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

More from the foraging photographer's blog. He's got a new piece on how tight security is around the filming.

http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/#

I've borrowed his captions.

Skyfall entrance, with Lodge in background.


filming the mysterious outbuilding


front of chapel with covered headstones


old stag atop the gatepost


outbuilding- a week from shell to filming


for those curious about the insignia


hazy shot of the Aston Martin outside the Lodge


the bowl of Hankley Common. Lodge in centre

I wonder how all the water is going to come into it. There's supposed to be twelve thousand litres of water in the scenes set at the lodge - about five olympic swimming pools' worth - but I can't for the life of me work out how it might come into play.

That said, when Castle Duntrune was being scouted as a filming location, photos show that it was adjacent to the sea. Perhaps EON are trying to create the illusion of the manor house being a waterfront property.

stumbled across this sharp observation from another Bond fan - that the Bond family headstones, are drawn from Fleming's family
Robert
Valentine
Celia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Fleming

regarding the leaked callsheet, B is probably for Boothroyd/Q/Whishaw, Mallory is Fiennes (new M?), and Kincade is Finney (possible traitor)

More from the foraging photographer. This guy is doing a great job at the location.

"We arrived in the afternoon to discover that they’d spent the whole morning filming Daniel Craig and Judi Dench driving through the gates and down the drive in the Aston Martin. (...) Today they were taking endless shots of someone fumbling for some time to open the doors, and then the doors finally swing open, and the person enters the building. The figure seemed to be bizarrely dressed; baggy trousers and a long greatcoat, with blond or grey hair and a hat. At one point it seemed that someone was pointing a gun at the figure, but this might not be the case – I couldn’t get a very clear view and shortly afterwards we were ordered to come further away. They were shooting, reshooting and shooting again, which seems to be the norm. Was it blond-wigged (please say it’s a wig…he’s really not a good blond) Javier, disguised as a tramp?"

http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/

From the callsheet, Eve may indeed be the lead Bond Girl. Severine might be a Solange type, Silva girlfriend that Bond has a tyrst with. Or maybe there is no obvious lead Bond girl. Rather two supporting Bond girls.

Dench as M does seem to be the lead femme. This is a Bond and M film. In a mommy/son kinda way. Shucks.

tiffanywint wrote:

More from the foraging photographer's blog. He's got a new piece on how tight security is around the filming.

I think you'll find that he is actually a she.

tiffanywint wrote:

stumbled across this sharp observation from another Bond fan - that the Bond family headstones, are drawn from Fleming's family
Robert
Valentine
Celia

There's also a Ramsay Bond, according to the Foraging Photgrapher, but I can't find any connection to Fleming.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

More from the foraging photographer's blog. He's got a new piece on how tight security is around the filming.

I think you'll find that he is actually a she.

Yes, could very well be. I'll take your word for it. :)

Oh, don't just take my word for it - take hers. Her name, according to The Daily Mail, is Lucy Browne. I know this is the Fail we're talking about, but they quoted her directly in one of their recent articles on filming, and she responded without correcting them, so I guess that's her name.

tiffanywint wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Every film Tarantino has made is a pastiche/tribute to a certain genre (PULP FICTION is noir-ish, JACKIE BROWN is blaxpliotation, KILL BILL is Hong Kong action cinema, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is the men-on-a-mission film, and DJANGO UNCHAINED will probably be Westerns), and while the films are quite well-made and lovingly-crafted, they also come across as Tarantino saying "this is how all those films influenced me, and made me into the director that I am, so this film is me giving something back to them".

This could be construed as an arugment for Tarantino. ie a Tarantino Bond film being a tribute to the glorious Bond films that have influenced him. An homage from Quentin.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Going by this rationale, Tarantino would probably pay homage to the earlier, wonderful Bond films. I think BASTERDS is a good film. I really enjoyed the European side of the film, that is, the scenes without the Americans - Roth, Pitt etc. These parts are unlike a typical Tarantino film what with the more refined nature of these scenes. The versatility of directors and actors shouldn't be underestimated.

Tarantino isn't one of my favourite directors, but I'm sure he could make a good Bond film. Anyway, we're talking about Bond, not huge epics like Ben Hur, Dr. Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia.

"I think this angle is a virtual lock. Eon will work Bond's parents into the plot somehow. So much for Fleming's assertion that they simply died in a climbing accident. Sigh."

Oh God, I wish I hadn't have read this. What a horrible thing to do. I like the fact that we'll find out a bit about Bond's history but to tackily weave them into the plot and make them spies is just terrible. Is this the so called "big hook" that Morgan was talking about? I hope this won't be the case but certainly I won't be surprised if it is. Eon and the gang either seem to go too far – DAD, with the silly action and CGI, or do too little. I remember Apted saying that he wanted dialogue in TWINE where Bond talks about his past and Eon swiftly vetoed it saying that Bond doesn't talk about his past. It disappointed me to read this at the time but to go so far as to make Bond parent's spies is just despicable.

trevanian wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

trevanian wrote:

People always clamor for a Ridley Scott Bond, a Spielberg Bond .. hey, this would be a different director's Bond, but somebody who clearly have seeped up Fleming so much it comes out his pores in his films.

