The most memorable scene in The Fate of the Furious isn’t a single moment but rather the film’s willingness to demolish an entire urban landscape for spectacle. F. Gary Gray’s 2017 entry opens with a high-octane street race through Havana where Dominic Toretto drives a decrepit Chevy uphill through the city’s crumbling infrastructure, and the scene succeeds because it grounds the impossible physics in practical location work—the filmmakers actually shot in Cuba with real streets, real traffic patterns, and real architectural constraints that force the stunt drivers to navigate genuine obstacles rather than purely digital environments.
However, the film’s most talked-about sequences are the submarine-versus-tank moment and the New York bridge destruction, both of which represent the franchise’s escalation problem in stark terms. These scenes pushed practical effects and location shooting beyond what most studios attempt, yet they also expose the narrative strain of making destruction sequences serve a coherent story. The film sacrifices character logic for spectacle in ways that previous entries like Fast Five managed to avoid, creating moments of technical brilliance that viewers remember primarily for their scale rather than their emotional weight.
Table of Contents
- How F. Gary Gray Shifted the Franchise’s Visual Language
- The Submarine Tank Sequence—Engineering Marvel and Narrative Shortcut
- The New York Bridge Collapse and Cascading Destruction
- Balancing Practical Stunt Work with Character Arcs
- Practical Stunt Work and the Aging Problem
- Abu Dhabi’s Desert Sequences and Location Authenticity
- The Evolution of Practical Effects and Franchise Escalation
- Frequently Asked Questions
How F. Gary Gray Shifted the Franchise’s Visual Language
F. Gary Gray came to the Fast & Furious series with a background in street racing culture and gritty urban filmmaking (Straight Outta Compton, Baby Driver), which introduced a different visual grammar than Justin Lin’s previous three entries. Where Lin favored saturated colors and rapid-cut editing, Gray worked with cinematographer Stephen F. Windon to create more naturalistic lighting and longer takes that let audiences read the spatial geography of stunts before cutting away.
The Havana opening demonstrates this shift immediately: the camera follows the Chevy through actual city streets in wide shots, allowing viewers to understand how the car relates to buildings, sidewalks, and other traffic before any action beats land. The limitation here is that this grounded approach occasionally conflicts with the film’s increasingly fantastical plot. Gray’s naturalistic visual style makes the submarine tank entrance feel more absurd by contrast—the cinematography is so precise and location-authentic everywhere else that the digital water effects and impossible vehicle physics stand out as discontinuous. The film was shot largely in Atlanta, New York, Abu Dhabi, and the Dominican Republic (standing in for other locations), but the underwater sequences and several action beats show visible reliance on post-production work that doesn’t match the tactile quality of the practical stunts elsewhere.
The Submarine Tank Sequence—Engineering Marvel and Narrative Shortcut
The sequence where a submarine converts into a tank and drives onto a frozen Russian base became the franchise’s most-cited example of escalation for escalation’s sake. The stunt team and production designers actually constructed a vehicle that could approximate this transformation, though extensive CGI was layered on top to achieve the seamless submersion and emergence. The scene works as spectacle—the sheer scale of attempting something this visually complex commanded respect from audiences—but it exists in the film’s story without meaningful setup.
The submarine appears, destroys assets, and the military simply accepts this impossible weapon was deployed against them without the kind of tactical or strategic explanation that makes action scenes feel earned. The warning for action filmmakers here is significant: audiences tolerate spectacle proportional to narrative coherence. The submarine scene is visually larger than the bridge destruction, yet the bridge destruction landed with greater impact because it emerged from a chase sequence with clear objectives and spatial logic. The submarine feels like the filmmakers asking “what if we had an amphibious tank?” without answering “why would anyone use this instead of conventional weapons?” Compare this to the first Fast Five’s vault heist, where every impossible element served a specific plot function, and the difference in storytelling discipline becomes obvious.
The New York Bridge Collapse and Cascading Destruction
The New York tunnel destruction sequence represents the clearest example of practical coordination at scale in the film. This wasn’t a purely digital collapse—the production team worked with New York City authorities to film on actual roads, used practical elements like building facades and bridge supports, and layered CGI destruction on top of real environmental elements. The sequence required managing traffic, public safety, and real-world logistics while coordinating stunt vehicles, camera rigs, and special effects operators across multiple city blocks simultaneously.
The scene works because it moves from intimate (the chase through the tunnel with Cipher’s forces) to environmental (the infrastructure failing around the cars) to citywide (the bridge coming down). Editors Tom Elegy and Gabriel Wreschner cut these scales strategically, avoiding the problem where destruction becomes abstract. The specific technical challenge was that practical bridge elements couldn’t actually collapse on schedule—much of the falling structure is digital—but the practical vehicle work creates enough tactile reality that audiences accept the digital destruction layered on top. The New York setting also carried marketing weight, making this more than an action sequence; it became the film’s signature set piece that appeared in every trailer and marquee.
Balancing Practical Stunt Work with Character Arcs
One of Gray’s stronger choices was maintaining focus on character motivation even during the largest sequences. The prison yard fight between Deckard Shaw and the other inmates serves as a character moment disguised as an action scene—it establishes Shaw’s capabilities and his isolation within the criminal underworld while showcasing brutal, close-quarters fight choreography. Jason Statham performs much of this himself, and the practical nature of hand-to-hand combat creates a different texture than the vehicle sequences. The intensity reads as personal rather than abstract.
