Silva's island lair...

do we have a thread for locations?
I don't know
anyhoo…

"Hashima Island, commonly called Gunkanjima meaning Battleship Island), is one among 505 uninhabited islands in the Nagasaki Prefecture about 15 kilometers (9 miles) from Nagasaki itself.

The island was populated from 1887 to 1974 as a coal mining facility. The island's most notable features are the abandoned and undisturbed concrete apartment buildings and the surrounding sea wall.

It is known for its coal mines and their operation during the industrialization of Japan. Mitsubishi bought the island in 1890 and began the project, the aim of which was retrieving coal from undersea mines. They built Japan's first large concrete building (9 stories high), a block of apartments in 1916 to accommodate their burgeoning ranks of workers. Concrete was specifically used to protect against typhoon destruction. In 1959, the 6.3-hectare (16-acre) island's population reached its peak of 5,259, with a population density of 835 people per hectare (83,500 people/km2, 216,264 people per square mile) for the whole island, or 1,391 per hectare (139,100 people/km2) for the residential district.

As petroleum replaced coal in Japan in the 1960s, coal mines began shutting down all over the country, and Hashima's mines were no exception. Mitsubishi officially announced the closing of the mine in 1974, and today it is empty and bare, which is why it is called Ghost Island. Travel to Hashima was re-opened on April 22, 2009 after 35 years of closure."
(thanks wikipedia)

Quote :

FJI: One of the elements, certainly, is exotic locales, and one of the most arresting here is the ghost-like, abandoned Hashima Island, off Nagasaki, Japan, with its crumbling concrete buildings. What did it feel like, stepping onto it, shooting there?
SM: (smiling) That's not the real island; that's based on the island.

FJI: That was a set?
SM: Yeah. Set and computer-generated.

FJI: Wow.
SM: I know. (smiling) Fooled you! We built the street and the courtyard and then we created the rest. The basis for the movie is "Make everything real and then supplement it with visual effects, but don't create anything from scratch." So you felt it was real and in a sense it was real because it's three-dimensional.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/movies/e3i181dbc6afbbcf91d02fec26e3496d7c8

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

FJI: One of the elements, certainly, is exotic locales, and one of the most arresting here is the ghost-like, abandoned Hashima Island, off Nagasaki, Japan, with its crumbling concrete buildings. What did it feel like, stepping onto it, shooting there?
SM: (smiling) That's not the real island; that's based on the island.

FJI: That was a set?
SM: Yeah. Set and computer-generated.

FJI: Wow.
SM: I know. (smiling) Fooled you! We built the street and the courtyard and then we created the rest. The basis for the movie is "Make everything real and then supplement it with visual effects, but don't create anything from scratch." So you felt it was real and in a sense it was real because it's three-dimensional.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/movies/e3i181dbc6afbbcf91d02fec26e3496d7c8

yeah, I've read that, but this is the island it's based on, which is a real place, not just conjured from someones imagination

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

FJI: One of the elements, certainly, is exotic locales, and one of the most arresting here is the ghost-like, abandoned Hashima Island, off Nagasaki, Japan, with its crumbling concrete buildings. What did it feel like, stepping onto it, shooting there?
SM: (smiling) That's not the real island; that's based on the island.

FJI: That was a set?
SM: Yeah. Set and computer-generated.

FJI: Wow.
SM: I know. (smiling) Fooled you! We built the street and the courtyard and then we created the rest. The basis for the movie is "Make everything real and then supplement it with visual effects, but don't create anything from scratch." So you felt it was real and in a sense it was real because it's three-dimensional.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/movies/e3i181dbc6afbbcf91d02fec26e3496d7c8

Bloody hell.

Was anything actually shot in Turkey, Shanghai and Macao?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

FJI: One of the elements, certainly, is exotic locales, and one of the most arresting here is the ghost-like, abandoned Hashima Island, off Nagasaki, Japan, with its crumbling concrete buildings. What did it feel like, stepping onto it, shooting there?
SM: (smiling) That's not the real island; that's based on the island.

FJI: That was a set?
SM: Yeah. Set and computer-generated.

FJI: Wow.
SM: I know. (smiling) Fooled you! We built the street and the courtyard and then we created the rest. The basis for the movie is "Make everything real and then supplement it with visual effects, but don't create anything from scratch." So you felt it was real and in a sense it was real because it's three-dimensional.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/movies/e3i181dbc6afbbcf91d02fec26e3496d7c8

Bloody hell.

