›

What is the reason for the 'flying boat' in QOS ?

12357

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited May 2018 Posts: 13,940
    I submit:

    - Bond departs the Ocean Club in Nassau driving a 1964 Aston Martin DB5.
    - Bond arrives at Miami Airport in the back seat of a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria taxi.

    Question: How does OO7 get from Nassau to Miami, if nothing is shown in between?

    atlantis-map.jpg

    CURSE YOU MARC FORSTER!!!

    167342_2015111516465125Xg2.jpg
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    Or:

    https://www.nassau-airport.com/parking.php

    https://www.expedia.com/lp/flights/nas/mia/nassau-to-miami

    http://www.miami-airport.com/taxicabs-shuttles.asp
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I answered @barryt007's question. I told him what he wanted to know about Quantum('s flying boat).

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3ZXOSokvnLCtQQ0PqSKdaSoWDB-Xh_VcejaUKs7x5bj87fW84Bg
    Haha love it !!

    Your theory is indeed the closest one,so far Richard !

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster strawman.
    As is your prerogative.

    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.
    Did I not mention that the spaghetti monster is invisible too?
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I submit:

    - Bond departs the Ocean Club in Nassau driving a 1964 Aston Martin DB5.
    - Bond arrives at Miami Airport in the back seat of a 2000 Ford Crown Victoria taxi.

    Question: How does OO7 get from Nassau to Miami, if nothing is shown in between?

    atlantis-map.jpg

    CURSE YOU MARC FORSTER!!!

    167342_2015111516465125Xg2.jpg

    Some other scenes where we didn’t need to waste the audience’s time with superfluous shots and instead let them indulge in the altogether more fun exercise of just guessing what happened themselves:

    FRWL – In possibly the most tense scene of the series, Bond is on his knees at the mercy of SPCTRE’s top assassin. ‘Lumme Bond’s in a pretty pickle here’, thinks the audience, ‘I wonder how he’s going to get out of this one?’ Cut to Bond taking the money of Grant’s corpse ‘You won’t be needing this old man’.

    So I’m gonna go with:
    - The gold sovereigns, tear gas and knife in the case and the watch garrotte are shown.
    -Bond tempts Grant into opening the case so that the tear gas goes off in his face, a fight ensues and Bond is being garrotted by Grant but turns the tables by stabbing him in the arm with the hidden knife in his case and then garrottes him with his own watch. [unseen]
    - Bond empties the dead Grant’s pockets.

    How Bond defeats this formidable trained killer who has him at gunpoint to me has no more consequence than how OO7 gets from the Ocean Club to Miami Airport. I see the results on screen, don't need convincing

    YOLT - ‘There’s an exshpoldah button up in the control room. We’ve got to get up there.’ Cut to Bond coming back down after saving the world ,'Tiger we've done it'.

    So I’m gonna go with:
    - The exploder button and key are shown by Blofeld.
    - Bond fights his way up to the control room, gets the key off Hans and somehow averts Armageddon. [unseen]
    - The world is saved.

    The prevention of WW3 to me has no more consequence than how OO7 gets from the Ocean Club to Miami Airport. I see the results on screen, don't need convincing.

    MR– Bond gets pushed out of a plane without a parachute. Cut to Bond walking into the office and saying to MP ‘I fell out of a plane without a parachute.’

    So I’m gonna go with:
    - The pilot wearing a parachute and falling out first is shown.
    - Bond miraculously chases down the pilot, wrestles the parachute off him. [unseen]
    - Bond strolls casually into the office.

    How Bond survives falling out of a plane sans parachute to me has no more consequence than how OO7 gets from the Ocean Club to Miami Airport. I see the results on screen, don't need convincing.

    GE - Bond running along the top of a dam as he tries to break into a top level Soviet chemical weapons facility near Archangelsk. Cut to Bond knocking out the guard in the toilet.

    So I'm gonna go with:
    - The little entry hut at the bottom of the dam is shown.
    - Bond somehow makes his way to the bottom of the dam and breaks in.[unseen]
    - Bond infiltrates the toilet.

    How Bond gets from the top of the dam to the bottom to me has no more consequence than how OO7 gets from the Ocean Club to Miami Airport. I see the results on screen, don't need convincing.

    DAD – Bond is hanging on the edge of a glacier which is collapsing into the sea. Cut to him riding a snowmobile back to the ice hotel.

