176 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh Agent]

Plot-wise, the freefall scene is needed because that's how Bond tumbles onto Greene and Quantum's plan to withhold water from the Bolivian people. By freefalling, he and Camille fall through the sinkhole to land in the vicinity of one of Quantum's reservoirs.

For me, the plane chase and initial part of the freefall were fine. It was the end of the freefall that I have problems with. As edited, there is no way that Bond and Camille survived the landing. All Forster/the editor had to do was show the parachute opening a second or two before impact instead of pulling the ripcord and landing a millisecond later. That really isn't too much to ask.

[Captain Tightpants]

Plot-wise, the freefall scene is needed because that's how Bond tumbles onto Greene and Quantum's plan to withhold water from the Bolivian people. By freefalling, he and Camille fall through the sinkhole to land in the vicinity of one of Quantum's reservoirs.

Exactly; it's far more likely that they'd come in through the opening than stumble upon an abandoned and sealed mine on foot in one of the loneliest corners of the world. Far less dramatic, too.

For the record, I liked the freefall scene. The first half above the sinkhole was better than in the sinkhole, but I still liked it. I imagine we didn't see Bond and Camille recoverng because the film cut back to London.

[SecretAgentFan]

The omission of them both recovering after the freefall is criminal in my book, and strips away all the hard work achieved with the reboot process by EON up until this moment in the film.

I find that remark totally ridiculous. Do you really consider it believable that Bond survived the crane sequence, the Miami sequence and the digitalis poisoning sequence in CR without any broken bones, sprained ankles or severe heart damage? Also it seems as if having your genitals smashed does not really keep you from having wild sex a few weeks later. Or - as already pointed out in this forum - being hit with a six-inch-nail in the back (and most possibly into a lung) is obviously neither painful nor does it keep you from diving into debris-infested water and drag a lifeless body to the surface.

C´mon - if you really want realism in a Bond film you cannot point to CR AT ALL.

I never had a problem with the free fall sequence because the parachute does open and we hear Bond and Camille screaming out when hitting the ground. Then comes the "M"-scene. And after that we cut back to Bond and Camille. We don´t know how much time has actually passed. And it is not important either. The forward momentum of the story is, however. And Forster now cuts to the emotional impact of Bond´s and Camille´s purpose. That´s perfectly fine with me.


So, IF you really want to say that the Craig era jumped the shark it was in the crane sequence in CR.

[Jet Set Willy]

The omission of them both recovering after the freefall is criminal in my book, and strips away all the hard work achieved with the reboot process by EON up until this moment in the film.

I find that remark totally ridiculous. Do you really consider it believable that Bond survived the crane sequence, the Miami sequence and the digitalis poisoning sequence in CR without any broken bones, sprained ankles or severe heart damage? Also it seems as if having your genitals smashed does not really keep you from having wild sex a few weeks later. Or - as already pointed out in this forum - being hit with a six-inch-nail in the back (and most possibly into a lung) is obviously neither painful nor does it keep you from diving into debris-infested water and drag a lifeless body to the surface.

C´mon - if you really want realism in a Bond film you cannot point to CR AT ALL.

I never had a problem with the free fall sequence because the parachute does open and we hear Bond and Camille screaming out when hitting the ground. Then comes the "M"-scene. And after that we cut back to Bond and Camille. We don´t know how much time has actually passed. And it is not important either. The forward momentum of the story is, however. And Forster now cuts to the emotional impact of Bond´s and Camille´s purpose. That´s perfectly fine with me.


So, IF you really want to say that the Craig era jumped the shark it was in the crane sequence in CR.

I disagree completely. The crane scene had OTT stunts, but somehow I was never questioning any of it while watching. It was a take-your-breath-away kind of experience. We even had shots of Craig looking nervous before jumping. This all added to the `realism'. The scene in Miami airport, Craig's face is scarred to pieces afterwards. The scene after the stairwell fight, Craig is bloodied, and examines himself in the mirror. After the ball whacking, he ends up in hospital. This all adds up to an impression of realism within the film itself (despite whether it is based on totally reality or not).

That freefall scene was a moment like the CGi iceberg scene in DAD. It was a `ooh no! Now they have gone too far with this' kind of moment. I felt myself groan inwardly at that moment.

Was it just me who thought that? Apparently not, judging by the responses in this thread....