Was anything actually shot in Turkey, Shanghai and Macao?

You know the answer to that, but for those who didn't follow the filming as closely as we did: the main cast and director filmed on location in Turkey and Scotland, but as far as I can tell, Craig never actually traveled to China. A second-unit did some filming in China, then used visual trickery to make us think Craig was there.

But here's what bothers me about the use of China: they don't really use it. I've been to China. Beautiful, exotic country. Full of ambiance and stories to tell. And while I have every reason to believe that the Shanghai part of the film was cut down to second-unit work in order to save on the budget, my question would be: why bother? Why is China in the film at all if you can't literally go there and not fake it on a sound stage? There's nothing integral to the plot that requires China be included above other cities that haven't been used before. My suspicion is that SONY wanted Shanghai and Macao in the film for the same reasons that MGM wanted Hamburg in TND: local box office revenues. By securing permission to film in Shanghai, SONY ensures that China WILL release the film for its people to see, and since there should be no political objections to the movie, SF is all but guaranteed to make Big Money In Little China. Just like MGM saw that Germany was the second biggest market for GOLDENEYE behind the U.S.

Having said that, you would have thought SONY could have gotten some kind of budget concessions from China that would have enabled the entire cast to film *on location*. To the untrained, lazy movie consumer who doesn't follow every detail of the process like us Bond geeks, they'll never realize Craig didn't actually go to Shanghai. But I do, and I'm disappointed.

"The original idea was to shoot it on location in Shanghai but you couldn't find a place with that kind of light source, so Dennis and I talked about doing it on stage with big LED signs so that we could control it and that's how it evolved. But it's based on that look of Shanghai." -- Roger Deakins

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/immersed-in-movies-cinematographer-deakins-talks-skyfall

This is a joke, the whole island looks like a bad video game CGI

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But here's what bothers me about the use of China: they don't really use it. I've been to China. Beautiful, exotic country. Full of ambiance and stories to tell. And while I have every reason to believe that the Shanghai part of the film was cut down to second-unit work in order to save on the budget, my question would be: why bother? Why is China in the film at all if you can't literally go there and not fake it on a sound stage? There's nothing integral to the plot that requires China be included above other cities that haven't been used before.

Sure, but locations in modern Bond films (whether "real" locations or not) tend to be mere backdrops to action scenes that might as well be taking place anywhere else on the planet. Even if Craig and co. had gone to Shanghai to shoot those scenes, I suspect that the result onscreen would have been pretty much the same as what we ended up getting anyway. It would certainly have been more "authentic", but I doubt that it would have really shown or told us more to any worthwhile degree.

The days of a Bond film brimming with that wonderful old-time travelogue feel that gives the viewer a real sense of being taken on an exotic journey and somehow getting close, if only for a few minutes, to a country and its culture.... well, those days seem sadly gone. I'll be (very pleasantly) surprised if there's ever again a Bond film that gives us a flavour of Japan like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, of Bangkok like THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, of Rio like MOONRAKER....

All of which said, though, the Shanghai sequence is one of my favourite parts of SKYFALL, and I think it does quite accurately and atmospherically convey the glitzy, fast-paced, business-driven, hi-tech, extravagant vibe of the place. Having been there I'd say that it captures "new Shanghai" pretty well - if it was actually mostly mocked up in England, well, that's even more of an achievement.

The island looked vaguely imposing, Alcatraz like, as the Chimera sails to it. It's CGI-ness wasn't too much of a distraction.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Was anything actually shot in Turkey, Shanghai and Macao?

2nd unit shot plates and stuntfolks at all those locations, but the main unit only went to Turkey.

The rest is sort of a high-class version of an old SAINT episode in that it is all UK studios and then the Scotland stuff.

I liked all the locations in Skyfall. My main gripe with Silva's island though is how underused it is. We know they filmed an additional chase sequence that wasn't included in the final film. That was too bad. Silva's capture was a fine moment with the Bond theme and all, but it looked way too easy.

GeneralGogol wrote:

We know they filmed an additional chase sequence that wasn't included in the final film.

They never filmed it.

Loomis wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But here's what bothers me about the use of China: they don't really use it. I've been to China. Beautiful, exotic country. Full of ambiance and stories to tell. And while I have every reason to believe that the Shanghai part of the film was cut down to second-unit work in order to save on the budget, my question would be: why bother? Why is China in the film at all if you can't literally go there and not fake it on a sound stage? There's nothing integral to the plot that requires China be included above other cities that haven't been used before.