    So I’m gonna go with:
    - The parachute in the back of the ice dragster is shown.
    - Bond grabs the parachute, breaks off the cowling and then as the ice collapses into the sea kite surfs the resulting tsunami to safety. [unseen]
    - He nicks a snowmobile and his on his way.*

    How Bond escapes from this impossible predicament to me has no more consequence than how OO7 gets from the Ocean Club to Miami Airport. I see the results on screen, don't need convincing.

    *nb – this is the only one that actually improves on the original to be fair.

    You get the general idea.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,455
    Are you being serious? There would be no cause for confusion if the train fight was erased from FRWL, without explanation of how Bond gets out of the situation? Why even watch a Bond movie, if not to see how he gets out of danger? Why spend the effort and time threading RG throughout the story, building to his encountre the whole time, if you aren't going to show their final conflict. It would totally impact the rest of the film in a negative way. A completely balmy suggestion if you ask me. The trip to Maimi airport, is in no way as important, but it is a error that there was no explanation or transition shown.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,234
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Are you being serious? There would be no cause for confusion if the train fight was erased from FRWL, without explanation of how Bond gets out of the situation? Why even watch a Bond movie, if not to see how he gets out of danger? Why spend the effort and time threading RG throughout the story, building to his encountre the whole time, if you aren't going to show their final conflict. It would totally impact the rest of the film in a negative way. A completely balmy suggestion if you ask me. The trip to Maimi airport, is in no way as important, but it is a error that there was no explanation or transition shown.

    Swooooooooooooosh.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,940
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Or:

    https://www.nassau-airport.com/parking.php

    https://www.expedia.com/lp/flights/nas/mia/nassau-to-miami

    http://www.miami-airport.com/taxicabs-shuttles.asp
    Strange. Mr. Forster didn't show me these things.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Are you being serious? There would be no cause for confusion if the train fight was erased from FRWL, without explanation of how Bond gets out of the situation? Why even watch a Bond movie, if not to see how he gets out of danger? Why spend the effort and time threading RG throughout the story, building to his encountre the whole time, if you aren't going to show their final conflict. It would totally impact the rest of the film in a negative way. A completely balmy suggestion if you ask me. The trip to Maimi airport, is in no way as important, but it is a error that there was no explanation or transition shown.

    Well, truthfully I didn't watch Titanic, because I knew the ship would go down anyway.....




    @TheWizardOfIce sorry, missed that, must've been the pasta-sauce in my eyes.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,940
    Gerard wrote: »
    (and there are a lot of scenes like that :
    I still don't know how Bond managed to get rid of that plane during the dogfight sequence)
    Quantum of Solace "dogfight", my explanation:

    Bond slows his larger plane down through the mountain pass.
    -- The small plane must match it, but with some difficulty.
    Bond throttles up his damaged engine, spewing out smoke and oil.
    -- The small plane must avoid that for visibility and to prevent fouling of its windscreen.
    He therefore holds to the side.
    Bond maneuvers for a left turn but first gets close to the rocky ledges to his right.
    -- The small plane is forced into the mountainside.

    Aircraft involved:
    Douglas DC-3-G102A impdb.org/index.php?title=Quantum_Of_Solace#Douglas_DC-3-G102A
    Aermacchi SF.260TP impdb.org/index.php?title=Quantum_Of_Solace#Aermacchi_SF.260TP

    Here's a more expert breakdown.

    quora.png
    During the plane chase scene in Quantum of Solace,
    what exactly does Bond do to foil the fighter jet?

    What causes the engine to produce more smoke and
    how does he manage to get the speed of the other pilot's plane to decrease?
    https://quora.com/During-the-plane-chase-scene-in-Quantum-of-Solace-what-exactly-does-Bond-do-to-foil-the-fighter-jet-What-causes-the-engine-to-produce-more-smoke-and-how-does-he-manage-to-get-the-speed-of-the-other-pilots-plane-to-decrease

    Tim Morgan, Commercial pilot: ASEL, AMEL, ASES, IA
    Updated Nov 28, 2012 · Featured on HuffPost · Upvoted by Venkatesh Rao, M.S. and PhD in Aerospace Engineering, University of Michigan and Tony De Wolf, Former pilot, Sabena Airlines · Author has 1.5k answers and 8.7m answer views