There isn't an ounce of Fleming in Tarantino's films.

So you're not on the metric system?

Nope. But neither is Tarantino. ;)

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I wonder how all the water is going to come into it. There's supposed to be twelve thousand litres of water in the scenes set at the lodge - about five olympic swimming pools' worth - but I can't for the life of me work out how it might come into play.

Think the water's just to douse the fire once they've caught it on film. The production's done a lot of planning beforehand to ensure the local ecosystem isn't damaged by the kerosine explosions. The photographer wrote than in one of her walks, that she found several water bowers in the woods as a preventive measure in case the fire got out of hand.

Harmsway wrote:

trevanian wrote:

People always clamor for a Ridley Scott Bond, a Spielberg Bond .. hey, this would be a different director's Bond, but somebody who clearly have seeped up Fleming so much it comes out his pores in his films.

There isn't an ounce of Fleming in Tarantino's films.

Indeed. You don't have to look that far to notice religion, politics, and morality in Fleming's writing, even if it's not as pronounced as with say Graham Greene. I've yet to find those three elements in Tarantino's soulless, self-masturbatory cinema.

tiffanywint wrote:

Bond may indeed be well aware of Skyfall lodge, then again maybe not.

How could he not be aware of Skyfall Lodge if his parents were buried there? He knows.

Bounine wrote:

It disappointed me to read this at the time but to go so far as to make Bond parent's spies is just despicable.

Well, we don't know if they did or not. It's an obvious route, at least, and one taken by CARTE BLANCHE. We'll see if EON has an approach that's different. But there's *some* narrative reason that Bond's heading back to Skyfall Lodge after it's been abandoned for so long. Is it just because he's trying to keep M safe? Or is it because there's some knowledge there? Given that the film shares the name of the Lodge, I'm suspecting that there's something more to it than it providing a convenient safe house for Bond and M.

Per the dossier of Bond released for CASINO ROYALE, Bond was born in 1968, and his parents died when he was 11, which would put their deaths at about 1979. Who knows whether or not they're still keeping to that timeline--QUANTUM OF SOLACE seemed to be a bit cavalier with dates and times--but it's interesting to place it, historically.

Harmsway wrote:

Per the dossier of Bond released for CASINO ROYALE, Bond was born in 1968, and his parents died when he was 11, which would put their deaths at about 1979.

Thatcher did it.

Harmsway wrote:

[--QUANTUM OF SOLACE seemed to be a bit cavalier with dates and times.

Seemed? Either Quantum was very cavalier about dates and times or the space-time continum was demolished.

Sharky wrote:

He's yet to make a terrific film. Period.

QFE

trevanian wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

How do you mean, Harms?

Every Tarantino film is a "look at how clever I am" affair, a love-letter from Tarantino to himself.

I'd apply that quoted section to a lot of DePalma and some Sidney Furiie, myself And of course TheAbramsThing.

De Palma is clever, though. Has more technical skill and visual flair than Tarantino will ever have. He also understands pacing and knows how to create a mood. Tarantino only knows how to create off-the-wall nonsense.

And then look who the more popular filmmaker is. Perhaps Tarantino is the clever one, after all.


----

I like how this SKYFALL scene is shaping up. I hope there's a shoot out at the cemetery where Bond parents are buried. I can picture Bond smashing their grave with a few rounds, crying, and saying, "YOU NEVAH LOVED ME!"

It'd be very emotional. Very deep. (and stuff)

Harmsway wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Bond may indeed be well aware of Skyfall lodge, then again maybe not.

How could he not be aware of Skyfall Lodge if his parents were buried there? He knows.

Bounine wrote:

It disappointed me to read this at the time but to go so far as to make Bond parent's spies is just despicable.

Well, we don't know if they did or not. It's an obvious route, at least, and one taken by CARTE BLANCHE. We'll see if EON has an approach that's different. But there's *some* narrative reason that Bond's heading back to Skyfall Lodge after it's been abandoned for so long. Is it just because he's trying to keep M safe? Or is it because there's some knowledge there? Given that the film shares the name of the Lodge, I'm suspecting that there's something more to it than it providing a convenient safe house for Bond and M.

Per the dossier of Bond released for CASINO ROYALE, Bond was born in 1968, and his parents died when he was 11, which would put their deaths at about 1979. Who knows whether or not they're still keeping to that timeline--QUANTUM OF SOLACE seemed to be a bit cavalier with dates and times--but it's interesting to place it, historically.

