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

Gravity's Silhoutte wrote:

I dreamed I and another Bond fan were at the theater opening night for SKYFALL and the theater was only half full and then we got up and left because the movie was awful, people were leaving, people were screaming at the screen.....

... or the ending of Peter Bogdanovich's TARGETS, except with Lazenby. as the crazed sniper.

Sharky wrote:

Gravity's Silhoutte wrote:

I dreamed I and another Bond fan were at the theater opening night for SKYFALL and the theater was only half full and then we got up and left because the movie was awful, people were leaving, people were screaming at the screen.....

... or the ending of Peter Bogdanovich's TARGETS, except with Lazenby. as the crazed sniper.

Some of the details of the dream are nonsensical, so it's hard to say that I'm really dreaming of something that is going to happen (i.e. SKYFALL will be a commercial/critical failure). For example, the PTS involved some sort of space ship like an X-wing fighter either going after Bond or Bond was chasing it....then the credits featured no silhouetted women and what was up there on the screen was set to a country song. The dream was short and probably meant nothing...or it could be a foreboding sign that SKYFALL will not do well.

I'm going to try and go back into my dreams tonight, but this time I intend to be Clark Kent having a picnic with Lucy The Foraging Photographer as Lana Lang as we re-enact a scene from SUPERMAN III (possibly the only decent part of the movie).

And Lucy, if you happen to be reading this and want a green card to move to the United States, email me. You're just my type. Clean, fresh-faced, wholesome...how come I can't find brainy, beautiful, interesting women in some of these dives and bars that I've been searching in?

Napoleon Solo wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Meanwhile back at Pinewood...

That's a very sad, disturbing picture. What it tells me is that the production will not be going to China to film the Floating Dragon restaurant/casino scene.

That's consistent with how the first unit didn't go to Shanghai (while a second unit did).

They're not necessarily cheaping out. It could be all this stuff is going to blow up and therefore they need to duplicate it anyway, or just the amount of involvement (in time) on the sequence makes it dicey to accomplish on location (I'm thinking the GoldenEye tank chase, which is what, 70% Leavesden and MAYBE 30% Russia?)

150 mil is still a lot of money, especially for a film that seems ... rather prosaic, based on what we've seen thus far. Of course, it could be that a third of that will go to overtime during postproduction (have a feeling that was the case on QoS, 900 vfx shots to do in just a couple months!), too bad the Bonds just can't have a decent amount of time in post (not that they ever have, really.)

If the 'floating casino' stuff still LOOKS like it was shot in Shanghai, I couldn't give a shit if it actually wasn't ... much like I don't care that the tank chase in GE wasn't actually shot in the streets of St Petersburg.

Fucking hell, those dragons look like cheap inflatable filth, more belonging of Brian Potter's botched kiddies funfair on Phoenix Nights than a multi-million dollar movie prouction.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

I hope this is a real stunt and not CGI bullshit. Sure, a safety wire can be edited out, but just don't make the entire scene look hopelessly fake.

If the jumpy-jumpy shit in CR and QOS are any indicators, then the stunt will be ridiculously un-doable and look fake because they've just cheated again by swinging stuff/people on wires before CGI-ing said wires out. As in TWINE, this silly stuff will sit awkwardly with the "serious" intentions elsewhere in the film.

jet set willy wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

That's a very sad, disturbing picture. What it tells me is that the production will not be going to China to film the Floating Dragon restaurant/casino scene.

Of course not, on the bargain basement super saver budget that EON has for Skyfall, despite Mickey's claims otherwise that money will be no object.

Looks like recession hits all walks of life, including the Mickey & Babs Show.

Or - and this is a crazy idea - despite the scene calling for a floating casino and restaurant, there are no floating casinos and restaurants in China. In which case production would be forced to build their own version at Pinewood. After all, it's very difficult to shoot a scene in a location that does not exist.

Alternatively, this may be a set for a Chinese village; I recall reading somewhere that a small town had appeared on the Pinewood backlot. The Chinese may have refused filming permissions after all.

Either way, there is no proof of the rumoured budget cuts, except for the usual sensationalised tabloid trash and what I like to call the Lewis Hamilton Effect: the British tabloids seem to like nothing more than taking a British sporting or cultural instiution and building them up just so that they can brutally cut it down, because they know that negativity sells more papers than something actually representative of the truth. That's why they said "India is out, China is out, Bali is out and Bognor Regis is in" - because by making SKYFALL out to be a trainwreck in the making, they'll get more sales. It is a phenomenon that seems curiously endemic to Great Britain; most tabloids like to make out that their sports stars or film productions or cultural icons are doing better than they actually are (case in point, the hype surrounding Ian Thorpe's disastrous Olympic comeback), rather than the other way around.

