SPECTRE Production Timeline

1519520522524525870

Comments

  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    You are thinking way too much ;)

    About what? That the scenes looks a little sparse? That the DC era should stay away from tricked out cars? That product placement can effect creativity?
    Let see the movie first before we criticize things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

    It's speculation based on rumours/evidence. Isn't that what we are all here doing, or should we all just disappear until the film is released?
    For me, it's not a matter of if gadgets are being used, but how they are used.

    If or how, to me I just don't see it as a prerequisite, particularly in this era of films.

    Let me first say this @RC7. I do appreciate your criticism. But what I miss sometimes...many times.....in your comments is, that if you don't feel enthusiastic about certain choices they made for a particular scene, then how you would do it instead. How would you pull it off? What would you do instead of an ejector seat (which in this film really serves Bond, not the passenger. Call it another re-invention to an original Q-gadget)? How would you re-introduce gadgets in "SPECTRE"?

    Please let us know. For me personally,
    I think it's a wunderful idea to jettison Bond out of his passenger seat, so he can safely land with a parachute. It hasn't been done before.
    Moreover, look to the oil slick gadget from the Lotus Esprit in TSWLM. It isn't exactly....original compared to the gadgets from the DB5 in GF. Still, people loved it...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    NicNac wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @RC7 What era? An era of abandoning franchise trademarks?

    The Craig era. The era that promised to be more Fleming and less cliched.

    But who would that benefit?
    The cinematic Bond is a different animal to the literature Bond. 95% of cinema goers have no idea who Fleming is but have an affinity to the film Bond and the things that make the franchise what it is.

    The people who pay at the till know about hollowed out volcanos and ejector seats, because that is what Bond was about. The same people probably have no idea who Timothy Dalton is.

    It makes no one right or wrong, but film Bond needs it's core ingredients and it's no good us wishing away ejector seats because it's like wishing away what Bond is all about. We may as well wish away beautiful girls, awful jokes and amazing stunts.

    The Fleming Bond was a starched, humourless everyman. The film Bond will borrow certain qualities from the books (which is vital), but it also had to find it's own identity. And the ejector seat in GF was probably the moment that happened. We can't lose that.

    Sorry, but I completely disagree @NicNac. Ejector seats are not what Bond is about. There's so much more to it than that and to suggest it's needed is laughable IMO. It's not. There's enough of the film Bond injected into CR without having to resort to cherry picking nostalgic moments and reusing or reinventing them. You're right, 95% of the audience don't know Fleming, but his fingerprints are all over the best film of the DC era. A film not afraid to take timeout. I say this as a Roger Moore fan, someone who enjoys daft Bond. In essence I think the DC films have enough talent to take risks and don't have to be looking to the past.
  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    Posts: 1,208
    Before and after Rome cleanup for the filming:

    Before:
    B_B4eQEW8AMOFIK.jpg

    After:
    B_B4f_EXAAAmn4V.jpg
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    RC7 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @RC7 What era? An era of abandoning franchise trademarks?

    The Craig era. The era that promised to be more Fleming and less cliched.

    But who would that benefit?
    The cinematic Bond is a different animal to the literature Bond. 95% of cinema goers have no idea who Fleming is but have an affinity to the film Bond and the things that make the franchise what it is.

    The people who pay at the till know about hollowed out volcanos and ejector seats, because that is what Bond was about. The same people probably have no idea who Timothy Dalton is.

    It makes no one right or wrong, but film Bond needs it's core ingredients and it's no good us wishing away ejector seats because it's like wishing away what Bond is all about. We may as well wish away beautiful girls, awful jokes and amazing stunts.

    The Fleming Bond was a starched, humourless everyman. The film Bond will borrow certain qualities from the books (which is vital), but it also had to find it's own identity. And the ejector seat in GF was probably the moment that happened. We can't lose that.

    Sorry, but I completely disagree @NicNac. Ejector seats are not what Bond is about. There's so much more to it than that and to suggest it's needed is laughable IMO. It's not. There's enough of the film Bond injected into CR without having to resort to cherry picking nostalgic moments and reusing or reinventing them. You're right, 95% of the audience don't know Fleming, but his fingerprints are all over the best film of the DC era. A film not afraid to take timeout. I say this as a Roger Moore fan, someone who enjoys daft Bond. In essence I think the DC films have enough talent to take risks and don't have to be looking to the past.

    No you are right about using warmed up old ideas @RC7. I was really using ejector seats as a sort of symbolic point. It defines film Bond more than any other single ingrediant (arguably).

