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

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.

Harmsway wrote:

That would be a terribly nonsensical cover-up.

What's your point?

"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."

I like this, as long as Bond's parent/s don't end up being spies - an idea I loave. I love the idea of character movement and background history. What I've always been against is how in QOS and in the Brosnan era we get almost just one action scene after another cut at a furiously fast pace with prescious little other Bondian moments. I would love a film that has an action to dialogue ratio of the Connery films - an action/thriller instead of just a mere action film with a tear drop of drama which is what I suspect Skyfall will be like, as I've lost much hope in these films. We'll see... As for Bond 24, I would like a regular assignment complete with character movement and all the other Bondian moments - scuba diving, dinner with the villain, fairy tale type sets, gambling, culture etc, but not one liners or cheesy, out of this world gadgets. Well, I'd like this for Bond 23 but once again it will be a revenge type film focusing on the the lead Skyfall Bond girl, M.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

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'.

Dancing Girl is very intriguing. She might turn out to be another Bond-Girl legend in the tradition of Sue Vanner as Log-Cabin Girl, Carole Ashby as Whistling Girl, Nadja Regin as both Kerim's Mistress and Bonita/femme fatale, or Aliza Gur and Martine Beswick as Vida and Zora, the gypsy fighting girls.

Christina Cole's performance as Ocean Club Receptionist in CR is already legend.

These 3rd and 4th tier Bond-girls are important roles. There is also cast member #21 "beautiful woman."

Much overlooked btw in QoS was the fine work of German actress, Karin Lanz as Gift Bag Girl.

Wouldn't mind gift bagging 'er.

Yikes ! EON busted our fearless photog.

She's been muzzled.

"Weeeeeeell… I don’t know where to start, really. Or indeed where to finish. I arrived at Hankley this morning, with dog and child, friend and dog, expecting our normal walk around the common only to be enlivened by the film shooting. I greeted, in naive innocence, the (lovely) lady on the main security gate, only to have her call after me “…are you [my name]…?”, and subsequently detain me.

As it turns out, I’ve been a wanted woman on Hankley Common since yesterday, when it became apparent that I had breached military byelaw 4(13). [/i]On reading and re-reading this byelaw, I can’t say I’m yet entirely clear about how I’ve breached this, but I’m taking them at their word, and certainly the military police were perfectly serious about finding me and arresting me. I do wish to extend my apologies to the lady with a cocker spaniel who matched my description, who had some tricky questions to answer this morning.

What did distress me is that I seem to have dropped some of the site crew right in it. This really does upset me, because everyone I’ve spoken to on-site has been absolutely lovely, and I’ve greatly enjoyed having chats with them. I certainly wasn’t trying to get anyone into trouble, nor was I doing anything deliberately surreptitious (except maybe sneaking a bit close to the chapel on Weds, by which time the headstones were already long gone). I have been genuinely enthralled by the development of the set, and the incredible skill displayed therein. I love taking photographs of beautiful things, and, to me, the creation of this fake reality was an amazing thing to witness.

I think I got a bit carried away with the excitement of it all and the enthusiasm of the Bond fans wanting more detail. I didn’t properly consider the fact that the people who were telling me these fascinating titbits were not expecting them to reach such a wide audience. I didn’t expect such a wide audience either! I am genuinely very sorry if I got anyone into trouble. In my opinion, no-one behaved remotely improperly and I’d be most upset if they suffered repercussions due to me sharing stuff on here that was common gossip amongst the Elstead locals and dog walkers.

The upshot of this morning’s events is that I certainly will not be taking any more photographs of the set, nor will I be divulging any more information about the filming or what that indicates about the plot. I have to say that this resulted in me almost chewing my fingers off with frustration over what I saw them filming at the lodge today. Oh my, I can’t tell you how much I want to share the details of what we were all watching through our binoculars!!
(she knows what's going on but won't say anymore!!!)
Anyhowdyhoo, you poor deprived Bond fans, you’ll just have to be content with some older pictures that I took of the set, and some pictures of SHOCK HORROR… NATURE! which was, after all, what my blog was supposed to be in the first place. I must say I’ve had enormous fun doing this blog and riding the unexpected wave of enthusiasm that resulted from the Skyfall stuff. I’d like to say a fond goodbye to y’all, and I hope that just a wee handful of you might continue to visit for pictures and explanations of the stunning beauty we find all around us.

I will include some pictures with this post, and edit it a bit, but mainly I just wanted to get this up there as an apology to anyone I dropped in it with my over enthusiasm.

http://theforagingphotographer.wordpress.com/