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
It is never shown, but my best guess is that one end of it fell/ was thrown into the water and is so heavy that it would need a large force to move. Bond takes advantage of the situation and attaches the other end to their boat. So that would explain the boat's sudden halt and why it was 'leaning' forward.
The reason we don't know how exactly it works is due to the awful editing. Every fault of QoS can be traced back to the editing.
But at no point do I see an anchor, only a kind of grappling hook thing which he attaches to the boat.
All we need is a half second shot of Bond lobbing an anchor over the side but I'm afraid it simply isn't there so we are only speculating.
I wonder if they realised in the cutting room they didn't have that shot so dubbed Bond saying 'anchor' over the top to try and get it to make sense for the audience?
Christ even the tilting car insert in DAF made a better fist of it than that.
Poor action sequence, appalling editing, terrible filmmaking.
The only thing I can possibly note is, the boat that hits Bond and Camille, and rides up the back of their boat has a largely inflatable body. Bond uses a grappling hook (which is conveniently laying around) and throws it into the pursuing boat. Upon pulling the rope of the grappling hook taught, the inflatable hull of the boat is ruptured and for some reason causes it to fly into the air. That's about all I can gather. Again, a terrible scene, poorly executed.
Agreed, @JamesBondKenya.
Who or what pulls the rope taut? Bond doesnt he just lobs in the grappling hook and then the next shot is of the rope paying out for some inexplicable reason (the only logical explanation is it is attached to some sort of weight - the anchor - which has been thrown over the side).
'Ruptured' (which we never see happen by the way) and this causes it to 'fly into the air'?
I suppose if the boat was inflated to 1 million PSI then rupturing the hull might result in an air cannon effect and fire it into the sky?
But the reality is it would probably just go 'phhht' and slowly lose buoyancy in a not very spectacular fashion.
Not blaming you for trying to come up with something as the more you pick it apart the worse it gets but this theory comes nowhere near to me.
The other end is attached to an anchor is still the most credible hypothesis and even this has several holes.
Maybe we need to write to Mythbusters?
At 2:27, it sounds to me as of something is rupturing.
Actually looking at that again I might owe Benny an apology.
It could be that the grappling hook punctures the hull (what causes the rope to have tension is still a mystery) which then fires the nose down which digs into the water and flips the boat.
It would still need the 1 million PSI pressure to have enough force to push it down into the water but its almost as credible as the anchor theory I guess.
Although at 2.26.8 (I'm guessing here - says it all when 1 second isnt specific enough and covers about 4 different shots) inbetween the rope paying out shot and the shot of the guy kind of lying across the bow theres a perhaps 3 frame shot of the grappling hook about to pierce the side of the boat. However the position of those holes would mean that the, in effect, jet propulsion caused by the piercing and consequent gas expulsion would be to thrust the boat forwards rather than downwards. To result in a downward vector of thrust the holes would need to be on the top not the side as it appears they would be if this theory is to hold water.
It would be nice if the director could just film it coherently in the first place and we didnt have to dissect the scene frame by frame just to come up with these unsatisfying theories.
I don't buy this anchor theory. Craig doesn't say anchor in that clip. He's just grunting.
What I think happens is that the crew rocking the inflatable (to get free from Bond's boat) makes the inflatable slide down the back of Bond's boat (missing shot). At the same time one of the crew is trying to get to the front of the inflatable which adds downward pressure. As the inflatable tips down and backwards the rope tightens and the inflatable's motor rises out of the water. This causes Bond's boat to accelerate relative to the inflatable thereby flipping it on account of the chap's weight on the front, the motor out of the water and the hook and rope doing the rest.
EDIT: I think I'm right on the inflatable sliding backwards. Freeze it at 2:18 and look at the position of the inflatable in relation to Bond's boat. Then freeze it at 2:27 and look again. It's definitely slid back dramatically (with the chap right on the front of it). That's what tightened the rope and caused it to dip forward.
Pretty sure he does say 'anchor' you have to really listen intently though.
From watching the clip a few times the anchor bursts the dinghy causing the nose to sharply dip (helped by the weight of the bad guy), paired with the speed causes the boat to flip as it hits the water. Sorted.
Nah.
Sorry to sound like a broken record but, apart from you making up missing shots to help your argument, l would again have to question the physics.
At 2.26 the rope starts to tighten and at 2.27 the boat is clearly pulled out violently from under the guy. His weight has no effect on anything and the boat does not slide backwards it is yanked backwards.
The boat is not made of paper. It's a rigid inflatable that can easily carry at least 6 people. There's two guys on it and the notion that one man's weight (unless he's 1000 stone) on the front of the boat would be enough to unbalance it and lift the propellor out of the water is extremely questionable.
Besides the boat is resting on a pivot (Bond's boat) with about 2/5 on the Bond's boat side of the pivot and 3/5 on the sea side of the pivot. I'm not sure of the precise moments calculations but I think for the man's weight to tip it so the tail lifts out of the water it needs to be close to double the weight of the other guy and the outboard motor.
In addition if Bond's boat suddenly accelerates due to your hypothesis above (although I see no evidence of this. Bond's boat stays the same and the villains boat is pulled violently backwards - well more precisely stops abruptly - which causes the guy to be thrown forwards at 2.27) and this tightens the rope which flips the boat why does nothing happen to Bond's boat? If the rope is attached to each boat and one flips (for whatever reason) wouldn't the equal and opposite reaction on the rope at least pull the back off Bond's (pretty clapped out) boat?
We've been getting tied up in increasingly complicated contortions when you've been able to sum it up so succinctly old chap.
Absolutely correct. Bond throws the grappling hook into their boat and that's it!
Just watched it in slow motion. They're missing a shot of him throwing the other end off his boat, and when the boat flips, you can clearly tell daniel craig is CGI'd in to the frame.
That's the key to it. If there was a shot of Bond throwing the other end which is attached to a heavy anchor over the side I could live with it.