And you're all idiots for believing what you read in the tabloids. Doubly so when you know perfectly well that they will twist and sensationalise anything for the sake of more sales.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And you're all idiots for believing what you read in the tabloids. Doubly so when you know perfectly well that they will twist and sensationalise anything for the sake of more sales.

Gawd, if you take things so seriously you might give yourself a nose-bleed. No need to call us names.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

[quote="j
And you're all idiots for believing what you read in the tabloids. Doubly so when you know perfectly well that they will twist and sensationalise anything for the sake of more sales.

Here is some of what the tabloids reported:

1. Ralph Fiennes would be in the cast (Daily Mail)

2. Albert Finney would be in the cast (Daily Mail).

3. Naomie Harris was negotiating to be in the cast (News of the World)

4. Bond would have a beard for part of the movie (Sun)

Now, they've also Harris's character, Eve, would emerge as the new Moneypenny and that hasn't panned out. And the reason the News of the World is no longer with us is because of the hacking scandal in the U.K., which I believe the Sun has also been implicated in. They're sensationalistic, etc. Still, some of what they've reported has panned out. Maybe they paid people for the information. Maybe they got it in some other unethical way.

I know what's coming next: "They just made it up. There's no way they could have *really* known. It's not official until they have a press conference or until it's in a press release." Whatever.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

I know what's coming next: "They just made it up. There's no way they could have *really* known. It's not official until they have a press conference or until it's in a press release." Whatever.

Sorry, but that's a swing and a miss.

This is why I call what the tabloids do the "Lewis Hamilton Effect": last year, Lewis Hamilton - a racing driver - had a really bad season. Something was clearly wrong, and by his own admission, he lacked focus. After one particularly average race (in which he crashed into his own team-mate and retired while said team-mate went on to win), he was spotted talking to the boss of Red Bull, the best team in the sport. To start with, the tabloids began talking up the idea of Hamilton going to Red Bull. They were dominating everything, and so racing for them would give Hamilton a near-perfect car. But the tabloids weren't looking out for Lewis Hamilton. No, he was mired in the middle of whatever it was that was distracting him, and the tabloids knew it. They were building up all this hype about going to the best team, because they knew that when Hamilton had another bad race (and he did), they could follow up with the headling YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DRIVE FOR RED BULL IF YOU RACE LIKE THAT, LEWIS!. Which they pretty much did, but not in as many words. They kept dragging him down, and he let it get to him, which only made his season worse, which gave the tabloids more ammunition to drag him down further.

Now, they've done it with SKYFALL. To start with, they started getting all these little exclusives, and implying that they knew more than they actually did (Baz Bamigboye's comments about "having to take a pill to forget what he knew" about Ralph Fiennes' character clearly meant "my source has nothing, but it's a gaping hole in my reporting, so I'll make something up that implies I know something more"). And then, when it was all announced and The Daily Mail was proven right, they dropped their bombshell: BUDGET SLASHED! ALL INTERNATIONAL SHOOTING CANCELLED! BOGNOR REGIS IN!. Now, there was some truth to what they said. For one, they named India as a shooting location that had been axed - but India was axed two months before the November press conference, and all the scenes moved to Turkey. And secondly, the first six weeks of shooting had taken place in London and at Pinewood; there was no international shooting because filming hadn't gotten to it yet. But when people looked back on production and saw that there had been no international shooting, then combined with the paper's exclusives about the cast, it was believable. If the tabloids were right about the cast, why would they be wrong about the shooting and the budget, even with a total lack of evidence to support it? This is what tabloids do: they sell the big lies with small truths. They build something up, only so they can tear it down and watch it fall further than it normally would. It's the Lewis Hamilton Effect, and we've seen how they do it with every Bond film (even though Bond films pre-date Lewis Hamilton, it wasn't until Hamilton's poor season that I worked out exactly what the tabloids were doing, and hence my theory is named for him).

The tabloids don't use their sources or their journalistic "integrity" to report the news. They use them to build up some credibility on the subject, so that when they go for the big, sensationalistic lies, people are willing to believe them.

Personally I think the most reliable source for Skyfall reporting is Gravity's Silhouette's dreams.

There are 5 good looking Skyfall Surrey pics here in the "James Bond Skyfall" set. Nothing very new but they are nice looking photos.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49496659@N08/6846849776/in/set-72157629246460090/



Fellow bloggers, gather outside Skyfall grounds to protest the "arrest" of the Foraging Photographer.

Or maybe they are just wondering, WTF is that deer doing here!?




==
Eon finally gets around to hiding the DB5 on set at Surrey. Better late than never.

I hear the Foraging Photographer still managed to take it for a spin, and put it back without Eon knowing. More Bond family headstones were found in the boot.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

I know what's coming next: "They just made it up. There's no way they could have *really* known. It's not official until they have a press conference or until it's in a press release." Whatever.