Yes, he would pretty much have to know,if his parents were buried there. He was 11 when they died (1979), so he would have been aware all this time. Bond is now 44 in the new continuity (not coincidentally the same age as Craig -both born 1968) Yes given the name of the film, it does appear that Bond's parents will play into the back story. I'm not 100% sure that the Skyfall Lodge has been abandoned completely. It would take a lot of money to maintain that kind of property. Maybe there is some old faithful family man-servant who has been watching the lodge, and doing the minimum upkeep, although it could also very well be a completely abandoned property.

If Eon stays with its' newly created continuity, this Bond we are seeing in SF will be a seasoned agent. It's been 6 years since he earned his double O status.

Of course what is completely off about this whole re-boot scenario is that an agent of Bond's calibre didn't earn double O status until age 38, 7 years before mandatory retirement. We just have to play along with that one of course, and consider Craig to be of indeterminate Bond age, much like the other two older Bonds, Rog and Broz.

The Forgaging Photographer, on mission at Skyfall Lodge.

From her About Me Page. http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/about/

tiffanywint wrote:

Yes, he would pretty much have to know,if his parents were buried there. He was 11 when they died (1979), so he would have been aware all this time. Bond is now 44 in the new continuity (not coincidentally the same age as Craig -both born 1968) Yes given the name of the film, it does appear that Bond's parents will play into the back story. I'm not 100% sure that the Skyfall Lodge has been abandoned completely. It would take a lot of money to maintain that kind of property. Maybe there is some old faithful family man-servant who has been watching the lodge, and doing the minimum upkeep, although it could also very well be a completely abandoned property.

But why would Craig's Bond have to have been aware of the property or the graveyard? Did I forget something from CR? Perhaps he was merely told they died in a skiing accident and the bodies were never recovered. I mean, only a few years ago the Swiss pulled a 1,000 year old person out of the ice, and who'd been in a hard to reach area. Whose to say Bond's parents didn't die in an ice-fall climb and could not be retrieved? Maybe Bond was lied to at the time. Maybe M was a junior assistant in the Thatcher administration and buried the details of the accident so as not to create an international incident. Maybe Javier Bardem is Bond's brother.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Did I forget something from CR? Perhaps he was merely told they died in a skiing accident and the bodies were never recovered. I mean, only a few years ago the Swiss pulled a 1,000 year old person out of the ice, and who'd been in a hard to reach area. Whose to say Bond's parents didn't die in an ice-fall climb and could not be retrieved? Maybe Bond was lied to at the time.

That would be a terribly nonsensical cover-up.

SKI-FALL... The Story of the Bond Family

Mr. Brown wrote:

SKI-FALL... The Story of the Bond Family

Gritty, Flamming-esque etc.

Deep-n-stuff.

SF is a Bond/M mommy/son love story. Look at the pilfered call sheet. M gets #2 billing.

I honestly don't think there is going to be a lead Bond Girl. On the call sheet, Harris is actually listed higher than Marlohe. The movie seems to be about Bond, M, Silva and Mallory (Fiennes) with both Harris and Marlohe in 3rd tier support roles.

I'll bet Bond shags both Severine and Eve, but his lead femme is Dench

I just hope he doesn't end up floating in a boat with her at the end, though.

I am now convinced that we are not likely to see a traditional Bond film in the Craig era. The template rather, will continue to be character driven drama, with of course the requiste dollops of explosions, action and eye-candy. Each new movie though, will be looking for a dramatic hook plus some new major exposition of the Bond mythology. For installment three, we get Bond-learns-about-his-family, complete with some big reveal about both Bond and M's past.:shock:

I'm honestly not bothered, as long as the films continue to work as big budget Bondian entertainment. When Craig is gone though, I think we might see another re-set, where Bond again simply reports for duty, and is sent off on another exotic mission/adventure.

One presumes you're pleased about the floating casino in Skyfall though, tiff ... along with the cast member on that call sheet who was simply listed as 'Dancing Girl'.

tiffanywint wrote:

I am now convinced that we are not likely to see a traditional Bond film in the Craig era. The template rather, will continue to be character driven drama, with of course the requiste dollops of explosions, action and eye-candy. Each new movie though, will be looking for a dramatic hook plus some new major exposition of the Bond mythology. For installment three, we get Bond-learns-about-his-family, complete with some big reveal about both Bond and M's past.:shock:

I'm honestly not bothered, as long as the films continue to work as big budget Bondian entertainment. When Craig is gone though, I think we might see another re-set, where Bond again simply reports for duty, and is sent off on another exotic mission/adventure.

That very well may play out. I am also guessing installment four won't be in 2014 and instead won't be until at least 2015, maybe even 2016 (despite MGM's desires the series get back to an every-other-year schedule). Around October or November, I suspect we'll see another Michael G. Wilson quote about how exhausting it is to make Bond movies.