    James Bond is flying a DC-3, a two-engine piston-driven aircraft that was a popular airliner in the 1940s. The villain is flying an Aermacchi SF.260TP, a turboprop version of the popular SF.260, which is a nimble aircraft used by many European countries to transition fighter pilots from piston aircraft to jet aircraft. SF.260s do not carry guns, but some SF.260TPs (such as this one) are weaponized and used as a cheap close air support (CAS) aircraft.
    So the SF.260TP, being smaller and powered by a turboprop engine instead of a piston, is faster and much more maneuverable than the DC-3. This necessitates using what fighter pilots call "boom and zoom" tactics against the DC-3. The SF.260TP cannot remain at the DC-3s six o'clock, "in the saddle," for an extended period of time, without sacrificing a ton of precious energy. (You never want to be slow in a dogfight; energy is life.) So as you can see, the pilot performs fast passes and barrel rolls to preserve his energy while giving himself multiple opportunities to be in the saddle.

    The SF.260TP fires on the DC-3 and ignites a fire in the left engine. Bond, being the well-trained pilot that he is, responds by cutting fuel to the left engine. He does this by retarding the mixture knob all the way back. Since the DC-3 has two engines, it has six engine knobs total:
    main-qimg-6884f4465b40c4ff61921b51c7becf1f

    The black knobs are the throttles, and control manifold pressure. The white knobs are the propeller controls, and control RPM. The red knobs are the mixture controls, and control the amount of fuel flowing into the engine. By retarding the left engine mixture all the way back, he shuts down the engine by starving it (and the fire) of fuel.

    The SF.260TP continues its boom-and-zoom while the now-single-engine DC-3 bleeds off airspeed and altitude. Bond needs a plan. The next time the SF.260TP saddles up, Bond advances the left engine's mixture knob all the way forward.
    main-qimg-049f087c44dc46a4894a6e620134382f

    This returns a full flow of fuel to the left engine, giving the fire plenty to burn. The left engine bellows with smoke, obscuring the adversary pilot's view. The adversary pilot cannot remain at the DC-3's deep six, in firing position, while maintaining visual contact. He is forced to drop "out of plane" to a non-firing position.

    Meanwhile, Bond does another tricky thing: He slows his DC-3 way down. We see him reach for the DC-3's "Johnson bar" style flap lever, a giant lever in between the pilots' seats:
    main-qimg-312bc65390fde71521d2f70514c0c768

    And we see the DC-3's flaps go down:
    main-qimg-74c821e2ab3caae9176a6a11dbe9f604

    This is our clue that Bond is slowing the plane down. The flaps provide an extra margin of maneuverability at low speeds. The adversary pilot should at this point disengage and come around for a shot at a different angle, maybe a deflection shot from above, out of the path of the smoke, but instead he insists on letting his speed drop along with the DC-3's.

    The DC-3 is a slower aircraft than the SF.260TP, and has a slower stall speed. We get a brief shot of the SF.260TP's airspeed indicator as the airplane slows down:
    main-qimg-11006ad38bf82a7d8d4c6a4a4e5baa90

    The SF.260TP's stall speed is 80 knots, and the needle is winding down.
    Here's a shot of the airspeed indicator from a DC-3:
    main-qimg-09a3853ceac3ff71dbb2f57b67b64155

    The red line on this dial is down at 60 knots, giving the DC-3 the ability to fly 20 knots slower than the SF.260TP.

    Bond's next trick is to put the DC-3 into a hard left turn. Here's the thing about the stall speed indications on those airspeed dials: They apply only to straight and level flight. Stall speeds increase as bank angle increases. An airplane in a 60° bank has increased its stall speed by 40%.

    The left turn was also a particularly adroit decision: Remember that only the right engine is generating thrust, meaning the airplane can turn more tightly to the left than it can to the right, challenging the SF.260TP's ability to keep up in the turn.

    So the DC-3 and the SF.260TP are low and slow in a hard left turn. The SF.260TP's stall warning light comes on, warning the pilot that he cannot sustain this turn much longer:
    main-qimg-ae54b0ae260203e65e3f24bd9f451c09

    The adversary pilot has no choice but to abandon the turn and accelerate. Unbeknownst to him though, Bond has flown his DC-3 to a narrow canyon pass, which the adversary pilot could not see behind the thick wall of smoke. When he pulls up out of the smoke and prepares to overtake the DC-3, he is greeted by the sight of the canyon wall, and flies in for a much much closer look.

