99 replies to this topic

[joshkhenderson]

At the end of the boat chase in QoS, Bond does something fancy looking with an anchor attached to one of the boats. Twice now I've seen the film and neither time has this part of the scene made sense to me. Can some one please explain what/how the chase ends?

Thank you!

[Captain Tightpants]

This came up on the other forum: Bond uses the anchor to make the boat flip over by throwing it overboard, puncturing it in the process.

[MattofSteel]

Are you sure about that? Looked to me like he was throwing HIS anchor onto the front of the 2nd boat - although don't ask me to explain how that would make any sense, physically. I don't remember seeing an anchor puncture it either, I'll have to watch again.

[Judo chop]

I’m very disappointed to find no definitive answer to the question in here.

I haven’t a bloody clue either. And I really think it’s the editing’s fault, which means that repeat viewings may not be of any assistance.

[HellIsHere]

Could it be like this? Bond throws his own anchor to the other boat and accelerates. The other boat falls and it's pushed forward by the anchor's rope stretching.

[Double-Oh Agent]

That's the one thing it can't be because then Bond's boat would come to a halt once the anchor ripped through the inflatable speedboat and sunk to the bottom of the harbor. Even if Bond was even able to drag the anchor along behind him, he certainly wouldn't be maintaining anywhere near the top speed he is after stopping Medrano's men.

[DamnCoffee]

Bond threw the Anchor onto the second boat and accelerated I think, causing the boat to flip over and ripping the rope off the Anchor attached to his boat. Bond could move afterwards as the Anchor detached from his boat when the 2nd boat flipped over.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

If Campbell would have been directing this movie, questions like this wouldn't be asked...

It was difficult for me to find what Bond was doing in some scenes of this film. In Casino Royale, I understood every single move Bond did.

[MattofSteel]

That doesn't make sense either. Something "catches" in the rope that yanks the front end of the persuing boat down. If the weight of an anchor was enough to flip the entire boat...well, that doesn't even work as an anchor. Bond's own boak would have sunk instantly when they installed it.

I've just glanced at it again on a certain someone's Youtube channel. Not the best quality of course - but I absolutely cannot tell what's going on. This is one morsel of the film I refuse to defend. The editing is terrible - we should be able to figure it out more easily than this.

It only makes physical sense if there's an independent source to the anchor that suddenly catches and yanks the front end of the boat down into the water (from behind) while the engine keeps going, hence the flip.

[Judo chop]

Thanks Matt.

We might have a lost sequence on our hands. Hopefully a commentary track will clear it up, but I doubt it. You’re right though... we should at least be able to guess what happened. I mean, how many possibilities can there be?!

[MattofSteel]

It seems like such a simple thing. I loved the film, defended some of the unorthodox editing style, but this one minor thing escapes me.

Probably why so many people cited the boat chase as being forgettable, along with the plane chase. This (apparently) iconic Bond move is robbed of any effect because we literally have no idea how it works. Visually it's a cool trick to see a boat get yanked like that - I just wish I knew what the hell was doing it. There's a contextual divide there that just kind of ruins it.

That being said, I thought the rest of the chase was exceptionally well done. Damn, so close!

[Judo chop]

Makes me afraid that the creators don't know how it would work either.

Shoot Bond reaching for anchor.

Shoot boat flipping onto its nose.

Ask questions later.

[MattofSteel]

Haha, I think that's a bit too much of a stretch even for them. There's something clearly plausible happening here, I just can't figure out what it is.

If Bond had grabbed another boat's anchor when going by the crowd of them just before (IS THIS IT??) and then hooked THAT around the front hook of the persuing boat, it would have had the desired effect.

I just don't think that's what he does...at least I haven't seen it yet. Seeing the film again with my sister in a couple hours, I'll keep an eye peeled. Big screen might afford a clue or two.

[Judo chop]

Report back w/due haste.

[MattofSteel]

But not too much haste, of course. Select people may then accuse me of being frantic, erratic, an absolute disaster, and in no way even SLIGHTLY as good as my predecessor.

[sorking]

It's a shame a flaw like this - and while I love QoS I consider it to be one - is being used by some to bash the whole movie. It's not like the previous movies didn't leave questions and contain faults for some, or indeed for all. (My favourite one from CR being those who asked 'how Bond crashed through a wall'. It's not like it was brick or anything, but there you go.)