    What I didn't want to see was a po faced Bond living in a dark and murky spy world, like a John Le Carre novel. Bond has to have a certain wow factor that makes it stand apart from the chasing pack. It needs humour, it needs a 21st century virsion of the ejector seat (not a literal 'ejector seat' I must add).

    Must admit I have avoided so many spoiler posts that I'm not sure whether there is an ejector seat in SP or not. In other words, I'm not sure why I'm even in this discussion.
    ;)
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 6,601
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    You are thinking way too much ;)

    About what? That the scenes looks a little sparse? That the DC era should stay away from tricked out cars? That product placement can effect creativity?
    Let see the movie first before we criticize things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

    It's speculation based on rumours/evidence. Isn't that what we are all here doing, or should we all just disappear until the film is released?
    For me, it's not a matter of if gadgets are being used, but how they are used.

    If or how, to me I just don't see it as a prerequisite, particularly in this era of films.

    Let me first say this @RC7. I do appreciate your criticism. But what I miss sometimes...many times.....in your comments is, that if you don't feel enthusiastic about certain choic
  • Posts: 11,119
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    Actually, it is my logical interpretation of how this gadget would work in the film. It's not entirely 100% confirmed if it'll be like that. But I figured it out myself, because there's a parachute sequence included (not spoiler). But spoiler tags have been added.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Sony presenting at CinemaCon on April 22.

    http://cinemacon.com/schedule/2015-events/#horizontalTab6

    Expect SPECTRE footage...would say more but leaks-sourced :P
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    This is the reason I stopped reading this thread, I'm only scrolling to see the photos. BTW, isn't there a specific thread where spoilers are allowed?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    Actually, it is my logical interpretation of how this gadget would work in the film. It's not entirely 100% confirmed if it'll be like that. But I figured it out myself, because there's a parachute sequence included (not spoiler). But spoiler tags have been added.

    @Gustav_Graves,
    I'm very confused about the stunt. Is Bond going to eject himself from the car while under water or before?
  • Posts: 11,119
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    This is the reason I stopped reading this thread, I'm only scrolling to see the photos. BTW, isn't there a specific thread where spoilers are allowed?

    I'm very sorry. But the lines between spoilers and no-spoilers become very vague, and will become even more vague especially during upcoming months. The entire sequence from Austria has been explained in that Empire Magazine article for instance and has been discussed here with no spoilers, like how the IceQ Restaurant will be used in the film.

    Anyway, I was sitting at the terrace here in Barcelona, typing my previous post, and it's quite hard to include spoiler tags on a small smartphone. I am sorry, the spoiler tags have been added. Let's move on :-)!
  • Posts: 11,119
    jake24 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    Actually, it is my logical interpretation of how this gadget would work in the film. It's not entirely 100% confirmed if it'll be like that. But I figured it out myself, because there's a parachute sequence included (not spoiler). But spoiler tags have been added.

    @Gustav_Graves,
    I'm very confused about the stunt. Is Bond going to eject himself from the car while under water or before?

    I don't know :-)! But I reckon it'll happen
    before Bond's car is landing in the Tiber. I never believed the rumour that Bond's car will become another submarine.
    . Such a stunt, in line with @RC7 's criticism would piss me off for sure.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    You are thinking way too much ;)

    About what? That the scenes looks a little sparse? That the DC era should stay away from tricked out cars? That product placement can effect creativity?
    Let see the movie first before we criticize things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

    It's speculation based on rumours/evidence. Isn't that what we are all here doing, or should we all just disappear until the film is released?
    For me, it's not a matter of if gadgets are being used, but how they are used.

    If or how, to me I just don't see it as a prerequisite, particularly in this era of films.

    Let me first say this @RC7. I do appreciate your criticism. But what I miss sometimes...many times.....in your comments is, that if you don't feel enthusiastic about certain choices they made for a particular scene, then how would you do it. How would you pull it off? What would you do instead of an ejector seat (which in this film really serves Bond, not the passenger. Call it another re-invention to an original Q-gadget)? How would you re-introduce gadgets in "SPECTRE"?

    Please let us know. For me personally,
    I think it's a wunderful idea to jettison Bond out of his passenger seat, so he can safely land with a parachute. It hasn't been done before.
    Moreover, look to the oil slick gadget from the Lotus Esprit in TSWLM. It isn't exactly....original compared to the gadgets from the DB5 in GF. Still, people loved it...

