Italian authorities are really EFFING up this film

First they were bitching about a car chase, now they want to axe the sequence with the bridge. Concern about disturbing ghosts of all fucking things.

Thing is, all of this was supposed to be agreed to months ago, hence all the preparations.

The about turn is really fucking disgusting...I'd think twice about going there again.

Italians are notoriously slow and bureaucratic - just look at their creaky justice system. It's just one of those things that the Bond team faces to greater or lesser extents with every film I imagine. Nothing to get unduly worried about.

Are the latest rounds of rumors actually substantiated? I wrote the "ghost" stuff off as tabloid fodder.

bitchcraft wrote:

First they were bitching about a car chase, now they want to axe the sequence with the bridge. Concern about disturbing ghosts of all fucking things.

Thing is, all of this was supposed to be agreed to months ago, hence all the preparations.

The about turn is really fucking disgusting...I'd think twice about going there again.

I share your concerns, but I also suspect that in 10 more months, this car chase will be the least of our probrems, and we'll look back fondly at this time and wish our biggest regret was that we didn't get to film a chase sequence on a historic bridge. Because once SPECTURD comes out and everyone gets a chance to see how they really effed up Blofeld and the whole Bond/daddy issues subplot, people will be waxing nostalgic for the days of Roger Moore and A VIEW TO A KILL.

I think that we should at least wait to see the film before voicing any criticisms.

Harmsway wrote:

Are the latest rounds of rumors actually substantiated? I wrote the "ghost" stuff off as tabloid fodder.

We'll know for sure when the crew gets there in early March. In the meantime, these kind of reports still really blow.

Staugust wrote:

I think that we should at least wait to see the film before voicing any criticisms.

Where's teh fun in that? I'm proactive. I like to go ahead and slag off onreview a film I've yet to see and is still 10 months away from being released. It'll save me in time in November. While everyone else is pounding out eloquent, 1800 word essays, I can just say: "Told you so" and be done.

Staugust wrote:

Italians are notoriously slow and bureaucratic - just look at their creaky justice system. It's just one of those things that the Bond team faces to greater or lesser extents with every film I imagine. Nothing to get unduly worried about.

They had worse problems with the Indian authorities when the SKYFALL pre-titles were to be shot outside Mumbai. They would only grant filming permission for sections of the train tracks, and then try to negotiate a new deal for the parts they left out. At one point, they wanted Daniel Craig to be a spokesman for Indian Railways. Production had a simple solution to that - they went to Turkey and got all the permits straight away. I believe production of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE GHOST PROTOCOL had similar problems with India.

While I doubt something like that is an option here, I am sure EON will have no trouble with finding a solution.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Staugust wrote:

Italians are notoriously slow and bureaucratic - just look at their creaky justice system. It's just one of those things that the Bond team faces to greater or lesser extents with every film I imagine. Nothing to get unduly worried about.

They had worse problems with the Indian authorities when the SKYFALL pre-titles were to be shot outside Mumbai. They would only grant filming permission for sections of the train tracks, and then try to negotiate a new deal for the parts they left out. At one point, they wanted Daniel Craig to be a spokesman for Indian Railways. Production had a simple solution to that - they went to Turkey and got all the permits straight away. I believe production of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE GHOST PROTOCOL had similar problems with India.

While I doubt something like that is an option here, I am sure EON will have no trouble with finding a solution.

But ***WHAT*** have they gotten out of Italy exactly? Tax breaks? What is the lure of this country that causes this production to go back to the country for the 3rd time in the past 4 films and at least the 6th or 7th time overall? Was there no other place on this planet that this chase scene could not be filmed?

Bond has yet to visit:

Australia
Central or Southern Africa
Norway/Sweden/Finland/Iceland

And for all the money SKYFALL made, and the $350 million they are spending on this abortion of a film, you'd think we could at least be treated to a few new exotic locales....not retreads.

TLD got me interested in Tangiers and Morocco overall, but for the love of all things sacred and holy, why is it that every location in this movie has already been visited by Bond at least once before? Could we not have gone someplace else?

Like, actually going to China instead of fudging it on the backlot?

Bond's been to Iceland… Kind of. But I agree in that regard of seeing places we haven't seen like Denmark, Canada, Finland, etc. For SPECTRE, they were going to go to Norway but couldn't, and Rome hasn't been used in a Bond film yet.

Here's an article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/new-james-bond-movie-spectre-5037584

FieldsMan wrote:

Bond's been to Iceland… Kind of. But I agree in that regard of seeing places we haven't seen like Denmark, Canada, Finland, etc. For SPECTRE, they were going to go to Norway but couldn't, and Rome hasn't been used in a Bond film yet.

Yeah. "Kind of". Could EON not have used the airport or some sort of shot with Brosnan and Berry at an actual landmark in Iceland to establish that the characters were actually in Iceland, and not on the back lot of Pinewood?

The Craig films have actually been much better about using real locations and not faking it, but unfortunately most of the locations are places Bond has already been to.

Canada would have made a great location as well. I'm convinced that EON has lost all manner of location scouting and creativity; they're simply going back to the same well over and over.

