102 replies to this topic

[Bon-san]

I guess we should just dispense with the Spoilers section of the forums, then?

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Apparently they are to be blown up, but I thought this went against what MC sai about there being only 1 explosion.

That goes against what the script says as well, cause

Spoiler

the whole point of the sequence is that the tanker *doesn't* explode,

and that's pretty central to the plot (which is why I think your girlfriend's relative may be a little off-target there).

However, if EON has somehow actually changed that, I'll be more than a little unhappy. The sequence is great and intense as is, and mainly because of the absence of any fireworks.

I had heard from someone who clamined to be an insider(this was before I read the script and what he told me jives with what I read) that SONY was pushing to have a few more explosions or f/x in the film, one sequence in particular the MIA bit. according to the main article about Dunsfold there will be a few pyrotechnic explosions f/x in the sequence. This could be used for the bit where...

Spoiler

Bond shoots out the tanker tires causing them to "explode". I would assume they would use explosives to create this effect. Or maybe they will blow up a tanker.

I wouldn't be suprised if the sequence has evloved or devolved on how you look at it. But didn't they say that they extended the shoot because they like Dunsfold so much. It wouldn't be too hard to throw in an explosion or two. IMO I wouldn't mind if they threw in another explosion or two but it does take away some of the novelty of the sequence.

[JimmyBond]

Apparently they are to be blown up, but I thought this went against what MC sai about there being only 1 explosion.

That goes against what the script says as well, cause

Spoiler

the whole point of the sequence is that the tanker *doesn't* explode,

and that's pretty central to the plot (which is why I think your girlfriend's relative may be a little off-target there).

However, if EON has somehow actually changed that, I'll be more than a little unhappy. The sequence is great and intense as is, and mainly because of the absence of any fireworks.

I dunno, I'd actually say the whole point is that

Spoiler

Bond keeps the terrorists from blowing up the protoype Boeing. That notion stays intact whether the tanker explodes or not

I really think this thread (or at least the spoiler portion of it) should be moved to the spoiler section, this is getting out of hand.

[stromberg]

Done. Better like that.

[Harmsway]

I wouldn't be suprised if the sequence has evloved or devolved on how you look at it. But didn't they say that they extended the shoot because they like Dunsfold so much. It wouldn't be too hard to throw in an explosion or two. IMO I wouldn't mind if they threw in another explosion or two but it does take away some of the novelty of the sequence.

As it's written, it's just so awesome without the fireworks that I wouldn't want it. It's very intense, and that final moment is sooooo cool that I'd really want it preserved for the final film.

[marktmurphy]

Did you see the Petrol tanker? An interesting thing is the Mercedes crashing into the bendy-bus. It's possible that could be the make of the tanker truck.

No- the bendy-bus is what we call those tranfer buses that are articulated in the middle; you often see them in airports for taking the passengers to the planes.
No sign of a tanker truck, no- I had heard before that one featured in this sequence but as far as I could see they didn't have any vehicles out during the day.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I wouldn't be suprised if the sequence has evloved or devolved on how you look at it. But didn't they say that they extended the shoot because they like Dunsfold so much. It wouldn't be too hard to throw in an explosion or two. IMO I wouldn't mind if they threw in another explosion or two but it does take away some of the novelty of the sequence.

As it's written, it's just so awesome without the fireworks that I wouldn't want it. It's very intense, and that final moment is sooooo cool that I'd really want it preserved for the final film.

The only reason I would have for leaving the sequence the way it is, is that the final shot(pun intened for those who know what I mean ) is soooo damn cool! If they plan on having it blow up instead than that would require a major retooling of how the sequence ends. Not sure how they are going to pull this off. Perhaps it's another tanker that blows up in the sequence or someone got the facts wrong and the sequence is still sans "fireworks". On the other side I like big bangs in my Bond films. The problem with the Brosnan era films was the explosion excess with almost every action scene having something go bang or boom and with so much nothing really stood out. The old Bond films had, usually only 2 or 3 explosions in the films but they were big, grand, OTT, and saved for the money shots like Dr. No's island or Bond igniting the gas barrels and taking out the Spectre fleet in FRWL. Those were memorable. I would be all for one more big spectacular explosion in CR, and the MIA sequence seems like the best place for it. A massive explosion involving a PETROL tanker on an airport tarmac, at NIGHT on top of that. Could be truly spectacular and an explosion junkies dream and should compensate for the lack of explosions in the rest of the film. Either way I could live it how it turns out.