    Well, for a kick off I wouldn't reintroduce gadgets. Like I said, I don't think it's a prerequisite. Whether they're believable or not is a moot point for me, as they're not essential. It seems like a crutch that can be avoided. If they're on the writers mind then that stems from a place of nostalgia not invention. As for what I would do, that's a difficult question as I don't know the context of the chase. What I would suggest is that an 'ejector seat' is not a resolution screenwriters would come to on any normal film, it's something you'd do if you were tapping into the history of Bond. It's hard to be original, but the idea of Bond
    ending up in the Tiber, swiftly followed by Hinx could be interesting. An underwater scrap between the two seems like a decent set piece. Even Bond bailing at the last minute would feel more apt. This just feels like screenwriting in the Brosnan era. If in doubt, plunder the past.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    jake24 wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »
    @Gustav, you have some heavy spoiler in your last post and now I know more, then I cared to.
    I know, its not on purpose, but for **** sake. Pay attention please.

    Actually, it is my logical interpretation of how this gadget would work in the film. It's not entirely 100% confirmed if it'll be like that. But I figured it out myself, because there's a parachute sequence included (not spoiler). But spoiler tags have been added.

    @Gustav_Graves,
    I'm very confused about the stunt. Is Bond going to eject himself from the car while under water or before?

    I don't know :-)! But I reckon it'll happen
    before Bond's car is landing in the Tiber. I never believed the rumour that Bond's car will become another submarine.
    . Such a stunt, in line with @RC7 's criticism would piss me off for sure.
    It'd be interesting if after Bond's car is submerged under water, the ejector seat is his only way to escape as the water is filling the car. I agree the submarine would be ridiculous in a 2015 context.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    The entire sequence from Austria has been explained in that Empire Magazine article for instance and has been discussed here with no spoilers, like how the IceQ Restaurant will be used in the film.

    Luckily, I missed that discussion.

  • Posts: 3,169
    RC7 wrote: »
    Ejector seats are not what Bond is about.
    Each to his own. For many, ejector seats, jetpacks and other gadgets are exactly what Bond is about.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    fgxumbrvupgicbu7o0wr.gif
  • Posts: 1,552
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't!

    I doubt we'll see anything as OTT as the Brosnan era or as gadget laden as the Lotus is SWLM. I'm thinking they'll use them sparingly, maybe Bond will go to use them and they'll malfunction or accidentally discover them. I'm sure I heard from someone discussing the script that
    Bond steals the DB10 from Q Branch

    How do we know that Bond is even aware of the capabilities of the car if this is the case?
    Also an evening chase sounds great especially using the Tiber.
    Since when had Bond ever bothered learning the specifications of a gadget before going into the field? He's usually in the "I'll work it out as I go along" frame of mind.

  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    edited March 2015 Posts: 10,588
    antovolk wrote: »
    Sony presenting at CinemaCon on April 22.

    http://cinemacon.com/schedule/2015-events/#horizontalTab6

    Expect SPECTRE footage...would say more but leaks-sourced :P
    @antovolk I'm assuming the first trailer?
  • aaron819aaron819 Switzerland
    Posts: 1,208
    jake24 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Sony presenting at CinemaCon on April 22.

    http://cinemacon.com/schedule/2015-events/#horizontalTab6

    Expect SPECTRE footage...would say more but leaks-sourced :P
    @antovolk I'm assuming the first trailer?

    @antovolk and @jake24
    Does this mean we won't get to see the teaser trailer on March 28th?
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited March 2015 Posts: 4,554
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    You are thinking way too much ;)

    About what? That the scenes looks a little sparse? That the DC era should stay away from tricked out cars? That product placement can effect creativity?
    Let see the movie first before we criticize things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

    It's speculation based on rumours/evidence. Isn't that what we are all here doing, or should we all just disappear until the film is released?

    It's clear what Mendes is going for...the cars look spectacular against that setting. Classic Italian cars wouldn't have the same effect.

    Classic Italian cars wouldn't have worked in a car chase in Rome? Interesting outlook.

    I didn't say they wouldn't work. I'm saying the classic cars wouldn't have the same effect--it appears that Mendes is focusing on the same themes as SF: the old world meeting the new. From that standpoint, with the cars, we have 21st century technology set against (in some cases) 1st century architecture.
  • chipstickschipsticks NOT on TheDanielCraigForum where they think know Daniel Craig personally and Léa and Monica are ugly
    edited March 2015 Posts: 560
  • Posts: 3,164
    aaron819 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    antovolk wrote: »
    Sony presenting at CinemaCon on April 22.

    http://cinemacon.com/schedule/2015-events/#horizontalTab6

    Expect SPECTRE footage...would say more but leaks-sourced :P
    @antovolk I'm assuming the first trailer?

