It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
OO7: But M....I DIDN'T! IT WASN'T MY DOING! THE BAD GUYS--THE EVIL ORGANIZATION I WAS FOLLOWING! THEY DID IT!
I don't want to see that scene.
I'm exaggerating of course, but to me it plays better Bond isn't defending himself about Slate in Haiti, the bodyguard in Austria, Mathis(!) in South America. M should know better. And Bond's usefulness to M is taking things on himself--allowing M some insulation and deniability to let her do her own job, which is tough in a different way. It's great to see the screws put to OO7 and he still comes out on top.
On the Blu-ray, no subtitles say anchor.
Calling him something that sounds like anchor, ....... I know I've done it.
It’s the least of my worries with that film. If it were the biggest issue I’d be delighted.
Look forward to it ..we need to know what the heck happened!
Ow...it’s my #4...what are your main probs wz it ?
For some of us, the flying boat is the biggest issue with it!
For some of us, the entire film is an issue.
And most of us have issues!
Subscribe for my latest issues!
Will do, if you'll prescribe for mine!
Relentless, but simultaneously aimless. No light and shade, no meat on the bones, utterly redundant action (bar the PTS) and an obvious hard on for Bourne.
It has its fair share of good-great bits, as do the rest, but it’s massively overrated. In its defence it was following up an incredible piece of work, but I can’t give it a pass as it doesn’t capitalise on the better facets of its predecessor. Instead choosing to push things into Greengrass territory. Campbell brought class, as he did in GE. In QoS it’s sorely lacking, particularly as a counterpoint to the relatively dour tone.
For your consideration: The Quantum of Solace flying boat. Screen time referenced below.
So I'm gonna go with :
Youtube video for reference.
I love QoS, it's certainly in my top 5, and this has Always been my biggest gripe with the film, after the horrendous title song which I Always skip anyway.
This adds circumstantial to Richard's theory. How else would they launch the boat if they did it all for real.
I'm rather uncomfortable on relying on 'unseen' shots that we are just speculating should be there but aren't. Although your explanation makes logical sense, if true then it's appalling film-making. It's a visual medium and you can't just have missing shots and expect the audience to piece it all together. Particularly when the shots you do have are often no more than a tenth of a second long.
Hardly.
This is the pertinent quote from the article: '"The entire boat sequence was all shot for real,” recalled Forster. “There was no green screen work"'
That doesn't prove that the boat was flipped for real at all. Just that they filmed the whole sequence on location with real elements. In fact without doing all the physics (happy to proved wrong by someone who has) I'll go out on a limb and say the only way they got the boat to do that was with an air cannon. The anchor theory as portrayed in the film would most likely just rip the front off the boat or just snap the rope. I sincerely doubt it would fire it 20 feet into the air.
"Marc Forster, you have failed this franchise !"
Anyway,back to the boat,does anyone agree with my 'Bond says Anchor' theory or is it debunked now ,if someone has seen the scene with subtitles ?
Less so than the scuba mask changing color in Thunderball. Doesn't compare to the Ford Mustang alley reversal in Diamonds Are Forever. Or register on the scale, even.
I could take that one on as well. Continue the Rationalise This discussion.
The only imponerables are how far above the ground would you need to pull the cord for the chute to reach the maximum deceleration and how hard can you hit and still walk away.
But at least it's all there on screen without us having to make up shots that don't exist.
@RichardTheBruce you say that there's a missing shot of an anchor and that is what flips the boat. I can't dispute that. But nor can you dispute it if I say there's a missing shot where the Flying Spaghetti Monster flies down and lobs the boat up in the air with its giant pasta paw.
Why bother showing the parachute jump then? Just have Bond ski off the Asgard then cut to him walking into M's office?
Bond flying from the Bahamas to Miami is mundane and we don't need to see how it's done. A boat flipping 20 feet in the air or a bloke skiing off a mountain and surviving is spectacular and incredible so we need to be shown how the trick is done otherwise the whole thing becomes silly.
And I reject your anchor that Bond throws over the side, which catches on something underwater and has the power to launch a boat into the air that we never see theory as is my prerogative.
On balance of probabilities your theory is the more likely I'll grant you but neither are provable.
except circumstantial. There IS a rope with anchor in the boat, and certainly no spaghetti monster to be seen. It makes the rope-thesis far more plausible.