Sure, but locations in modern Bond films (whether "real" locations or not) tend to be mere backdrops to action scenes that might as well be taking place anywhere else on the planet. Even if Craig and co. had gone to Shanghai to shoot those scenes, I suspect that the result onscreen would have been pretty much the same as what we ended up getting anyway. It would certainly have been more "authentic", but I doubt that it would have really shown or told us more to any worthwhile degree.

The days of a Bond film brimming with that wonderful old-time travelogue feel that gives the viewer a real sense of being taken on an exotic journey and somehow getting close, if only for a few minutes, to a country and its culture.... well, those days seem sadly gone. I'll be (very pleasantly) surprised if there's ever again a Bond film that gives us a flavour of Japan like YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, of Bangkok like THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, of Rio like MOONRAKER....

All of which said, though, the Shanghai sequence is one of my favourite parts of SKYFALL, and I think it does quite accurately and atmospherically convey the glitzy, fast-paced, business-driven, hi-tech, extravagant vibe of the place. Having been there I'd say that it captures "new Shanghai" pretty well - if it was actually mostly mocked up in England, well, that's even more of an achievement.

I agree and disagree with this. Bond still travels to marvelous, exotic and beautiful locales, but there seems to be less emphasis on the local color. There's no Junkanoo (TB), Holy Night celebration (OHMSS), street wakes (LALD), Carnival (MR), native dancing (FYEO), Palio (QoS) in SF to be sure. And this is a dying Bondian tradition that should be revived, IMO.

All of that depends on the locale. i.e. you're not going to find any quaint local customs in Uptown Shanghai.

Largo's Shark wrote:

All of that depends on the locale. i.e. you're not going to find any quaint local customs in Uptown Shanghai.

But you very well may in Turkey, Scotland or possibly even Macao. It's not as if festivals, carnivals, etc. cease at the city gates. Rather the opposite in many instances.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

All of that depends on the locale. i.e. you're not going to find any quaint local customs in Uptown Shanghai.

But you very well may in Turkey, Scotland or possibly even Macao. It's not as if festivals, carnivals, etc. cease at the city gates. Rather the opposite in many instances.

The blue swimmers were bad enough, we don't need to see Craig in a kilt! :)

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But here's what bothers me about the use of China: they don't really use it. I've been to China. Beautiful, exotic country. Full of ambiance and stories to tell. And while I have every reason to believe that the Shanghai part of the film was cut down to second-unit work in order to save on the budget, my question would be: why bother? Why is China in the film at all if you can't literally go there and not fake it on a sound stage? There's nothing integral to the plot that requires China be included above other cities that haven't been used before.

One of the video blogs showed the location scouts going out into the local countryside - they were all marching through this giant archway - so it appears that there was some content that was to be shot in China, but got cut.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Having said that, you would have thought SONY could have gotten some kind of budget concessions from China that would have enabled the entire cast to film *on location*.

Maybe, but budget concessions could have come with strings attached. LICENCE TO KILL was originally planned to shoot in China, but the Chinese government objected to its premise and wanted some control over the script so that they could decide what was appropriate to be shown and what was not. That might have been twenty-odd years ago, but the Indians tried to do it with SKYFALL; the pre-title sequence was originally going to be set and shot in Mumbai, but the Indian government blocked filming wherever they could to try and get a better deal out of it. EON picked out a section of train tracks for the chase sequence, and the government agreed to let them shoot everywhere except for a small bridge, which they closed for "security reasons". They then suggested that the train could have INDIAN RAILWAYS featured prominently on it and in shot, and that Daniel Craig could become a spokesperson for the company, and dropped hints that if EON agreed, they would review the shooting permits for the bridge. They kept trying to squeeze EON into a position where they could use the film to promote India, and in the end, EON simply got fed up and went to Turkey instead.

So if EON or Sony tried to get budget concessions out of the Chinese, it's plausible - if not probable - that the Chinese would have asked for (or demanded) the ability to influence production on a certain level. I suspect that the final cut of the film shows as much of Shanghai as EON could manage before being obligated to hand over increasing amounts of creative control to a bureaucrat in Beijing "for the purposes of accuratly portraying the Peoples' Republic of China".

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I agree and disagree with this. Bond still travels to marvelous, exotic and beautiful locales, but there seems to be less emphasis on the local color. There's no Junkanoo (TB), Holy Night celebration (OHMSS), street wakes (LALD), Carnival (MR), native dancing (FYEO), Palio (QoS) in SF to be sure. And this is a dying Bondian tradition that should be revived, IMO.