Did you see the Petrol tanker? An interesting thing is the Mercedes crashing into the bendy-bus. It's possible that could be the make of the tanker truck.

No- the bendy-bus is what we call those tranfer buses that are articulated in the middle; you often see them in airports for taking the passengers to the planes.
No sign of a tanker truck, no- I had heard before that one featured in this sequence but as far as I could see they didn't have any vehicles out during the day.

Yeah, it jives with the script, with the whole bendy-bus or "Catapiller bus" as it was refered to in the script. Also what you said earlier with the luggage strewn on the runway. Still woundering about the Mercedes crashing into the bus, going by the script it has to be the tanker or a tow tug unlesss the Mercedes is the make of a security vehicle, although only the tanker and tow tug crash through the bus as far as I know.

[marktmurphy]

Oh I see- sorry I misunderstood what you meant by make of the tanker. Yes, you could be right.

Are there explosions in the script? Because residents have been warned of a small number of explosions in a couple of weeks.

[Harmsway]

Are there explosions in the script? Because residents have been warned of a small number of explosions in a couple of weeks.

In that sequence, I don't remember any. I suppose there might be in the script (I'll have to check) but none are stated. Certainly nothing like a petrol tanker exploding.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Oh I see- sorry I misunderstood what you meant by make of the tanker. Yes, you could be right.

Are there explosions in the script? Because residents have been warned of a small number of explosions in a couple of weeks.

No proplem, and going by the script there are no explosions in the sequence, but as said before it's possible these small explosions will be f/x charges used to create the effect where some tires get shot out or maybe for some of the various collisions with airport vehicles on the tarmac.

[JimmyBond]

Small explosions eh? Doesnt sound like a tanker blowing up now does it Let's hope our fears have been laid to rest.

Man I'd really love to get to see some footage of this sequence.

[marktmurphy]

Small explosions eh? Doesnt sound like a tanker blowing up now does it

You read it wrong- 'a small number of controlled explosions' was the phrasing: not small explosions.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Small explosions eh? Doesnt sound like a tanker blowing up now does it

You read it wrong- 'a small number of controlled explosions' was the phrasing: not small explosions.

Hmmmm, I guess you could consider a single petrol tanker going up, a "small number of explosions". Alot of evidence is starting to point to the seqence being slighty altered. It seems they are extending the shoot at Dunsfold to get more shots to expand the sequence and had to get more permits, perhaps for last minute rewrites to include some fireworks. Maybe the tanker won't blow up but there will be someother vehicles or maybe some structure on the airfeild that gets blown up.

[JimmyBond]

Small explosions eh? Doesnt sound like a tanker blowing up now does it

You read it wrong- 'a small number of controlled explosions' was the phrasing: not small explosions.

Geez who cares?! So I typed it out wrong, big freaking deal.

[marktmurphy]

Small explosions eh? Doesnt sound like a tanker blowing up now does it

You read it wrong- 'a small number of controlled explosions' was the phrasing: not small explosions.

Geez who cares?! So I typed it out wrong, big freaking deal.

Um.. it was sort of the point of your post... not a spelling mistake. You can have a small number of huge explosions and a huge number of small explosions- quite a difference.

[JimmyBond]

It is a little irritating when someone comes in and has to point out others mistakes. I meant the same thing, just forget one word is all.

[Matt_13]

It is a little irritating when someone comes in and has to point out others mistakes. I meant the same thing, just forget one word is all.

I quite agree, man you guys crack me with your technicalness (I invented that word, btw) but about the airport, I haven't read the script but from what I have read on the boards, it seems as though a massive explosion would ruin the jist of the sequence. If one or two smaller explosions were to happen (like the tires that all of you have been discussing or some grenades or something) were to go off it may actually enhance the sequence in a way. If I actually knew how the stunt was actually mapped out I may be of more use to your discussion (hint hint ) but in the mean time I'll stand by with what I stated earlier...