[Jim]

I find that remark totally ridiculous. Do you really consider it believable that Bond survived the crane sequence, the Miami sequence and the digitalis poisoning sequence in CR without any broken bones, sprained ankles or severe heart damage? Also it seems as if having your genitals smashed does not really keep you from having wild sex a few weeks later. Or - as already pointed out in this forum - being hit with a six-inch-nail in the back (and most possibly into a lung) is obviously neither painful nor does it keep you from diving into debris-infested water and drag a lifeless body to the surface.

C´mon - if you really want realism in a Bond film you cannot point to CR AT ALL.

I tend to agree with this. All the hugely thrilling sitting down that dominates the second half of the film can't gloss over that what is happening, what has happened and what is yet to happen, are utter absurdities.

Not a comment on this thread as such, but in the general reaction to Casino Royale - I mean, it's not a documentary, is it?

[bonds_walther]

Bond, and a very thin girl plummets from a few thousand feet in QoS and a few moments later they are walking around and climbing heaps of rock. This is the single biggest problem in QoS. Forget the loud moans from critics regarding the Bradley/Bourne shaky cam, the supposed lack of plot, Craig being too cold and ruthless, Mathis being dumped in a garbage truck, Dominic being too non-existent, too much action, etc.

This one scene is where it all falls apart for me. The aftermath of the freefall scene. The plane sequence was well-done, we had elements of realism, the bad guys came from nowhere and took the audience by suprise, the engine burning out wasn't that badly done, the CGI was passable, hell - even the freefall scene had me still glued to the screen, my hands gripped to the chair. It was done in a realistic fashion, seeing the faces contort with the wind. And then the parachute opens a couple of metres from the ground, and....

They collapse on the floor. At that moment, silence fell in the cinema. Are they both ok? Did they make it? Are they still alive? Or are they both fine, right as rain and we are suddenly back in DAD territory again?

Unfortunately, it was the latter.

After all that hard work done beforehand too in CR - Bond hesitating before crane jumping, Bond dazed and bloodied after the stairwell fight, Bond examining his wounds in the bathroom while necking a glass of bourbon, Bond passing out on the grass after the car crash, Bond half-dead on the back seat of Le Chiffre's car, Bond nervous before the torture scene, Bond screaming out in pain, Bond recovering in hospital. Even in QoS this continues. Bond looking perturbed in the car chase, looking dusty, bloody and knackered, Bond tying cloth around his arm wound in Slate's apartment, Bond gasping for breath during the plane scene.

The omission of them both recovering after the freefall is criminal in my book, and strips away all the hard work achieved with the reboot process by EON up until this moment in the film. Without that crucial scene, the film crashed right back down to the bottom of the barrel with a bang, far louder and harder than Bond and Camille's freefall.

What was Forster thinking? Seeing that moment again for the third time suddenly made me very angry, as I doubt Campbell would have allowed that to happen in CR, and given that we are within the same realistic confines in QoS, it seemed shoddy that Forster thought he could get away with it.

Do you bitch about the freefall scene in the Goldneye PTS too? Seriously, I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think that is the make-or-break of the film. This is a Bond film after all - he is allowed to do what the average man couldn't. That's why Bond is Bond!

[Jet Set Willy]

Do you bitch about the freefall scene in the Goldneye PTS too? Seriously, I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think that is the make-or-break of the film. This is a Bond film after all - he is allowed to do what the average man couldn't. That's why Bond is Bond!

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels, not like Austin Powers.

Edited by Jet Set Willy, 19 November 2008 - 08:00 AM.

[hilly]

Do you bitch about the freefall scene in the Goldneye PTS too? Seriously, I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think that is the make-or-break of the film. This is a Bond film after all - he is allowed to do what the average man couldn't. That's why Bond is Bond!

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels, not like Austin Powers.

Part of the reason that the films have lasted, is because of the element of the ridiculous. It's what makes them fun to watch (or have I been missing the point of them for the last 30-odd years?) They are pure fantasy, as most of the actors who have played Bond have stated. Virtually every film has had at least one moment where disbelief has to be suspended.Casino Royale was praised by fans for its more realistic approach, but it nevertheless was still wildly over the top in places and all the better for it. As somebody has said already, these films are not documentaries. Yes, the freefall scene was ridiculous, but it was FUN. My girlfriend was especially amused that Camille's make-up was intact on landing, but shrugged it off by saying "Its a Bond film. You don't expect complete reality"

[Jet Set Willy]

Do you bitch about the freefall scene in the Goldneye PTS too? Seriously, I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think that is the make-or-break of the film. This is a Bond film after all - he is allowed to do what the average man couldn't. That's why Bond is Bond!

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels, not like Austin Powers.