    Some edits for my fellow pedants out there:
    A few knowledgeable Quorans have rightly been pointing out that the scene is not entirely factually accurate, as is often the case in movies. The above deconstruction is based on what the movie presents to you as the truth of the matter, and not would have happened in real life. As others have pointed out, trying to recreate this dogfight in real life would result in a few nasty surprises:

    The DC-3, when flying with one engine inoperative, would have experienced an asymmetric force caused by the non-centered placement of the operating engine, causing the DC-3 to tend to yaw to the left. This would require Bond to apply right rudder to compensate. The slower the DC-3 flew, the greater the force would be, and the more "right boot" Bond would have had to put in to keep the airplane flying straight. Flying slow enough, there would not be enough rudder authority to keep the airplane centered. This is called the minimum controllable airspeed, and is 76 knots in the DC-3. So, in summary: If you were to find your nearest DC-3, shut down the left engine, and slow it down to 60 knots or so, you would discover you can't keep it flying straight. Attempt to make a turn, or even just keep it under control, and you may very well discover the airplane has a tendency to "want" to flip over, at which point you will regret having followed these instructions you found on some random Quora answer.

    Now, that being said, nowhere in the movie do they establish that the DC-3 was flying below Vmc (min. controllable airspeed). In the shots of the SF.260TP's airspeed indicator you can see it drop to 80 knots, but that's still above the DC-3's Vmc. The turn would have been very difficult for Bond, but maybe not impossible. There is a different issue that does render the whole thing moot, however, and that's...

    The stall speed for the SF.260TP depicted may not be accurate. In reality the stall speed is probably much more comparable to the DC-3, around 60 knots. The SF.260TP is not certificated in the United States, so official data on its important airspeeds is not easy to find. Chances are, recreating this dogfight in real life, you'd find that the SF.260TP could hold with the DC-3 in the turn just fine, and in fact could hold the turn longer because it's a more powerful airplane and wouldn't bleed off speed in the turn like a single-engine DC-3 would. But, in the end, the dogfight wasn't decided by who could hang on in the turn longer; it was decided by Bond forcing the adversary pilot to fly into a canyon wall, and no amount of performance advantage could save the SF.260TP at that point.

    I realize I start by saying "never get slow in a dogfight" and then explain how Bond does exactly that. It only works because the adversary pilot insists on slowing down with Bond. Were he a smarter pilot he would preserve his energy (his "E" as fighter pilots call it). Whomever has more "E" can set the terms of a dogfight: He can choose to attack and escape on his own terms, with the other aircraft being unable to give chase. He can disengage when the terms are unfavorable and re-engage at his leisure.


  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    "The SF-260 can climb at the rate of 548m a minute. The maximum and cruise speed of the aircraft is 182kt. Its stall speed is 59kt. The range and service ceiling of the SF-260 are 2,050km and 6,096m respectively. Its take-off ground run is 275m and the landing ground run is 270m. The aircraft weighs around 840kg and its maximum take-off weight is 1,200kg."

    Source:
    https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/aermacchisf260traine/

    so yes, a little movie magic put in there... But a very interesting explanation for sure.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Just watching QOS and again I hear him saying ‘anchor’ as he throws the hook !!
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,940
    I hear it. Subtitles?
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2018 Posts: 19,339
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I hear it. Subtitles?
    Not many people do ,and I keep missing the chance to subtitle it x it’s not good work by the QOS team but I’m sure it’s there !
    We are in the minority on this Richard !

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster strawman.

    Hahahahahahahah!!! so funny...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I hear it. Subtitles?
    Not many people do ,and I keep missing the chance to subtitle it x it’s not good work by the QOS team but I’m sure it’s there !
    We are in the minority on this Richard !
    So are we concluding that this barely decipherable grunt which, in fairness, appears to contain some syllables similar to the word ‘anchor’ is the modern equivalent to the insert shot in DAF of the car tilting the other way and exists in order for the film makers to extricate themselves from this atrociously put together sequence?

    I think I prefer Sean and Jill St John leaning one way then the other whilst trying (unconvincingly) to look surprised.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I hear it. Subtitles?
    Not many people do ,and I keep missing the chance to subtitle it x it’s not good work by the QOS team but I’m sure it’s there !
    We are in the minority on this Richard !
    So are we concluding that this barely decipherable grunt which, in fairness, appears to contain some syllables similar to the word ‘anchor’ is the modern equivalent to the insert shot in DAF of the car tilting the other way and exists in order for the film makers to extricate themselves from this atrociously put together sequence?

    I think I prefer Sean and Jill St John leaning one way then the other whilst trying (unconvincingly) to look surprised.