The sequence is cut clearly enough to me - Bond's vehicle is mounted by the remaining enemy boat, Camille is knocked out by it, Bond looks from his position beneath the boat and sees the a rope and hook (and it's a hook, not an anchor, isn't it? Anchors are much heavier). We see him toss the hook up into the enemy boat, and clearly see them scrambling to remove it even as we watch the rope wind rapidly out, before their vessel is tugged down - off Bond's boat and momentarily vertical.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the rope's other end was likely connected to an anchor, which Bond sent down. (You don't weigh anchor while travelling at speed, that IS dangerous for those in the boat...especially when the anchor is attached to the front of your vessel. Your own momentum suddenly gets yanked in a violent new direction...downwards.)

But, no question, there is NO SHOT which shows this happening. I've looked and it ain't there. Which isn't about the editing speed, it's about a genuine missing piece of information.

Could be an error. More likely it was a shot that didn't quite work - either on its own, or in the cut - and, in the end, it was hoped wouldn't be missed. (Happens a LOT in action sequences.)

One thing I would like to check is how we see Bond cast off. It's possible that the rope's mechanism was set-up there. Or that anyone who actually KNOWS about boats would take one look and immediately know what went out (in the same way that any builder would be fine with the idea of a man smashing a bit of plasterboard in CR).

For everyone who sees one glitch as a means to decry an entire piece of work, though, I would urge you to recall Bond's "He was right, you know" from FRWL, the missing co-pilot in Goldfinger and the alley-flipping car in DAF. No doubt if you dislike the film you've already vocalised that. Why not let moderate discussion have its moment?

Chandler didn't know who killed the Chauffeur in The Big Sleep. Something good can also be something flawed.

[Judo chop]

Thank you sorking. If that's what we're to believe (that Bond's boat just yanks really hard with a rope on the other boat, causing it to end up on its nose), that's a shame. Not very believable, especially if the key data is outright missing.

But I do feel compelled to mention that you're tossing water on a fire that isn't there. This is a thread dedicated to the boat trick and we've all been on-topic and civil here thus far.

(But then I also understand if you were just casting a warning in case civility was ever threatened.)

[Ravenstone]

In retrospect, it's a valid question. However, I don't remember it being an issue when I was watching the film. It was just one of those things that happened, it didn't seem impossible, seemed perfectly plausible given what I'd seen.

I don't think anyone is saying that one thing ruined the film for them. It's just one of those things that you wonder about afterwards, obviously.

One thing's for sure - I'll be watching carefully next time I see it to check exactly what's going on

[Sigma7]

Yay... im not stupid...., i didnt get the anchor trick either !!!!, a bullet should be sent straight to the head of the idiot that thinks he knows how to edit an action sequence for QOS

[joshkhenderson]

It's a shame a flaw like this - and while I love QoS I consider it to be one - is being used by some to bash the whole movie. It's not like the previous movies didn't leave questions and contain faults for some, or indeed for all. (My favourite one from CR being those who asked 'how Bond crashed through a wall'. It's not like it was brick or anything, but there you go.)

For everyone who sees one glitch as a means to decry an entire piece of work, though, I would urge you to recall Bond's "He was right, you know" from FRWL, the missing co-pilot in Goldfinger and the alley-flipping car in DAF. No doubt if you dislike the film you've already vocalised that. Why not let moderate discussion have its moment?

As the guy who asked the question here, in response to your assumption of my feelings towards QoS (thank you for trying to read my mind?), I love the movie. It is probably the best film ever with Bond, although the idea of best "Bond film" is a slightly different question. Love the movie, and everything else made enough sense for me to buy it. Just trying to better understand it.

Please don't put anymore words in my mouth.

[sorking]

It's a shame a flaw like this - and while I love QoS I consider it to be one - is being used by some to bash the whole movie. It's not like the previous movies didn't leave questions and contain faults for some, or indeed for all. (My favourite one from CR being those who asked 'how Bond crashed through a wall'. It's not like it was brick or anything, but there you go.)

For everyone who sees one glitch as a means to decry an entire piece of work, though, I would urge you to recall Bond's "He was right, you know" from FRWL, the missing co-pilot in Goldfinger and the alley-flipping car in DAF. No doubt if you dislike the film you've already vocalised that. Why not let moderate discussion have its moment?

As the guy who asked the question here, in response to your assumption of my feelings towards QoS (thank you for trying to read my mind?), I love the movie. It is probably the best film ever with Bond, although the idea of best "Bond film" is a slightly different question. Love the movie, and everything else made enough sense for me to buy it. Just trying to better understand it.