Part of the reason that the films have lasted, is because of the element of the ridiculous. It's what makes them fun to watch (or have I been missing the point of them for the last 30-odd years?) They are pure fantasy, as most of the actors who have played Bond have stated. Virtually every film has had at least one moment where disbelief has to be suspended.Casino Royale was praised by fans for its more realistic approach, but it nevertheless was still wildly over the top in places and all the better for it. As somebody has said already, these films are not documentaries. Yes, the freefall scene was ridiculous, but it was FUN. My girlfriend was especially amused that Camille's make-up was intact on landing, but shrugged it off by saying "Its a Bond film. You don't expect complete reality"

My wife hated that scene. She loved CR, and said it was the first Bond film she has liked, because it had very little of these moments. She didn't like QoS as much, because it started to steer away into Brosnan territory again.

I'm a Bond fan too, but mainly for the novels, not the films. It's one of the reasons I loved CR so much, because it suddenly became a lot closer to the books, not just with the story, but because of its nastier, graphic edge. QoS still has this too, hence why it is actually one of my favourite films in the franchise - despite this awful scene. It's just that I feel they were treading a fine line back to Brosnan in parts of QoS, something I really don't want to see them venture back to.

[dee-bee-five]

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels.

Yes, we really need that fight with the giant squid so that the films can truly be regarded as being as realistic as Fleming's novels, don't we?

[sharpshooter]

Do you bitch about the freefall scene in the Goldneye PTS too? Seriously, I know you are entitled to your opinion, but I hardly think that is the make-or-break of the film. This is a Bond film after all - he is allowed to do what the average man couldn't. That's why Bond is Bond!

Good point. That scene in GoldenEye is about the same as the scene in QoS. I love GoldenEye and that freefall doesn't make me like it any less. It's borderline ridiculous but it is so Bondian in concept. I think both instances are a good piece of fun. I think it probably just stands out more in a Craig film where the emphasis is on realism.

[Jet Set Willy]

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels.

Yes, we really need that fight with the giant squid so that the films can truly be regarded as being as realistic as Fleming's novels, don't we?

Yes, yes, yes. Fleming's novels were outlandish too, but still kept it within a sense of reality. Or are you disputing that Fleming tried to keep a sense of reality within the books?

[dee-bee-five]

Of course I bitch about the freefall in GE. I hate all the Brosnan films with a passion because of their lack of reality. My favourite films are CR, FRWL, OHMSS, LTK, precisely because they try to steer away from silly, OTT moments. I despise underwater tie-straightening, double-taking pigeons, invisible cars, iceberg surfing, gonolas on wheels, telling snakes to hiss off, Tarzan yells, etc.

Bond films should be more like the novels.

Yes, we really need that fight with the giant squid so that the films can truly be regarded as being as realistic as Fleming's novels, don't we?

Yes, yes, yes. Fleming's novels were outlandish too, but still kept it within a sense of reality. Or are you disputing that Fleming tried to keep a sense of reality within the books?

Not at all. Just trying to keep a sense of perspective - which is always needed - when the discussion turns to the alleged "realism" of Fleming's Bond. After all, he was the first to admit that Bond's adventures were absurd.

[Jet Set Willy]

Not at all. Just trying to keep a sense of perspective - which is always needed - when the discussion turns to the alleged "realism" of Fleming's Bond. After all, he was the first to admit that Bond's adventures were absurd.

But still had an edge of realism to them. Something CR did, and parts of QoS.

[dee-bee-five]

Not at all. Just trying to keep a sense of perspective - which is always needed - when the discussion turns to the alleged "realism" of Fleming's Bond. After all, he was the first to admit that Bond's adventures were absurd.

But still had an edge of realism to them. Something CR did, and parts of QoS.

I would submit the action in QoS is far more realistic than CR, in which it is perceived as being realistic but doesn't actually stand scrutiny. An example: at the airport, Bond clings to the roof of the oil tanker which is driven through not one, but two buses. The second explodes on impact. Is our hero burned? Blown off said oil tanker? No. He has a few scratches. And I would remind you that in Casino Royale, superman Bond runs through a bloody wall!

Criticise QoS if you will, that's your right. But please don't lets pretend Casino Royale (which I adore, by the way) is cinema-vérité.

[Jet Set Willy]

Not at all. Just trying to keep a sense of perspective - which is always needed - when the discussion turns to the alleged "realism" of Fleming's Bond. After all, he was the first to admit that Bond's adventures were absurd.

But still had an edge of realism to them. Something CR did, and parts of QoS.