    Indeed Wiz.
    In fact i almost hope i AM wrong,because,if im not,then as you say its atrocious.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2018 Posts: 9,117
    I’m afraid this unintelligible grunt from Bond hardly absolves the director and the editor. It’s still an appalingly composed sequence.

    As @RichardTheBruce stated previously an insert shot of Bond lobbing the anchor over the side is all that’s required (and that could even have been shot in the studio when they realised they had forgotten to shoot it). Where we differ is that he’s happy for said shot not to be seen whereas I demand than when the film makes extraordinary claims such as boats inexplicably flipping in the air they back it up with extraordinary, or even ordinary, proof.

    When the film makes mundane claims of Bond flying between the Bahamas and Miami we can take it on trust that he used a plane. This is the essential difference and why just saying ‘I don’t need to see it’ cuts no ice for me.
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited May 2018 Posts: 19,339
    TheWizardOfIce wrote: »
    I’m afraid this unintelligible grunt from Bond hardly absolves the director and the editor. It’s still an appealingly composed sequence.

    As @RichardTheBruce stated previously an insert shot of Bond lobbing the anchor over the side is all that’s required (and that could even have been shot in the studio when they realised they had forgotten to shoot it). Where we differ is that he’s happy for said shot not to be seen whereas I demand than when the film makes extraordinary claims such as boats inexplicably flipping in the air they back it up with extraordinary, or even ordinary, proof.

    When the film makes mundane claims of Bond flying between the Bahamas and Miami we can take it on trust that he used a plane. This is the essential difference and why just saying ‘I don’t need to see it’ cuts no ice for me.

    I agree...it pisses me off..even last night when i watched it i got a pang of annoyance.To me ,its the start of the arrogance and laziness creeping in that shows itself in the later films,especially SP.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,940
    @TheWizardOfIce described my view perfectly fine, but I want to double down. (And I think he meant "appallingly" over "appeallingly" above.)

    The results on screen communicate to me the boat flipped. Taking a look at the available minutia, I didn't see anything to preclude that. So it flipped as surely as Bond arrived in Miami.

    Then @barryt007's notion of the dialogue/grunt being "anchor" is fun to consider. It's an incredible thought, but it fits. I don't expect it's in the script and I haven't bothered to check the subtitles, but will eventually. It may never be truly supported beyond opinion . But this is the kind of entertaining little detail coming out of discussion that adds to the viewing experience for me. To relish.

    So I'm definitely not so serious about this item, people can take it or leave it. Like the reverse tilt Mustang that was brought up.
    depositphotos_191600504-stock-illustration-hand-drawn-sketch-of-angkor.jpg






    slide_3.jpg
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2018 Posts: 9,117
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    @TheWizardOfIce described my view perfectly fine, but I want to double down. (And I think he meant "appallingly" over "appeallingly" above.)

    The results on screen communicate to me the boat flipped. Taking a look at the available minutia, I didn't see anything to preclude that. So it flipped as surely as Bond arrived in Miami.

    Then @barryt007's notion of the dialogue/grunt being "anchor" is fun to consider. It's an incredible thought, but it fits. I don't expect it's in the script and I haven't bothered to check the subtitles, but will eventually. It may never be truly supported beyond opinion . But this is the kind of entertaining little detail coming out of discussion that adds to the viewing experience for me. To relish.
    To be honest I used to find the whole scene superfluous and rather underwhelming. In addition now every time I watch it I’ll just remember this thread too and instead of being engaged in what’s going on on screen I’ll be straining my hearing for the word ‘anchor’ and my eyes for the slightest nanosecond shot of something that might cause the boat to flip.

    Slow handclap for Marc Forster.
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    slide_3.jpg
    Cripes I hope @Risico007 doesn’t see this or he’ll take it as proof God must exist!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    I've heard the 'anchor' grunt-theory before but I don't think many hear it in there, I think it's more wishful thinking. I agree completely that Marc Forster effed this one up, even though the leads are there, but it's all seen in a fractino of a second. Even worse then the car chase at the start of the film.

    The alley side-turning is and will Always remain unforgiveable to me. Without it I'd hardly notice the car was on the wrong side. With it, you're taken out of the chase completely. But then again it isn't the only thing they goofed up in that film.

    oh and as an addition to the miami-flight: there's another hint, as Dimitrios calls Solange he says he's 'on the last flight to Miami. That's the reason Bond rushes out, to catch the same flight.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    I've heard the 'anchor' grunt-theory before but I don't think many hear it in there, I think it's more wishful thinking. I agree completely that Marc Forster effed this one up, even though the leads are there, but it's all seen in a fractino of a second. Even worse then the car chase at the start of the film.