The tradeoff, however, is that character-driven scenes slow the film’s momentum, and some viewers found Fate of the Furious’s distribution of action and dialogue uneven. The Abu Dhabi sequences, while visually stunning with practical vehicle work and location shooting in the actual desert, exist primarily as action valleys between plot exposition scenes. Fast Five managed this balance more effectively because it kept action sequences and character development in tighter narrative proximity. Here, lengthy dialogue scenes about family and loyalty interrupt the action rhythm, and then massive destruction sequences feel detached from the emotional stakes they’re supposedly serving.
Practical Stunt Work and the Aging Problem
The film’s reliance on practical stunt work—car flips, vehicle collisions, personnel falls—creates a durability advantage over fully digital action sequences, but this requires precision that didn’t always materialize. Several stunts required multiple takes and coordination with safety teams, and some of the practical vehicle maneuvers visible on screen were only achievable in very specific conditions (specific road surfaces, specific weather, specific lighting). The warning here is that practical stunts age better visually, but they’re also constrained by physics in ways that limit creativity.
Compare a stunt where a car actually flips (Fate of the Furious) versus one where it’s entirely CGI (later MCU films). The practical flip reads as real because it is real, but it can only be flipped within certain parameters. Digital flips can defy physics, rotate faster, and sustain longer. Neither approach is objectively superior, but Fate of the Furious committed heavily to practical work, which means several action beats feel constrained by “what’s actually possible” rather than “what looks coolest.” The prison fight showcases this—it’s impressive because Statham is genuinely fighting trained stunt personnel, but the choreography is limited by real human tolerance for impact.
Abu Dhabi’s Desert Sequences and Location Authenticity
The Abu Dhabi sections were filmed with real military hardware cooperation, actual desert locations, and extensive location shooting that distinguished them from the digital spectacles of earlier entries. The production used real vehicles, real firing positions, and real environmental challenges—heat, sand intrusion in equipment, limited water supplies for the crew—that created production-specific constraints that show on screen as authenticity.
The sequences have a dusty, gritty quality that soundstage work couldn’t replicate, and the natural lighting in the desert creates dimensional depth that Los Angeles studio lighting can’t match. The specific example: the final sequence involves vehicles driving across actual desert terrain with practical dust clouds generated by the movement itself, not visual effects teams adding particle effects in post-production. This required multiple takes and coordination with safety teams managing heat exhaustion, but the result is that sequences filmed in real deserts read as spatially accurate in a way that many action films don’t.
The Evolution of Practical Effects and Franchise Escalation
Fate of the Furious marked a turning point where the franchise had exhausted traditional escalation paths—they’d already destroyed cities, flown off cliffs, and driven through impossible spaces in previous films. Gray’s solution was to make destruction itself more massive and more precise, requiring better coordination with practical effects teams, location managers, and city authorities. The film’s budget exceeded $250 million, with a significant portion dedicated to insurance, location permits, and practical stunt coordination rather than purely post-production visual effects.
This shifted the production’s center of gravity toward tangible, location-based work in ways that pure CGI-heavy films don’t require. The concrete consequence: Fate of the Furious created a production template that subsequent franchise entries (F9, Fast X) would need to exceed or abandon entirely. The practical standard it set meant that future films either needed to find new locations, new destruction scales, or new stunt innovations to feel fresh rather than derivative. The film demonstrated both the possibilities and the limits of practical action filmmaking when budgets reach that scale, proving that sheer size of production isn’t equivalent to narrative impact.
- —
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the submarine tank actually built for The Fate of the Furious?
The production constructed a functional hybrid vehicle that could approximate the transformation, though extensive CGI was added for the seamless underwater footage. The practical core made the sequence more credible on set and allowed the stunt drivers to actually drive a real vehicle, even if post-production enhanced the submarine capabilities.
How much of the bridge collapse sequence was practical versus digital?
The practical work involved real vehicles driving on actual New York locations, real stunt performers, and real environmental elements. The bridge structure itself and the cascading collapse were digitally created in post-production and composited on top of the practical base work.
Did Jason Statham perform his own stunts in the prison yard scene?
Statham performed a significant portion of the hand-to-hand combat himself, working with trained stunt coordinators. Professional stunt performers handled the most dangerous impacts and specific fight choreography sequences, but Statham’s actual presence in many shots is what creates the visceral quality of the scene.
Why did F. Gary Gray choose to film in Abu Dhabi rather than a more cost-effective location?
The authentic desert environment creates visual authenticity that soundstage work cannot replicate. Filming in actual locations required higher location fees and logistics coordination, but the practical benefits—real dust, real light, real scale—appear on screen as spatial credibility that audiences recognize even if they can’t articulate why.
Which scene required the most coordination with city authorities?
The New York bridge and tunnel sequences required extensive coordination with city officials, traffic management, and public safety teams. The production needed to close actual streets, manage civilian evacuation, and ensure structural safety for real buildings adjacent to where stunts were being performed.
How does the practical stunt work in Fate of the Furious compare to earlier Fast & Furious films?
Earlier entries (Fast Five, Fast Six) balanced spectacle with tighter narrative logic. Fate of the Furious escalated the scale significantly while occasionally allowing action sequences to exist more for spectacle than story clarity, relying more heavily on post-production enhancement rather than purely practical coordination. —