Just be careful about it, because you can easily fall into the midless trap that was DaltonCraig's logic, whereby Bond only ever visits exotic locations, soaks up the local culture and beds beautiful local women, essentially turning the films into two-hour advertisements for foreign holiday destinations.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But here's what bothers me about the use of China: they don't really use it. I've been to China. Beautiful, exotic country. Full of ambiance and stories to tell. And while I have every reason to believe that the Shanghai part of the film was cut down to second-unit work in order to save on the budget, my question would be: why bother? Why is China in the film at all if you can't literally go there and not fake it on a sound stage? There's nothing integral to the plot that requires China be included above other cities that haven't been used before.

One of the video blogs showed the location scouts going out into the local countryside - they were all marching through this giant archway - so it appears that there was some content that was to be shot in China, but got cut.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Having said that, you would have thought SONY could have gotten some kind of budget concessions from China that would have enabled the entire cast to film *on location*.

Maybe, but budget concessions could have come with strings attached. LICENCE TO KILL was originally planned to shoot in China, but the Chinese government objected to its premise and wanted some control over the script so that they could decide what was appropriate to be shown and what was not. That might have been twenty-odd years ago, but the Indians tried to do it with SKYFALL; the pre-title sequence was originally going to be set and shot in Mumbai, but the Indian government blocked filming wherever they could to try and get a better deal out of it. EON picked out a section of train tracks for the chase sequence, and the government agreed to let them shoot everywhere except for a small bridge, which they closed for "security reasons". They then suggested that the train could have INDIAN RAILWAYS featured prominently on it and in shot, and that Daniel Craig could become a spokesperson for the company, and dropped hints that if EON agreed, they would review the shooting permits for the bridge. They kept trying to squeeze EON into a position where they could use the film to promote India, and in the end, EON simply got fed up and went to Turkey instead.

So if EON or Sony tried to get budget concessions out of the Chinese, it's plausible - if not probable - that the Chinese would have asked for (or demanded) the ability to influence production on a certain level. I suspect that the final cut of the film shows as much of Shanghai as EON could manage before being obligated to hand over increasing amounts of creative control to a bureaucrat in Beijing "for the purposes of accuratly portraying the Peoples' Republic of China".

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I agree and disagree with this. Bond still travels to marvelous, exotic and beautiful locales, but there seems to be less emphasis on the local color. There's no Junkanoo (TB), Holy Night celebration (OHMSS), street wakes (LALD), Carnival (MR), native dancing (FYEO), Palio (QoS) in SF to be sure. And this is a dying Bondian tradition that should be revived, IMO.

Just be careful about it, because you can easily fall into the midless trap that was DaltonCraig's logic, whereby Bond only ever visits exotic locations, soaks up the local culture and beds beautiful local women, essentially turning the films into two-hour advertisements for foreign holiday destinations.

Which films fell into that trap, in your opinion?

oops

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Which films fell into that trap, in your opinion?

None of them. I was just pointing out the insane opinions of a former MI6 member who caused a hell of a lot of trouble. He believed that Bond films should be about visting exotic locations, soaking up the local culture, enjoying fine meals in restauants and bedding beautiful women. The plot, villains and characters weren't even secondary considerations - to DC007, they were the first things that could be axed because they were the least-essential parts of the Bond films.

None of the films actually did it, of course. I was just pointing out that there was a risk of it if you put too much value on showing the local culture in the films.

Apparently it was Daniel Craig who came up with Battleship Island.

Quote :

The History of Hashima, the Island in Bond Film “Skyfall”
By Clark Boyd ⋅ November 23, 2012



If you’ve seen the new James Bond film “Skyfall,” then you were probably struck by Javier Bardem’s portrayal of the villain, Raoul Silva. He’s a bad dude, and his evil island lair seems a fitting place for him — a rotting heap of buildings sitting out in the middle of the ocean, populated with derelict buildings. It’s so creepy, that you think it can’t be real.

But here’s the thing. The island is real. And its true history is even creepier than you can imagine.

The island is known as Hashima, or alternatively as Gunkanjima (“Battleship”) Island, and it sits about nine miles off the Japanese coast in the East China Sea.

In the late 1880s, coal was found on the sea floor beneath the island. In the early days, Japan’s Mitsubishi company, which was mining the coal, would ferry miners to and from the work site from Nagasaki.