FieldsMan wrote:

Here's an article:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/new-james-bond-movie-spectre-5037584

"The bridge is said to be haunted by the ghost of Donna Olimpia Pamphili, Pope Innocent X’s lover who crossed it each night on her way to his bed."

It's been 600 years. Bitch needs to move on and let this thing go. We've got a Bond film to make!

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But ***WHAT*** have they gotten out of Italy exactly? Tax breaks?

Monica Bellucci.

Quote :

What is the lure of this country that causes this production to go back to the country for the 3rd time in the past 4 films and at least the 6th or 7th time overall?

I don't think Bond films have an obligation to go to new countries every time. As much as I would love to see Bond come to Australia, I cannot think of a single good reason for him to come here - certainly not one that is unique to my country - unless his mission is to stop Japanese whaling vessels or interrupt people smugglers.

No doubt whatever is planned for Italy is something that, story-wise, can only happen in Italy. After all, Bellucci is playing an Italian character. I don't think anyone really wants to see cookie-cutter sequences that could happen anywhere, and so exist only yo showcase a particular city.

GS wrote:

I'm convinced that EON has lost all manner of location scouting and creativity; they're simply going back to the same well over and over.

Did you miss the part about them trying to use Norway, and the fact that Rome hasn't been used in a Bond film yet?

PM wrote:

As much as I would love to see Bond come to Australia, I cannot think of a single good reason for him to come here - certainly not one that is unique to my country

I used to be so against Bond coming down under, but now I've promoted it to it could work (but would much rather Canada, Scandinavia, The Seychelles, etc). The Melbourne Cup could be a nice backdrop and - AS LONG AS THE STORY PERMITS - could incorporate the horse race as well as gambling, heavy drinking and the dressed up dolls. Also something around Fed Square in Melbs, or Flinders Lane (which is Europe lite, but one of the more cultural lane ways in the city). Wouldn't want them to succumb to the stereotype kangaroos, BBQs and the Aussie outback if they were to visit.

Oh look at that, 'appy 'straya da--Oh look, a beer...

FieldsMan wrote:

Did you miss the part about them trying to use Norway, and the fact that Rome hasn't been used in a Bond film yet?  

No. They could have used Norway if they really wanted to; I think they were just being cheap and stingy. And while Rome may not have been featured in a Bond movie, Italy has: Spy, Moonraker, FYEO, CR, QOS, and SP. Plus if you count all the Bond novels.....

PM wrote:

As much as I would love to see Bond come to Australia, I cannot think of a single good reason for him to come here - certainly not one that is unique to my country

I used to be so against Bond coming down under, but now I've promoted it to it could work (but would much rather Canada, Scandinavia, The Seychelles, etc). The Melbourne Cup could be a nice backdrop and - AS LONG AS THE STORY PERMITS - could incorporate the horse race as well as gambling, heavy drinking and the dressed up dolls. Also something around Fed Square in Melbs, or Flinders Lane (which is Europe lite, but one of the more cultural lane ways in the city). Wouldn't want them to succumb to the stereotype kangaroos, BBQs and the Aussie outback if they were to visit.
[/quote]

TND's first half could have been located anywhere. So why Hamburg? Because GOLDENEYE made $57 million in Germany the year before (that was in 1996 dollars), making it the second largest market for Bond at the time (ironically, with the U.S. being the biggest market for the Brosnan films). *****THAT******** is why we went to Hamburg instead of....oh, Sydney? Atlanta? I mean, honestly, what media mogul was going to locate his world media headquarters to Hamburg? TND was meant to make a commentary about the media barons at the time (Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, etc..), yet you have a British media baron choosing........Hamburg?

Some of the best Bond films make the locale come alive and take advangate of the area; they make me want to go see the places that have been filmed. For example, I think LICENSE REVOKED got the feel of Key West down perfectly (about the only good thing the film did). On the other hand, did anybody really feel like they'd been to Scotland or Iceland with Bond?

So many good locations left and EON still refuses to use Vancouver, B.C., or Kenya, or Australia....wouldn't mind going back to Japan, or New Orleans...maybe visit Savannah, Georgia. Any number of new locations could be fitted around the story, but nooooooooooo....

When it comes to selecting locations, I think form should always follow function. Bond films are not simply travelogues; there is a story to be told, and the locations need to stay true to that. It would be easy enough to simply pick three countries off the top of your head - say Sri Lanka, Poland and Argentina - but I think doing so will result in a film that is a shadow of what it could be. And I have no objections to Bond visiting the same country several times. For example, if you look at France, Paris is very different to Lyons, which is in turn very different to Marseilles.

Once they have locations that fit the story, they need to find individual places that shoot well. When MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 filmed in Sydney, some of the locations - like the bunker on the island - filmed very well. But everything else was horrible; it looked like something filmed by Screen Queensland, but with a bigger budget.