    The alley side-turning is and will Always remain unforgiveable to me. Without it I'd hardly notice the car was on the wrong side. With it, you're taken out of the chase completely. But then again it isn't the only thing they goofed up in that film.

    oh and as an addition to the miami-flight: there's another hint, as Dimitrios calls Solange he says he's 'on the last flight to Miami. That's the reason Bond rushes out, to catch the same flight.

    I started it i think /:
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    I've heard the 'anchor' grunt-theory before but I don't think many hear it in there, I think it's more wishful thinking. I agree completely that Marc Forster effed this one up, even though the leads are there, but it's all seen in a fractino of a second. Even worse then the car chase at the start of the film.

    The alley side-turning is and will Always remain unforgiveable to me. Without it I'd hardly notice the car was on the wrong side. With it, you're taken out of the chase completely. But then again it isn't the only thing they goofed up in that film.

    oh and as an addition to the miami-flight: there's another hint, as Dimitrios calls Solange he says he's 'on the last flight to Miami. That's the reason Bond rushes out, to catch the same flight.

    I started it i think /:

    Nope, I read it on these boards years ago. Sorry my friend, maybe I'm mistaken and it's in there, but it seems too much wishful thinking to me. A couple of years ago, when I still had a dvd player and tv, I tried to figure this all out, frame by frame. But the grunt is nothing more then a grunt to me. The Anchor and rope can be seen for a very short moment, so I'll stick to that version.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    I've heard the 'anchor' grunt-theory before but I don't think many hear it in there, I think it's more wishful thinking. I agree completely that Marc Forster effed this one up, even though the leads are there, but it's all seen in a fractino of a second. Even worse then the car chase at the start of the film.

    The alley side-turning is and will Always remain unforgiveable to me. Without it I'd hardly notice the car was on the wrong side. With it, you're taken out of the chase completely. But then again it isn't the only thing they goofed up in that film.

    oh and as an addition to the miami-flight: there's another hint, as Dimitrios calls Solange he says he's 'on the last flight to Miami. That's the reason Bond rushes out, to catch the same flight.

    I started it i think /:

    Nope, I read it on these boards years ago. Sorry my friend, maybe I'm mistaken and it's in there, but it seems too much wishful thinking to me. A couple of years ago, when I still had a dvd player and tv, I tried to figure this all out, frame by frame. But the grunt is nothing more then a grunt to me. The Anchor and rope can be seen for a very short moment, so I'll stick to that version.

    Thats a relief......at least someone else started it off,keeps my 'street cred' at a good to average level on here haha !!
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,339
    Oh don't worry, you're on here so often you've got more cred then may indeed be healthy :-P
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Oh don't worry, you're on here so often you've got more cred then may indeed be healthy :-P

    Hahaha good point Rossy !

    That will change in about 10 days as i'm off to the Philippines for a business venture .
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,940
    I gotta say I'm enjoying this concept to tell the truth. The idea of Forster and editor behind the scenes agonizing over a missing shot and coming up with (Of course!) Craig Bond breaking the fourth wall and grunting "Anchor!" is hilarious.
    748129003_oa2x.jpg
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    RichardTheBruce wrote: »
    I gotta say I'm enjoying this concept to tell the truth. The idea of Forster and editor behind the scenes agonizing over a missing shot and coming up with (Of course!) Craig Bond breaking the fourth wall and grunting "Anchor!" is hilarious.
    748129003_oa2x.jpg

    Its definately something haha !
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,234
    The boat chase is rather superfluous anyway. Bond already knows Greene's name, so he goes through all of that to rescue Camille - not knowing her value and not even bothering to stick around and ask her any questions?
  • STLCards3STLCards3
    Posts: 230
    Some_Kind_Of_Hero wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Just watching QOS and STILL i dont get the bloody anchor-flying boat scenario.....drives me mad..the boat is just pulled out to sea..not attached to anything .

    It’s the least of my worries with that film. If it were the biggest issue I’d be delighted.

    For some of us, the flying boat is the biggest issue with it!

    I did notice the flying boat, but chalked-it up as an editing issue. I have always been much more bothered by Bond and Camille surviving the parachute fall completely uninjured.
Sign In or Register to comment.