14 replies to this topic

[Glockenspiel]

The first photos from the principal photography of Skyfall have appeared, showing key cast and crew at work in central London.
Did you notice the bloody faces of two characters?
The make-up is rather shocking, don't you think?
Does it mean that the film is going to be quite violent?

[Vauxhall]

This thread might be better in spoilers.

My input:

Spoiler

I'm a bit confused about those pictures and am not entirely sure they're genuine. However, assuming that they are, I think those characters are just going to be window-dressing for some generic clashes and they won't be used in close-ups. The movie itself won't be particularly violent as I'm sure they'll be aiming for a fairly inclusive rating.

[Captain Tightpants]

It was probably the first thing anyone noticed once the excitement of the start of filming wore off. It's difficult to say why they might be injured in the first place - they could be involved in a car accident, victims of a terror attack, MI6 agents who get injured in the line of duty; anything, really.

[stromberg]

Been thinking about those pictures, too.
With that stubble, the guy on the left could simply be Craig's double...

[Skudor]

I'm guessing there's a terrorist attack,explosion or something. Although there was hint of some knife attack, or am I remembering the pics wrongly?

Either way I'm happy to see some grit.

[thecasinoroyale]

Hmm, I think along the same lines - we'll see these guys face down dead somewhere, or thrown off screen in a flash from an explosion or something.

It was the first teaser picture from the start of shooting so it's something so insignificant but we're going to jump on it like bloodhounds...anything for juicy Skyfall gossip!

But then...I could be wrong and it could be horrific! (Doubt it though.)

[Shrublands]

Hmm, I think along the same lines - we'll see these guys face down dead somewhere, or thrown off screen in a flash from an explosion or something.

I don’t think it will be lingered on, but I don’t think it will be totally avoided either.

I’m getting the impression that Skyfall will show a massive failure for MI6 and possibly Bond too. A situation where the timer does reach zero and the bomb goes off. Judging by the clapperboard scene number, we are seeing glimpses of a sequence towards the end of the first quarter of the film. (I could be wrong here, as this sort of thing can vary by quite a bit.) I think we will see Bond caught-up in the aftermath of a major atrocity in central London. The pre-shoot stuff done at Pinewood a few weeks back, which involved numerous extras, where that actress Tweeted that she was playing a “scary dead woman”, could be for news reports or effects composite shots showing the destruction.

There has been a problem with some recent Bond films (DAD in particular) where the villains’ are talked about as being evil and dangerous (Zao) but we are not shown their dangerous and evil actions - it’s a film for god’s sake! Seeing a bomb devastate part of a capital city with many civilian casualties would be very different for a Bond film and would certainly motivate the audience’s distaste for the villains.

My only reservation in predicting that this might happen in Skyfall, is that we live in a world where something like this could actually happen at any time. The producers would know that that would cast a deadly shadow over the planned fun of the new Bond film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

..."shocking story", indeed.

[Captain Tightpants]

I’m getting the impression that Skyfall will show a massive failure for MI6 and possibly Bond too. A situation where the timer does reach zero and the bomb goes off. Judging by the clapperboard scene number, we are seeing glimpses of a sequence towards the end of the first quarter of the film.

Based on that link Germanlady posted, I think "Skyfall" could be an internal code, meaning that MI6 have intelligence, but they don't consider it credible, and believe that telling the public will cause more damage than the attack should it eventuate.

My only reservation in predicting that this might happen in Skyfall, is that we live in a world where something like this could actually happen at any time. The producers would know that that would cast a deadly shadow over the planned fun of the new Bond film.

No doubt EON will have thought of this, and addressed it in a unique and larger-than-life manner.

[Shrublands]

I’m getting the impression that Skyfall will show a massive failure for MI6 and possibly Bond too. A situation where the timer does reach zero and the bomb goes off. Judging by the clapperboard scene number, we are seeing glimpses of a sequence towards the end of the first quarter of the film.

Based on that link Germanlady posted, I think "Skyfall" could be an internal code, meaning that MI6 have intelligence, but they don't consider it credible, and believe that telling the public will cause more damage than the attack should it eventuate.

Or possibly the code for intelligence gathered indicating a terrorist attack on a major target that they consider to be disinformation.

For instance, they receive word that a bomb is to go off in Whitehall at a particulate time – their annalists tell them that it is disinformation designed to spread panic and disrupt an important occasion involving the British Government on the world stage. The communication is branded as Skyfall, an MI6 code for such malicious intelligence, only for the worst to happen anyway.

[Captain Tightpants]

Indeed; it appears we're going to see M and/or MI6 getting it very wrong. Which opens up some intersting avenues to explore a side to characters that we've never had the opportunity to explore before. When was the last time Bond failed on a mission? He always defuses the bomb with time to spare, or exposes the villain's plan before it moves into its final phase. Combined with some of Javier Bardem's comments that his character is not a typical Bond villain and is really rather "misunderstood", it makes the story of SKYFALL even more intriguing. Just so long as Bardem is not:

1) A villain whose family was accidently killed in an air strike on his homeland. This seems to be Hollywood's primary motive for terrorists, probably to garner empathy from the audience, a case of "deep down, I'm really a good guy who was forced to do terrible things because of the injustice of it all".

2) A villain who takes the belief that "it's better that I do this now to expose your weaknesses, instead of some foreign power exploiting them", like Timothy Olyphant in LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD 4.0.

3) A combination of the first two options.

Then I'll be happy.

[Shrublands]

Combined with some of Javier Bardem's comments that his character is not a typical Bond villain and is really rather "misunderstood", it makes the story of SKYFALL even more intriguing.

I think the "misunderstood" remark was just a joke. The members of the panel, all familiar with the script, laughed.
My reading is, that if we knew about this character, we’d laugh at the notion that he is merely "misunderstood".

[Shrublands]

Indeed; it appears we're going to see M and/or MI6 getting it very wrong. Which opens up some intersting avenues to explore a side to characters that we've never had the opportunity to explore before. When was the last time Bond failed on a mission? He always defuses the bomb with time to spare, or exposes the villain's plan before it moves into its final phase.

Yes, this is what could be so affective. We know Bond will always defuse the bomb 007 seconds before the blast and this in turn defuses tension in the audience.
Well, what if on one occasion he doesn’t get there in time and the worst actually happens? Suspense from there on in will be greatly enhanced.

[Germanlady]

Maybe Bonds undercover mission was abougt a certain threat, he has certain informations, but something goes arong and suddenly they have lost control.

Edited by Germanlady, 10 November 2011 - 04:48 PM.

[Captain Tightpants]

Well, what if on one occasion he doesn’t get there in time and the worst actually happens? Suspense from there on in will be greatly enhanced.

That's why I like the idea of "Skyfall" being a code for "we have credible intelligence from an unreliable source" rather than "we do not find the intelligence credible". The difference is that the former opens up an avenue for Bond's involvement. If the source is unreliable, it means that Bond can be tasked with tracking down a lead; if the intelligence is unreliable, then Bond simply becomes a spectator. If London/MI6 is attacked, then both scenarios work, but if Bond is sent to verify the intelligence and (for whatever reason) fails, then we can get a bit of character development going. Bond's horror at the attack becomes Bond's guilt at being unable to stop it. How would he deal with that? Would he over-compensate in the field? Or would he restrain himself and make further mistakes?