Please don't put anymore words in my mouth.

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that this was your position.

Yours is not the first thread to ask this question, and in some cases (including other versions of this one) the simple suggestion of one query - honestly asked - has led to a lot of "See, this proves he cannot direct!!!!" bandwagon-jumping.

Tell you what - I'll stop reading minds if you promise to check if a thread already exists on a subject before you start another one.

Seriously, no offence meant.

Thank you sorking. If that's what we're to believe (that Bond's boat just yanks really hard with a rope on the other boat, causing it to end up on its nose), that's a shame. Not very believable, especially if the key data is outright missing.

It's not that he yanks on the rope - not at all. He visibly doesn't, and SOME counter-weight is clearly causing the coils of rope to whip itself away rapidly, which is why I'm comfortable with the 'descending anchor' notion.

But I do feel compelled to mention that you're tossing water on a fire that isn't there. This is a thread dedicated to the boat trick and we've all been on-topic and civil here thus far.

(But then I also understand if you were just casting a warning in case civility was ever threatened.)

Half pre-emptive - lord knows it never seems to to stop - and half misplaced...I should maybe have put it in the OTHER threads that have used this query as a fire-starter!

[joshkhenderson]

Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that this was your position.

Yours is not the first thread to ask this question, and in some cases (including other versions of this one) the simple suggestion of one query - honestly asked - has led to a lot of "See, this proves he cannot direct!!!!" bandwagon-jumping.

Tell you what - I'll stop reading minds if you promise to check if a thread already exists on a subject before you start another one.

Seriously, no offence meant.

Not a problem. Couldn't find anything on the matter. Sorta having a few bad days lately.

Sorta reminds me of this:

http://xkcd.com/438/

[Mr_Wint]

The sequence is cut clearly enough to me - Bond's vehicle is mounted by the remaining enemy boat, Camille is knocked out by it, Bond looks from his position beneath the boat and sees the a rope and hook (and it's a hook, not an anchor, isn't it? Anchors are much heavier). We see him toss the hook up into the enemy boat, and clearly see them scrambling to remove it even as we watch the rope wind rapidly out, before their vessel is tugged down - off Bond's boat and momentarily vertical.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the rope's other end was likely connected to an anchor, which Bond sent down. (You don't weigh anchor while travelling at speed, that IS dangerous for those in the boat...especially when the anchor is attached to the front of your vessel. Your own momentum suddenly gets yanked in a violent new direction...downwards.)

Funny how the interpretation of "cut clearly enough" can so different for different people. For instance, if you have to download a cam version of the film and go through it a houndred times before understanding what's happening... that might not be "cut clearly enough" IMO

To me it looks like Bond push the enemy boat off using raw force. That must be the reason why the rope is stretched. The hook is something that Bond takes advantage of once the enemy boat is back in the water. Either the end of the rope is connected to Bond's boat (not sure if this would work) or Bond throw a counterweight in the water (not shown).

[Professor Dent]

I've seen the movie a few times & this one just doesn't make sense. Assuming the anchor theory is correct, the angle the boat is pulled back at seems wrong. The boat would have been pulled sideways versus up since Bond threw the hook in more on the side of the boat than the front of it. The definitive answer on this one might have to wait until March when I get the DVD home.

[Mr_Wint]

I've seen the movie a few times & this one just doesn't make sense. Assuming the anchor theory is correct, the angle the boat is pulled back at seems wrong. The boat would have been pulled sideways versus up since Bond threw the hook in more on the side of the boat than the front of it. The definitive answer on this one might have to wait until March when I get the DVD home.

That is why I said that Bond use raw force to push the enemy boat off.

[Publius]

This is probably one of two or three moments where I did think the editing failed (I otherwise loved it), but I wasn't really bothered by it because there's always at least one such moment for me in any given film and in this case it's one of those times I chalk it up to not knowing much about something, like boats.

[sorking]

The sequence is cut clearly enough to me - Bond's vehicle is mounted by the remaining enemy boat, Camille is knocked out by it, Bond looks from his position beneath the boat and sees the a rope and hook (and it's a hook, not an anchor, isn't it? Anchors are much heavier). We see him toss the hook up into the enemy boat, and clearly see them scrambling to remove it even as we watch the rope wind rapidly out, before their vessel is tugged down - off Bond's boat and momentarily vertical.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the rope's other end was likely connected to an anchor, which Bond sent down. (You don't weigh anchor while travelling at speed, that IS dangerous for those in the boat...especially when the anchor is attached to the front of your vessel. Your own momentum suddenly gets yanked in a violent new direction...downwards.)

