL already released their first "official" photo and it was a picture of Daniel Craig's ass-crack peeking out of a pair of plum smugglers.

That was not accompanied by anything from EON, and Empire quickly took it down. So it's looking like that wasn't an official photo at all.

But never miss an opportunity to skew everything in your favour, GS.

Jack Wade wrote:

Per Empire's Twitter:

Quote :

First official shot of Bond from SKYFALL to be unveiled tomorrow. Set your alarm clocks (that also double as rocket launchers) for 8am.

https://twitter.com/#!/empiremagazine/status/164415220633190400

I don't have one of these. Which means that there are two very important questions that need to be asked: why don't I have one, and where can I get one?

First official photo has been released:

So he keeps the PPK, alrighty.