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
But in TOMORROW NEVER DIES, OO7 performing mouth to mouth resuscitation on Wai Lin underwater won't work.
Longer version here. youtu.be/fiFbDF90MvI
That s cool, but most people on this forum would whine and moan and whine about the attrocious cgi.
As if.
I don't think it's inconceivable to put in a Bond film but the difficulty would be coming up with a contrivance to set the ramps up in the script. The broken bridge in TMWTGG one thing but a workman leaving these two perfectly angled ramps up against a wall for no reason I can conceive of a bit far fetched.
(Also good for skateboarders. Needs a shorter vehicle than a full sized Aston Martin, though.)
Running up the wall (car chase here) allows the unexpected escape plan.
Where the wall is the side of a bridge, OO7 goes up then over and down onto another roadway.
Between could be a river or railway or other impassable obstacle.
Of course, I don't buy the idea the latest Bond films don't allow for these concepts.
Aston Martin Cygnet
That ending really pisses me off.
If they built a bridge specially and designed the ramp in as part of the architecture it could work.
But not with that car which is an utter disgrace to the badge. Just a crappy off the shelf Toyota IQ in an Aston skin which they brought out so the emissions across the range complied with some EU law.
http://www.carbuyer.co.uk/reviews/aston-martin/cygnet/hatchback/review
Bond would not be seen dead in this abortion of a car.
I like the way they swerve into the opening in the plane. It could have gotten quite messy if they'd caught the propeller instead.
https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/watch-james-bond-style-base-jumpers-leap-off-mountain-into-plane-1.680030
I get both GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY vibes on this one, in good ways.
Those guys are pretty brave to swerve into the cabin like that. I'm sure it would have been quite painful had they slammed into the fuselage (which they probably did in the many failed attempts they made).
Colonel Moon says his hovercraft will "float right over" the minefields in the DMZ.
Wikipedia says:
So i'm thinking the high-pressure air below the hull is a force applied downward. Which would easily trigger any land mines.
That or the skirt running around the craft. They do look great on screen, though.
Very true. I've always thought this odd as something must be supporting the weight of the hovercraft. Newton's third law seems to indicate that the column of air would exert a downward force equal to that of the hovercraft and thus surely trigger the mines?
https://science.howstuffworks.com/landmine4.htm
I always thought these were anti-tank mines, or meant to be, but as they are Bounding (bouncing betty) mines (same link, few pages previous) they must be anti personell. In which case the hovercraft story makes even less sense.
The jump in the plane has been done before (allthough not from a mountain top!) without the squirrel suits (or whatever they're called). Indeed the part that makes it shoddy is the bad background projection and the rather odd position Bond takes in the plane itself.
Well there's just a lot wrong with that scene. The mines are anti-personell, they go off, send a charge upwards which explodes and sends schrapnell around. Lovely hovercrafts then, with open cockpits thet protect... absolutely against nothing. If the hovercrafts 'float' over anti-tank mines, which I doubt, they certainly will let the ant-personell ones go off. And then there's the shooting of the mines.....
Much more testing went into the design of the weight sensors (which were used in place of actual mines) than is shown in this video. Also, in the full episode they repeated the test with the sensors calibrated for anti-personnel weight, and they still didn't go off. This is admittedly a much smaller hovercraft than in the film, but since it's floating on a cushion of air the concern is not weight, but PSI. Although a larger hovercraft would weigh more, that weight would be spread out over a larger area. I'm no expert on the subject of hovercrafts, but I do have some personal experience;
@CommanderRoss My theory on that has always been that Bond was firing at the mines to cause them to damage the hovercrafts behind him, using the delay between the charge firing into the air and it exploding to his advantage. I doubt the delay would be that long in real life though, and he would likely just be blowing up his own vehicle.
Ah, that reasoning makes sense. I didn't get it from the film, but as the sequence actually makes sense I'll see when I watch that film next time if it corresponds to the filming. Thanks again, never too long on a forum to learn ;-)
@RichardTheBruce
Where can I find that thing? I wants it; I needs it. My precious.
It's impossible to mix blanks and real rounds in a semi automatic or full automatic gun. Blanks don't have enough power to pull back the slide, and need a blank plug to do so. Use a real round after that and... Well' I wouldn't want to be the shooter. More infuriati'g, the new MacGuyver series made the same mistake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank-firing_adaptor