I would submit the action in QoS is far more realistic than CR, in which it is perceived as being realistic but doesn't actually stand scrutiny. An example: at the airport, Bond clings to the roof of the oil tanker which is driven through not one, but two buses. The second explodes on impact. Is our hero burned? Blown off said oil tanker? No. He has a few scratches. And I would remind you that in Casino Royale, superman Bond runs through a bloody wall!

Criticise QoS if you will, that's your right. But please don't lets pretend Casino Royale (which I adore, by the way) is cinema-vérité.

The slightly silly moments you mention in CR, are outweighed by the lengthy card game, Bond being tortured, Bond recovering in hospital, Bond slowly examining himself in the mirror after the stairwell fight. These moments make Bond human again.

My criticism of QoS is that we didn't have any of those moments in QoS. The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately. The two moments which were like that was Bond tying the bandage around his arm after the fight with Slate, and a quick shot of Craig gasping for breath during the dogfight. The film should have focused more on those kind of moments to bring a sense of reality back to it.

Like I said, the freefall scene could have got away with it far more, had we seen them both struggle to get up after they hit the ground. It wouldn't have taken much....

Not at all. Just trying to keep a sense of perspective - which is always needed - when the discussion turns to the alleged "realism" of Fleming's Bond. After all, he was the first to admit that Bond's adventures were absurd.

But still had an edge of realism to them. Something CR did, and parts of QoS.

I would submit the action in QoS is far more realistic than CR, in which it is perceived as being realistic but doesn't actually stand scrutiny. An example: at the airport, Bond clings to the roof of the oil tanker which is driven through not one, but two buses. The second explodes on impact. Is our hero burned? Blown off said oil tanker? No. He has a few scratches. And I would remind you that in Casino Royale, superman Bond runs through a bloody wall!

Criticise QoS if you will, that's your right. But please don't lets pretend Casino Royale (which I adore, by the way) is cinema-vérité.

The slightly silly moments you mention in CR, are outweighed by the lengthy card game, Bond being tortured, Bond recovering in hospital, Bond slowly examining himself in the mirror after the stairwell fight. These moments make Bond human again.

My criticism of QoS is that we didn't have any of those moments in QoS. The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately. The two moments which were like that was Bond tying the bandage around his arm after the fight with Slate, and a quick shot of Craig gasping for breath during the dogfight. The film should have focused more on those kind of moments to bring a sense of reality back to it. I never once felt as though Bond was in danger in QoS, yet felt he was in CR.

Like I said, the freefall scene could have got away with it far more, had we seen them both struggle to get up after they hit the ground. It wouldn't have taken much....

[SecretAgentFan]

The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately.

Especially the many scenes after the sequence you hate so much in this thread contradict this lame and overused claim. As do many other scenes in the film. But that probably does not fit your argumentation.

[Jet Set Willy]

The editing was so quickly done, we were off to another action set piece immediately.

Especially the many scenes after the sequence you hate so much in this thread contradict this lame and overused claim. As do many other scenes in the film. But that probably does not fit your argumentation.

I still think the film was too short, and too quickly edited together, despite the moments with them walking in the desert, or seeing shots of dripping taps of water. The film needed more of these lengthy non-action moments to slow it down. I would have loved a shot of Bond doing something normal, like eating, or taking a shower, just to make him human again, like we saw in CR. Instead, we are off to the next point in the story at breakneck speed.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, Stamper probably knows this better than anyone else here. But in the IMDB version that Forster butchered were at least three scenes in which Bond ordered from the Desert Inn, had a quick shower on the plane to Bregenz, also a good nap and even went to the loo.

[Jet Set Willy]

Well, Stamper probably knows this better than anyone else here. But in the IMDB version that Forster butchered were at least three scenes in which Bond ordered from the Desert Inn, had a quick shower on the plane to Bregenz, also a good nap and even went to the loo.

Then why the hell were they taken out...

[SecretAgentFan]

Yeah, I wonder why.

[Jet Set Willy]

Yeah, I wonder why.

To keep fans like you happy instead...?

[SecretAgentFan]

I actually think those scenes were just not needed.

[Jet Set Willy]

I actually think those scenes were just not needed.

Fair enough. Horses for courses. One man's meat is another man's poison, etc.

Don't get me wrong about QoS either. It's actually in my top 5 Bond films. I just think it could have been even better than CR, but somehow wasn't, IMO. It has set the standard very high. QoS had a lot to live up to because of the brillaint CR.

But somehow QoS didn't totally work for me, and I'm putting it down to the fact that I needed to see more of Bond being human again (taking a shower, eating, etc.) or doing some more detective, spying kind of work.