Then, the company decided it would be easier to just build houses for the workers, and their families, on Hashima itself.

Giant, multi-storey concrete apartment blocks went up. Schools, bath houses, temples, restaurants, markets, even a graveyard, were built, all on a space the size of a football field.

“Once they reached 5,000 people or more out there, it was recognized as the most densely populated place on earth…ever,” says Thomas Nordanstad, a Swedish filmmaker.

A decade ago, Nordanstad and CM von Hausswolff became interested in Hashima’s history, and wanted to make a documentary about the island.

So the filmmakers went to Japan, but found that the Japanese weren’t interested in talking about it.

“We met a lot of embarrassment. We met a lot of hushed faces, a lot of people who would turn away as soon as we started speaking about the island, almost like it was a leper colony or something.”

Norandstad and Hausswolff eventually found someone to take them out to the island. The short film they made follows Doutoku Sakamato, whose family moved to Hashima when he was four.



HASHIMA, Japan, 2002 documentary version from Thomas Nordanstad on Vimeo.

In one scene, Sakamoto returns to the apartment where he lived with his family 30 years ago.

“My mother’s decorations are still up here,” Sakamoto says. A few seconds later, he finds the marks on the walls that recorded his sister’s height through the years.

Hashima, you see, is completely abandoned. The buildings are slowly falling down, worn away by the wind and the waves.

So, what happened?

“In 1974, the coal ran out,” says Thomas Nordanstad. “And the Mistubishi Company told the people that they would have some work for them on the mainland, provided on a first come, first served basis. And that’s why people left so quickly.”

“They left coffee cups on the tables, and bicycles leaning against the walls. And I think very few people had been back out there when we went there. It was practically untouched.”

The film follows Sakamoto as he finds a schoolhouse with the teachers’ names still written on the blackboard.

Sakamoto reflects on the people who once lived there and risked their lives in the mines below.

“It’s like the souls of the dead linger on down here,” Sakamoto says. “So many people who died, so unnecessarily…but these are things I probably shouldn’t talk about.”

The documentary is now a decade old. But two years ago something strange happened.

Actor Daniel Craig, who plays Bond, was in Stockholm shooting a different movie. He was staying at a hotel where one of Nordanstad and von Hausswolff’s pictures of Hashima was hanging on the wall.

Nordanstad remembers being introduced to Craig at some event.

“He leaned back with the typical kind of raised Bondian eyebrow, and I told him the story of Hashima, and he noted everything down. For a while, I thought he was going to buy the Hashima piece, but he didn’t. And two years later, the movie came out.”

Skyfall only features external shots of Hashima. The scenes on the island were actually shot in a studio.

That’s because Japanese officials don’t allow anyone to set foot on the island itself.

But lately, interest in Hashima as a grisly tourist site has grown. A boardwalk has been built around half the island, but that’s about as close as you can get.

Meanwhile, Doutoku Sakamoto wants the island to be recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But South Korea objects, because the Japanese allegedly used Koreans as slave laborers on Hashima.

It’s yet another shameful chapter in the island’s history.

The place, says Thomas Nordanstad, is haunted.

“There are ghosts there for sure. And there is something not right about the place. For sure. There is nothing pretty about it. There’s nothing beautiful about it. The whole place is just death and decay.”

http://www.theworld.org/2012/11/the-history-of-hashima-the-island-in-bond-film-skyfall/

very interesting, thanks for posting

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Which films fell into that trap, in your opinion?

None of them. I was just pointing out the insane opinions of a former MI6 member who caused a hell of a lot of trouble. He believed that Bond films should be about visting exotic locations, soaking up the local culture, enjoying fine meals in restauants and bedding beautiful women. The plot, villains and characters weren't even secondary considerations - to DC007, they were the first things that could be axed because they were the least-essential parts of the Bond films.

None of the films actually did it, of course. I was just pointing out that there was a risk of it if you put too much value on showing the local culture in the films.

Well, I certainly wouldn't mind the films putting more emphasis on "visting exotic locations, soaking up the local culture, enjoying fine meals in restauants and bedding beautiful women". I wouldn't even mind if those elements were pushed to the forefront. That's not to say that "the plot, villains and characters" are of no importance, though.

Maybe that would be fine in small doses. But DC007 wanted that to be the film's only focus, effectively turning Bond films into two-hour commercials for whatever ministry of tourism paid the most to EON.

DC007 doesn't know what he wants. He changes his mind about everything every couple of weeks about what a Bond film should be.