    @antovolk and @jake24
    Does this mean we won't get to see the teaser trailer on March 28th?

    No, not the first trailer, in fact what the leaks are saying will be presented at CinemaCon back up the March 28 for first teaser info.

    Mods feel free to edit if necessary but here's what it will be (spoiler tagged because from leaks)
    7 minutes of footage from the film.
  • Posts: 11,119
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    jake24 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    You are thinking way too much ;)

    About what? That the scenes looks a little sparse? That the DC era should stay away from tricked out cars? That product placement can effect creativity?
    Let see the movie first before we criticize things that haven't even been confirmed yet.

    It's speculation based on rumours/evidence. Isn't that what we are all here doing, or should we all just disappear until the film is released?

    It's clear what Mendes is going for...the cars look spectacular against that setting. Classic Italian cars wouldn't have the same effect.

    Classic Italian cars wouldn't have worked in a car chase in Rome? Interesting outlook.

    I didn't say they wouldn't work. I'm saying the classic cars wouldn't have the same effect--it appears that Mendes is focusing on the same themes as SF: the old world meeting the new. From that standpoint, with the cars, we have 21st century technology set against 1st century architecture.

    I think it's more nuanced than that. YES, Mendes is focusing on the themes he created in SF, but also the themes that Forster/Campbell created in the duology CR/QOS. The re-introduction of Mr White is an example. And off course the inclusion of another secretive meeting of a crime syndicate, like we saw in QOS. Can we PLEASE give Mendes some praise for making continuity work in his films??

    On top of that, and many fans tend to forget that, the 2nd vlog is saying predominantly, that "SPECTRE" is foremost a Bond film about a mission. Hell, we want a proper good scene at M's office, where Bond is sent on a mission. We DO GET that ok? Moneypenny is NOT OUT in the field anymore, and it seems M is luckily completely desk-bound or at least working within the confinements of Whitehall. That's what makes me excited about "SPECTRE".

    Yes, there will be a 2nd part of Bond's personal background story, but I think it will not have the importance as it had in SF. I don't think it'll make suffer Bond emotionally or will make Bond loose his sanity. I want to bet he's even more cool and calm, thinks more before he kills. That bit of personal background will not turn 007 into a loose cannon anymore or an emotional wreck.
  • Posts: 12,506
    I wonder what treats this week will bring us from the world of Spectre?!!! 8-}
  • Posts: 1,314
    I think we're overthinking this one. I wouldn't say mendes is revisiting the themes of Skyfall with this Car chase. In skyfall it was about the obsolescence of mi6 and the 00 section

    Rome has pretty buildings, shiny new cars look cool
  • Posts: 6,601
    Not so much, I would think. They are in Pinewood and we got nothing much from there so far. So I assume, it will be rather quiet.
  • ggl007ggl007 www.archivo007.com Spain, España
    edited March 2015 Posts: 2,540
    @antovolk and @jake24
    Does this mean we won't get to see the teaser trailer on March 28th?

    No, not the first trailer, in fact what the leaks are saying will be presented at CinemaCon back up the March 28 for first teaser info.

    Mods feel free to edit if necessary but here's what it will be (spoiler tagged because from leaks)
    7 minutes of footage from the film.
    [/quote]
    Sorry, but are you talking about past year leaks or new leaks?? In 2014 they knew that CinemaCom would show that??
  • Posts: 3,164
    ggl007 wrote: »
    Sorry, but are you talking about past year leaks or new leaks?? In 2014 they knew that CinemaCom would show that??

    the Sony leaks from last year.
  • Posts: 270
    ggl007 wrote: »
    @antovolk and @jake24
    Does this mean we won't get to see the teaser trailer on March 28th?

    No, not the first trailer, in fact what the leaks are saying will be presented at CinemaCon back up the March 28 for first teaser info.

    Mods feel free to edit if necessary but here's what it will be (spoiler tagged because from leaks)
    7 minutes of footage from the film.
    Sorry, but are you talking about past year leaks or new leaks?? In 2014 they knew that CinemaCom would show that??
    [/quote]
    they are going to release 7mins of film vs a teaser on March 28?
Sign In or Register to comment.