In CR, everything seemed to work. The film was near perfect, for me. In QoS, it wasn't. I'm not entirely sure why - hence why I'm on here debating about it, looking for possible answers.

[Loomis]

I would submit the action in QoS is far more realistic than CR, in which it is perceived as being realistic but doesn't actually stand scrutiny. An example: at the airport, Bond clings to the roof of the oil tanker which is driven through not one, but two buses. The second explodes on impact. Is our hero burned? Blown off said oil tanker? No. He has a few scratches. And I would remind you that in Casino Royale, superman Bond runs through a bloody wall!

But I think those things - absurd though they doubtless are - are still rather more believable (or at any rate easier to give a pass to) than the QoS freefall. I'm not saying that CASINO ROYALE is Ken Loach, but, yes, I do find its action easier to swallow than that of QoS, while still being every bit as exciting as the action of QoS is alleged to be if not more so

But somehow QoS didn't totally work for me, and I'm putting it down to the fact that I needed to see more of Bond being human again (taking a shower, eating, etc.) or doing some more detective, spying kind of work.

Same here. Curious that there's more of that stuff in CR (directed by the guy who did GOLDENEYE, a director often dismissed as a talentless hack) than there is in a film by the supposedly intelligent and sophisticated Forster.

Then again, I expected far, far more from DEVIL MAY CARE than Faulks ended up giving us, because I'm a Faulks fan (some of his other novels are among my all-time favourites) and know what he's capable of. While I like QoS very much, on the whole, I have a similar feeling of letdown from Forster, albeit to a smaller degree.

[double o ego]

Yeah. It should have been more realistic, Bond and Camille should have died on impact. That would have been totally gritty!

Nah. Either the sequence should have been dropped (being that it's not really necessarily, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has an abundance of action as is), or the effects work should have been improved and the chute should have opened a bit sooner.

As is, it's not very convincing, and it's pretty impossible for them to survive.

Not really. A couple years ago, some guy jumped out of a plane from a similar altitude and his chute wouldn't open. Luckily, he landed in a bush and survived. With regards to Bond and Cammille, their chute opened up at a moment, where they were still able to have the speed at which they were falling reduced to the point that they just about survived.

[Jet Set Willy]

Yeah. It should have been more realistic, Bond and Camille should have died on impact. That would have been totally gritty!

Nah. Either the sequence should have been dropped (being that it's not really necessarily, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has an abundance of action as is), or the effects work should have been improved and the chute should have opened a bit sooner.

As is, it's not very convincing, and it's pretty impossible for them to survive.

Not really. A couple years ago, some guy jumped out of a plane from a similar altitude and his chute wouldn't open. Luckily, he landed in a bush and survived. With regards to Bond and Cammille, their chute opened up at a moment, where they were still able to have the speed at which they were falling reduced to the point that they just about survived.

I don't have any qualms with them surviving either, but at least show a little bit of agony from that fall. Bond has his balls whacked and ends up in hospital, here he falls from a plane and is as fit as a fiddle straight afterwards. Not only that, so is Camille, who looks so fragile she would snap if the wind blew in the wrong direction.

[Judo chop]

Both Bond and Camille die from the fall. The rest of the film investigates their spirits’ journeys through the afterlife. Only when Bond finds his Quantum of Solace, will his soul finally rest in peace.

[Jet Set Willy]

Both Bond and Camille die from the fall. The rest of the film investigates their spirits’ journeys through the afterlife. Only when Bond finds his Quantum of Solace, will his soul finally rest in peace.

Much better, and far more realistic.

[double o ego]

Yeah. It should have been more realistic, Bond and Camille should have died on impact. That would have been totally gritty!

Nah. Either the sequence should have been dropped (being that it's not really necessarily, and QUANTUM OF SOLACE has an abundance of action as is), or the effects work should have been improved and the chute should have opened a bit sooner.

As is, it's not very convincing, and it's pretty impossible for them to survive.

Not really. A couple years ago, some guy jumped out of a plane from a similar altitude and his chute wouldn't open. Luckily, he landed in a bush and survived. With regards to Bond and Cammille, their chute opened up at a moment, where they were still able to have the speed at which they were falling reduced to the point that they just about survived.

I don't have any qualms with them surviving either, but at least show a little bit of agony from that fall. Bond has his balls whacked and ends up in hospital, here he falls from a plane and is as fit as a fiddle straight afterwards. Not only that, so is Camille, who looks so fragile she would snap if the wind blew in the wrong direction.

Hmm, I suppose they could and should hae shown and emphasised the effects of the fall a lot more.