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
Why?
The villains boat has marooned on Bond's so they are both going at the same speed. Bond's boat never changes speed after he deliberately slows it to get the villains boat to mount his.
All we can say for sure is he throws the hook in and then their boat is yanked down by some force that (it is implied) has something to do with the rope and the grappling hook. We cant even confirm what the other end of the rope is attached to can we?
Always love having a reason to pop in QoS!
The amount of boats I have fallen off or head-butted bridges while on board ,means I'm not qualified..i am a disaster afloat...im just throwing the idea out there,my old pal..
This is as big a mystery as my 'Spot the Adams' thread !
Ooh well played.. nice one !
Well then the big mystery remains what caused the sudden rope tightening and the similarly rapid downward push of the front of the inflatable boat?
Or is it not strong enough ?
I mean,would a small boat,already made of heavy steel,need a real anchor ?
Well I understand Bond's logic if there's an anchor on the other end of the rope. He attaches the grappling hook to their boat and lobs the anchor over the side hoping it will catch on something underwater and at the very least rip a chunk off their boat but he gets lucky and the nose digs in and it flips.
BUT there is no anchor. What causes the rope to start to spool on 2.26?
The sad thing is even this explanation doesn't make sense, because as you say, we'd expect Hulk-Bond to heave it into the air, yet if you freeze frame for another tenths of a second, you notice the boat actually gets sucked into the water before being catapulted into the air.
I'd just chalk that up to sloppy editing.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but 1) if the anchor goes overboard, the boat won't flip over as there is nothing for the hook Bond throws inside the boat to get ahold of, so Bond's actions accomplish nothing, and 2) you can freeze frame at the 2:21 mark to see that there's isn't any anchor in Bond's boat in the first place.
Should've been the tagline for the QOS poster.
Imagine an anchor (or a simple weight) that has a grappling hook attached to the other side of the rope. The anchor falls off the boat when they crash and the rope is maybe 600m long so we can't see it spool already. The anchor (or weight) doesn't even need to be hooked onto the lake's floor because of the masses inertia. Now, both boats are moving forward and therefore away from the anchor, so the rope spools fast. Bond sees it and takes advantage of the situation by throwing the hook onto the other boat. Rope becomes taught and the resulting flip is due to the angle of the anchor to the front of their boat.
This answer works perfectly in line with what we see in the film. The editing does leave room for different ideas but since mine works... why not go with it?
Your explanation makes perfect sense, but the main problem is nothing of what you say happens in the film. You explain exactly what should happen in the sequence, but the film defies any logic we apply in our explanations, which is the core of the problem. It's obvious that the anchor is the only solution, but freeze framing shows that 1) there isn't any anchor in Bond's boat or the villain's boat, and 2) even if we by-pass the missing anchor, there is nothing on the front end of the villain's boat for the grappling hook to hold on to. Assuming we add a shot of Bond throwing an anchor in the water, the only thing that would happen is the hook flying in the air by itself because it simply does not have any kind of 'foot-hold' strong enough. We could add 20 minutes of footage to this boat chase, and the end results is the same: it is not physically possible for the villain's boat to flip based on what Bond is doing.
I do believe that is what's intended, but the editing doesn't make that immediately clear, and we still never see the anchor. We also have no good reason for there being a grappling hook on the boat, unless it's meant to be the anchor, which by this explanation it can't be; the anchor has to be at the other end of the rope from the hook. The fact that there has to be this discussion to try to figure out a simple chase sequence shows the poor editing work on this film. It's also questionable that an anchor heavy enough to cause a speeding boat to flip could be on board Bond's tiny boat, and be lifted over the side by Bond. I suspect an anchor suitable for that size boat wouldn't have anywhere near the inertia necessary to flip the pursuing craft, but then again, it's only "movie logic."
Some other thoughts on the scene, having just re-watched it on YouTube:
I don't think Bond says "anchor." It just sounds like grunting to me.
On first viewing of the film, I believed the boat's hull rupturing was intended to be the cause of the flip, but now I don't think so. Having watched it in slow-motion, it doesn't appear to deflate, but I do hear a puncturing sound. The hull never seems to lose enough air to even go slightly visibly slack. I still think that it's the force of the anchor that's supposed to be pulling the front end down, but it would make sense that the hull would be pierced in the process, as that would seem to be what the grappling hook latched onto.
The people responsible for this scene should be required to watch the boat chase from TWINE until they learn what a good boat chase is, though the QOS chase is better than I remember it being.
It's a cheap explanation to justify what happens next I think.