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
http://bit.ly/2kMslxn
Think these three bottles will end up nicely in my collection inside my cabinet. :)
Then you see him around actual human characters and he feels all strange again. ;)
Not so much to me since he mingled with regular human characters in cartoons as well. :D
Moral of the story: If you're going to drive over 100+ consecutive speed bumps at high speed, do so in a Toyota Land Cruiser. It definitely fared the best. I really should get that game someday.
But the horrifically disturbing destruction of the yellow 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air should have had a warning.
https://www.abcnyheter.no/reise/inspirasjon/2017/10/24/195342297/skal-bygge-europas-forste-undervannsrestaurant-i-lindesnes
Look at #6. If they knew anything, they'd know that it was done for real. Idiots.
When I saw L&LD on that list I said, "Oh no."
I honestly can't tell what point they are making by including it? I mean, can a stunt truly be called unrealistic when the jump was done for real? Sure, it's convenient Bond would find a curved bridge and it was clearly a section of bridge constructed to aid in the jump, but it still happened exactly as presented, making it in the realm of realistic. No?
Me too. Exactly my words. Not to mention the way the narrator says "Scar-A-Monga". Watch the film please. Ugh.
...lost their mojo.
YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
I Think you may mean TMWTGG.
Also, there's a difference between realistic and possible. Yes, it was possible to do the stunt for real since they worked out everything beforehand, but it's still unrealistic that someone would think to do that in the spur of the moment, and actually land it.
So to give an example, it's unrealistic that a 50 year old who has no experience in climbing would be able to scale mount Everest, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. People do things that are unrealistic all the time.
Well, Watch Mojo were always going to invite a battle of syntax when they chose to start their video with this line:
"No amount of nitrous is making these stunts a reality."
A line that implies, and nearly confirms, that their goal was to compile a list of stunts that couldn't happen without heavy usage of movie magic, special effects and all the other bells and whistles. And it makes sense that they would word it that way, as the vast, vast majority of their list includes "stunts" that were aided by special effects or that were compiled of numerous shots to make them appear seamless. The only stunts on the list that aren't visibly tweaked with a use of effects are #7 and #9, but even then you can tell that multiple cuts and engineering on set were used to heighten the scene and make the cars do things they wouldn't be able to in real life, under real conditions and the forces of physics.
The stunt from TMWTGG, however, stands as the only stunt that was 100% done for real on the list, in camera and with no cuts, crazy effects or anything else: it's just a decently fast car going off a bridge into a loop. Now, perhaps that exact thing couldn't happen 19 times out of 20 in real life, as you wouldn't be in a position to loop a car on a bridge while out and about, but the actual stunt itself doesn't fit the exact definition of "unrealistic" because it wasn't unfeasible (it was done for real) or nonviable (the performance of the stunt proves it is possible in reality).
If something unrealistic lacks a sense of reality, and the opposite of the term is something that represents what is possible and true to life, then I think a stunt done in camera with no edits or effects whatsoever would quality as far more realistic than unrealistic, especially since TMWTGG is the only one on the list that isn't helped by movie magic, making it even more strange why it's there. Is it slightly zany and something probably only to appear in a film? Sure. But, it respects physics 100% and is possible with a damn good stunt driver. ;)