Sorry, but that's a swing and a miss.

The tabloids don't use their sources or their journalistic "integrity" to report the news. They use them to build up some credibility on the subject, so that when they go for the big, sensationalistic lies, people are willing to believe them.

It's not really just the tabloids that tend to do this. You're actually getting closer to describing the British mentality there.

We have a tendancy to build people up when they are down, but heaven forbid, once they get too far up, quickly knock them down a few pegs.

Well, I can only go by what I know. Down here, we get the polar opposite of the Lewis Hamilton Effect - the Mark Webber Effect, which is where the Australian press take a sporting or cultural institute and hype them up beyond all reasonable belief. If Webber was blind in one eye, missing a wheel, three laps down and drunk, the media would still tell us that he was having a good race and that victory was within sight. They did it with Ian Thorpe's Olympic comeback, too - he clearly wasn't ready for it, but for two weeks we got nothing more than "Ian Thorpe, Ian Thorpe!", so there was massive pressure and expectations when he went to the Olympic trials, and when he failed, the commentators were all devastated about it, blithely ignoring the way that expecations were so high because they had hyped Thorpe up. See also Jana Pittman, a hurdler who did her knee in shortly after qualifying for the Athens games. All we heard about was "Australia's favourite knee" and the commentators behaved as if Australia had been robbed of a gold medal and a World Record, but when you looked at Pittman's personal best, she wouldn't have even made it out of the heats, much less win the final.

Another good Skyfall Lodge blogger. Lots of new pics with descriptions. The explosions have started.

The Free-the-Foraging-Photographer (Lucy) protest has grown too.











http://usinuk.co.uk/blog/archives/6975

The other side of the skyfall chapel. The side we don't see apparently.

New Skyfall Lodge Chopper "action" and other aerial shots.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Napoleon Solo wrote:

I know what's coming next: "They just made it up. There's no way they could have *really* known. It's not official until they have a press conference or until it's in a press release." Whatever.

Sorry, but that's a swing and a miss.

(snip)

Now, they've done it with SKYFALL. To start with, they started getting all these little exclusives, and implying that they knew more than they actually did (Baz Bamigboye's comments about "having to take a pill to forget what he knew" about Ralph Fiennes' character clearly meant "my source has nothing, but it's a gaping hole in my reporting, so I'll make something up that implies I know something more"). And then, when it was all announced and The Daily Mail was proven right, they dropped their bombshell: BUDGET SLASHED! ALL INTERNATIONAL SHOOTING CANCELLED! BOGNOR REGIS IN!. Now, there was some truth to what they said. For one, they named India as a shooting location that had been axed - but India was axed two months before the November press conference, and all the scenes moved to Turkey. And secondly, the first six weeks of shooting had taken place in London and at Pinewood; there was no international shooting because filming hadn't gotten to it yet. But when people looked back on production and saw that there had been no international shooting, then combined with the paper's exclusives about the cast, it was believable. If the tabloids were right about the cast, why would they be wrong about the shooting and the budget, even with a total lack of evidence to support it? This is what tabloids do: they sell the big lies with small truths. They build something up, only so they can tear it down and watch it fall further than it normally would. It's the Lewis Hamilton Effect, and we've seen how they do it with every Bond film (even though Bond films pre-date Lewis Hamilton, it wasn't until Hamilton's poor season that I worked out exactly what the tabloids were doing, and hence my theory is named for him).

The tabloids don't use their sources or their journalistic "integrity" to report the news. They use them to build up some credibility on the subject, so that when they go for the big, sensationalistic lies, people are willing to believe them.

One problem with this theory: the notion that Skyfall's budget had been reduced first surfaced with the Sunday Times, a broadsheet (owned by Murdoch, yes, but a broadsheet) last year. It was the story that said Sony and MGM wanted to raise one-third of Skyfall's budget, $45 million, with product placement deals. The story (at least the version of the story I read on The Australian's Web site) didn't give a total budget. But $45 millon times three equals $135 million Later, the $135 million figure was used by newspapers in India when Skyfall was doing location scouting there before canceling.

The tabloids picked up on it later. Whether it's the big lie, remains to be seen. But the notion that Skyfall's budget was cut existed before the tabloid stories. That's why the question was asked at the press conference and Broccoli and Wilson denied it. Later, at a public appearance, Naomie Harris made the comment how Skyfall wasn't that big on foreign locations. Direct contradiction? Maybe, maybe not.

Now, if the budget turns out to be $200 million, that would still be a cut of more than 10 percent from Quantum of Solace's budget ($230 million). If it turns out to be $150 million, that's stll a big budget.

EDIT: Correcting math to say $135 million, based on the Sunday Times story.