Don't get me wrong; I think Sydney could work. There's a mish-mash of architectural styles, like the colonial-era Queen Victoria Building and the old Department of Education HQ, through to the steel-and-glass monoliths of AMP Tower and other skyscrapers. It's an unplanned city, one that simply grew as needed, so it's a real labyrinth in places.

I also think that the Outback could work (so long as they don't shot it as something that you can do in a day trip). If ever MOONRAKER were adapted to include colombite, then the Pilbara of the Kimberly could work. But it might mean giving Gina Rinehart attention.

Wasn't a large chunk of MI2 filmed in Australia? No problems, so shouldn't be an issue for Bond if its spy franchise goes there.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

When it comes to selecting locations, I think form should always follow function. Bond films are not simply travelogues; there is a story to be told, and the locations need to stay true to that. It would be easy enough to simply pick three countries off the top of your head - say Sri Lanka, Poland and Argentina - but I think doing so will result in a film that is a shadow of what it could be. And I have no objections to Bond visiting the same country several times. For example, if you look at France, Paris is very different to Lyons, which is in turn very different to Marseilles.

Once they have locations that fit the story, they need to find individual places that shoot well. When MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 filmed in Sydney, some of the locations - like the bunker on the island - filmed very well. But everything else was horrible; it looked like something filmed by Screen Queensland, but with a bigger budget.

Don't get me wrong; I think Sydney could work. There's a mish-mash of architectural styles, like the colonial-era Queen Victoria Building and the old Department of Education HQ, through to the steel-and-glass monoliths of AMP Tower and other skyscrapers. It's an unplanned city, one that simply grew as needed, so it's a real labyrinth in places.

I also think that the Outback could work (so long as they don't shot it as something that you can do in a day trip). If ever MOONRAKER were adapted to include colombite, then the Pilbara of the Kimberly could work. But it might mean giving Gina Rinehart attention.

But you're looking at it from a person who lives in Australia. It's not exotic and interesting and mysterious to you because it's home to you; it's familiar. And I thought MI:2 made good use of Australia, for the most part. In fact, Australia was probably the most interesting part of the film.

I don't know, it just seems odd that 24 films into the series we still have not visited such an important country. There's NOTHING that has been written before that could not have taken place in Australia? I just don't buy it.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

There's NOTHING that has been written before that could not have taken place in Australia? I just don't buy it.

Geographically, we're very isolated. Papua New Guinea, East Timor and Indonesia are our closest neighbours, but Darwin is, quite literally, the only major population close to those countries - and even then, it's not big. You won't find a major urban centre south of Brisbane.

Geopolitically, we're small players. Our Prime Minister might like to believe we have a spot at the Big Table, but our Prime Minister is an idiot (he just gave an Australian knighthood to a British monarch). The only two major overlap we have with other countries are illegal immigrants and Japanese whaling.

Prince Phillip isn't the Monarch. It does seem an odd thing to do, though.

I suppose some of it might be that they continue to base themselves at Pinewood and shuttling between there and Australia might prove too expensive? I admit I don't know and that doesn't explain not using Scandinavia.

It's probably known contacts and confidence in infrastructure. That's not a very exciting reason.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Staugust wrote:

Italians are notoriously slow and bureaucratic - just look at their creaky justice system. It's just one of those things that the Bond team faces to greater or lesser extents with every film I imagine. Nothing to get unduly worried about.

They had worse problems with the Indian authorities when the SKYFALL pre-titles were to be shot outside Mumbai. They would only grant filming permission for sections of the train tracks, and then try to negotiate a new deal for the parts they left out. At one point, they wanted Daniel Craig to be a spokesman for Indian Railways. Production had a simple solution to that - they went to Turkey and got all the permits straight away. I believe production of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and MISSION IMPOSSIBLE GHOST PROTOCOL had similar problems with India.

While I doubt something like that is an option here, I am sure EON will have no trouble with finding a solution.

I agree.

Flush wrote:

Prince Phillip isn't the Monarch. It does seem an odd thing to do, though.

Yes, a very odd thing to do. As much as I disagree with the concept, I can understand the desire to make the monarchy relevant to young people. But if that's the case, why not bestow it upon William or Harry? Why choose the man who once said by way of greeting "Nice to see you white people have reclaimed South Africa"?

Quote :

I suppose some of it might be that they continue to base themselves at Pinewood and shuttling between there and Australia might prove too expensive? I admit I don't know and that doesn't explain not using Scandinavia.

The Australian film industry would give massive subsidies to get a Bond film out here. There is a very simple reason why SPECTRE isn't being shot in Australia - Australia was never under consideration as a location.

As for Scandinavia, it's believed that production wanted to shoot on the island of Svalbard. But filming in Norway proved to be too expensive, much less shipping out to Svalbard.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Monica Bellucci.

Good job in hiring an actress who can't act. And, let's admit it, she's not that beautiful either.

Walecs wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Monica Bellucci.

Good job in hiring an actress who can't act. And, let's admit it, she's not that beautiful either.

No, not at all.

Walecs wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Monica Bellucci.

Good job in hiring an actress who can't act. And, let's admit it, she's not that beautiful either.

Not only is your avatar far too big, but you're also an idiot.