[marktmurphy]

It is a little irritating when someone comes in and has to point out others mistakes. I meant the same thing, just forget one word is all.

But your meaning was that a small number of explosions can't include a tanker exploding, when of corse it can. One, big explosion is still a small number of explosions.

[Bon-san]

It is a little irritating when someone comes in and has to point out others mistakes. I meant the same thing, just forget one word is all.

But your meaning was that a small number of explosions can't include a tanker exploding, when of corse it can. One, big explosion is still a small number of explosions.

I guess a small number of explosions can include a tanker exploding, when the Union Corse is involved.

That was the point of your post right?

[Lionheart]

I did take some photos; I'll have a look at them and get any choice bits online if I can.

So... how

[Shrublands]

It is a little irritating when someone comes in and has to point out others mistakes. I meant the same thing, just forget one word is all.

But your meaning was that a small number of explosions can't include a tanker exploding, when of corse it can. One, big explosion is still a small number of explosions.

I guess a small number of explosions can include a tanker exploding, when the Union Corse is involved.

That was the point of your post right?

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan in WW2 were a

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

http://groups.msn.co...to&PhotoID=4675

Here it is! The first pic from this sequence I found over at Dedicated to Daniel. You have to join or be part of the group to view it though. It shows Craig in his leather jacket walking on what looks like the tarmac with the much talked about Petrol tanker right behind him.

[marktmurphy]

With some serious kneepads by the look of it!

Hmm... might have to start hanging around the pub by the airfield...

[Shrublands]

With some serious kneepads by the look of it!

The last think they want is another

[I Like Sharks]

http://groups.msn.co...to&PhotoID=4675

Here it is! The first pic from this sequence I found over at Dedicated to Daniel. You have to join or be part of the group to view it though. It shows Craig in his leather jacket walking on what looks like the tarmac with the much talked about Petrol tanker right behind him.

Can you post it for those of us who don't want to sign up as members?

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

http://groups.msn.co...mp;PhotoID=4675

Here it is! The first pic from this sequence I found over at Dedicated to Daniel. You have to join or be part of the group to view it though. It shows Craig in his leather jacket walking on what looks like the tarmac with the much talked about Petrol tanker right behind him.

Can you post it for those of us who don't want to sign up as members?

Sorry, I would if I could but I can't. Don't know how to or if I would have permiision if I did. If someone else can it would be greatly appreciated. They have added four new pics from the sequence. They are of Craig clinging to a strut on the side of the tanker with all kinds of camera rigs and such.

http://groups.msn.co...nd.msnw?Page=27

[Whalltt]

http://groups.msn.co...mp;PhotoID=4675

Here it is! The first pic from this sequence I found over at Dedicated to Daniel. You have to join or be part of the group to view it though. It shows Craig in his leather jacket walking on what looks like the tarmac with the much talked about Petrol tanker right behind him.

Can you post it for those of us who don't want to sign up as members?

I would appreciate that as well. Surely someone can post them here.

[I Like Sharks]

http://groups.msn.co...mp;PhotoID=4675

Here it is! The first pic from this sequence I found over at Dedicated to Daniel. You have to join or be part of the group to view it though. It shows Craig in his leather jacket walking on what looks like the tarmac with the much talked about Petrol tanker right behind him.

Can you post it for those of us who don't want to sign up as members?

I would appreciate that as well. Surely someone can post them here.

I tried applying a few days ago and it's surprisingly straightforward. Just a quick sign up form. I didn't get an e-mail to say I could now get access but when I tried the next day, I could view the picture/s.

The photos themselves are quite good. 3 pics of Daniel Craig clinging onto the side of a (presumably) moving airport petrol tanker with rigging clearly visible. Nothing that special but this should make a good sequence on film.

[marktmurphy]

Interesting lighting on that camera.

[Harmsway]

And we have our answer about the explosions (courtesy of Chris Corbould in MAXIM):

"So when you watch the Miami airport scene where 757s explode left and right, sit happy in the knowledge that untold pounds of C4 gave their lives for your viewing pleasure."

So much for only one explosion. This film now features tons more given both this sequence and the free-running sequence. Oh well.