Here are there links:
Original Sunday Times story as it appeared in The Australian in May 2011:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/more-than-a-word-from-007s-sponsors/story-e6frg6so-1226047962752

Times of India story in August, uses $135 million figure as budget, doesn't say where it got that number from:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-27/ahmedabad/29935907_1_ahmedabad-railway-bond-23

The Sun (first U.K. tabloid to touch the subject), October story about Craig having a beard, references budget cuts, no details:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/3885253/Daniel-Craig-to-be-James-Beard.html


The Mirror, January, story actually centered on budget cuts:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/tv-film-news/james-bond-on-a-budget-skyfall-being-159456


So this means the issue of Skyfall's budget had been out there (not necessarily as the main subject of articles) has been out there for 10 months, five months before the tabloids touched first it.

Napoleon Solo wrote:

Now, if the budget turns out to be $200 million, that would still be a cut of more than 10 percent from Quantum of Solace's budget ($230 million). If it turns out to be $150 million, that's stll a big budget.

MI4 was done on a budget of $145m...which included excellent action pieces and real exotic locations and over 2 hours of movie. It has grossed almost 700m worIdwide according to Box Office Mojo and has set the bar higher for the spy genre. I don't see why Bond's budget has to climb past $200m, especially if you're not seeing where that money is being used. I'd be extremely disappointed if I invested $230m in Solace and got that shoddy standard of CGI as well as other overall letdowns in that film. For one, Bond used to set the standard for car chases...now I have to look at Fast Five for a thrilling car sequence.

Lazenby. wrote:

Fucking hell, those dragons look like cheap inflatable filth, more belonging of Brian Potter's botched kiddies funfair on Phoenix Nights than a multi-million dollar movie prouction.

All aboard the SkYFALL cruise liner...

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

That's a very sad, disturbing picture. What it tells me is that the production will not be going to China to film the Floating Dragon restaurant/casino scene.

Of course not, on the bargain basement super saver budget that EON has for Skyfall, despite Mickey's claims otherwise that money will be no object.

Looks like recession hits all walks of life, including the Mickey & Babs Show.

Or - and this is a crazy idea - despite the scene calling for a floating casino and restaurant, there are no floating casinos and restaurants in China. In which case production would be forced to build their own version at Pinewood. After all, it's very difficult to shoot a scene in a location that does not exist.

Alternatively, this may be a set for a Chinese village; I recall reading somewhere that a small town had appeared on the Pinewood backlot. The Chinese may have refused filming permissions after all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Bond films have always shot interiors and certain other scenes in the U.K. that double for overseas locations, even when the production has also shot footage in said overseas locations.

Case in point: YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Much of it was shot in Japan, but some bits that were set in Japan were not. (Remember Helga Brandt bailing out over that quintessentially English countryside? And doubtless a fair few of the Japan-set interiors were filmed at Pinewood.)

I mean, what's the damn problem, people?

Globe hopping for real wasted a good proportion of QoS' budget on an element that we really got very little retrun for, imo we should be relieved they are reviewing the wisdom of where and when they spend money.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

you're all idiots

I'm proposing a boycott of Prisoner Monkeys. Don't delete his account, because I don't agree with that sort of thing either. Just wanted to put it out there that I'm not blind or deaf; there's nothing wrong with my computer. I'm simply ignoring him from this point forward. I see no reason to legitimize his behavior. I got that kind of crap from people like Mr.Blofeld over at CBn and I'm not going to deal with it over here.

Anybody else want to join my boycott?

Harmsway wrote:

Where have I called anyone an idiot on this board? Please, enlighten us!

I retract my photo-comment and apologize. In my memory, I had misattributed some of Ambler's more belligerent quotes to you.

Loomis wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

That's a very sad, disturbing picture. What it tells me is that the production will not be going to China to film the Floating Dragon restaurant/casino scene.

Of course not, on the bargain basement super saver budget that EON has for Skyfall, despite Mickey's claims otherwise that money will be no object.

Looks like recession hits all walks of life, including the Mickey & Babs Show.

Or - and this is a crazy idea - despite the scene calling for a floating casino and restaurant, there are no floating casinos and restaurants in China. In which case production would be forced to build their own version at Pinewood. After all, it's very difficult to shoot a scene in a location that does not exist.

Alternatively, this may be a set for a Chinese village; I recall reading somewhere that a small town had appeared on the Pinewood backlot. The Chinese may have refused filming permissions after all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the Bond films have always shot interiors and certain other scenes in the U.K. that double for overseas locations, even when the production has also shot footage in said overseas locations.

Case in point: YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Much of it was shot in Japan, but some bits that were set in Japan were not. (Remember Helga Brandt bailing out over that quintessentially English countryside? And doubtless a fair few of the Japan-set interiors were filmed at Pinewood.)

I mean, what's the damn problem, people?

As Prisoner Monkeys said, fans need something to bitch about.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=447&GalleryID=471&gpid=1