Funny how the interpretation of "cut clearly enough" can so different for different people. For instance, if you have to download a cam version of the film and go through it a houndred times before understanding what's happening... that might not be "cut clearly enough" IMO

I only said 'for me'. I saw it at the cinema three times and the same sequence of events had the same clarity each time...which is to say, I felt a piece of information was missing despite having clearly seen the sequence as it was put together.

One Google later and, yes, the footage is online to be checked...and lo and behold, it has the same problem. That the information is missing. I like to think of this as 'fact checking'.

I also had to check Goldfinger for the shot of the unconscious/dead co-pilot. This doesn't mean the sequence was confusingly edited. It means I like to be thorough.

To me it looks like Bond push the enemy boat off using raw force. That must be the reason why the rope is stretched. The hook is something that Bond takes advantage of once the enemy boat is back in the water. Either the end of the rope is connected to Bond's boat (not sure if this would work) or Bond throw a counterweight in the water (not shown).

The hook is something Bond throws over into the enemy boat while it's still on top of his own. The a LOT of rope - not a couple of feet, but yards and yards - sweeps away, finally creating a pull that yanks them off and momentarily downwards. Hence - an anchor.

At no point does he separately push the boat away manually first.

I've seen the movie a few times & this one just doesn't make sense. Assuming the anchor theory is correct, the angle the boat is pulled back at seems wrong. The boat would have been pulled sideways versus up since Bond threw the hook in more on the side of the boat than the front of it. The definitive answer on this one might have to wait until March when I get the DVD home.

That is why I said that Bond use raw force to push the enemy boat off.

The hook goes into the enemy's boat absolutely front and centre. You even see one of the guys run to the front to try to disconnect it, knowing what's about to happen.

When the anchor pulls hard on the front of a speeding boat, it acts as a downward force. It's like a sudden, drastic steering change - with the force of the boat's momentum being urged directly down. The physics of it make sense. Exaggerated, but essentially all in the right directions.

[marktmurphy]

It's a shame a flaw like this - and while I love QoS I consider it to be one - is being used by some to bash the whole movie.

Heaven forfend that people who think it's a disappointing piece of work actually give examples, eh? After all, if one can't communicate an action sequence (or perhaps even decide how the mechanics even work) in an action film, what hope has one for the plot? The bits of it they actually decided to work out, that is. 'Let's not bother with the whole Bond/Vesper thing- we'll just have him grimace occasionally and just do a quick bit at the end, yeah? Yeah, let's just have the boyfriend turn out to be a baddie- that'll make things nice and simple.'

Half pre-emptive - lord knows it never seems to to stop

No smoke without fire?
Except you've actually managed to start the fire in this case, so not such a smart move.

[Mr_Wint]

The sequence is cut clearly enough to me - Bond's vehicle is mounted by the remaining enemy boat, Camille is knocked out by it, Bond looks from his position beneath the boat and sees the a rope and hook (and it's a hook, not an anchor, isn't it? Anchors are much heavier). We see him toss the hook up into the enemy boat, and clearly see them scrambling to remove it even as we watch the rope wind rapidly out, before their vessel is tugged down - off Bond's boat and momentarily vertical.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the rope's other end was likely connected to an anchor, which Bond sent down. (You don't weigh anchor while travelling at speed, that IS dangerous for those in the boat...especially when the anchor is attached to the front of your vessel. Your own momentum suddenly gets yanked in a violent new direction...downwards.)

Funny how the interpretation of "cut clearly enough" can so different for different people. For instance, if you have to download a cam version of the film and go through it a houndred times before understanding what's happening... that might not be "cut clearly enough" IMO

I only said 'for me'. I saw it at the cinema three times and the same sequence of events had the same clarity each time...which is to say, I felt a piece of information was missing despite having clearly seen the sequence as it was put together.

One Google later and, yes, the footage is online to be checked...and lo and behold, it has the same problem. That the information is missing. I like to think of this as 'fact checking'.

I also had to check Goldfinger for the shot of the unconscious/dead co-pilot. This doesn't mean the sequence was confusingly edited. It means I like to be thorough.

To me it looks like Bond push the enemy boat off using raw force. That must be the reason why the rope is stretched. The hook is something that Bond takes advantage of once the enemy boat is back in the water. Either the end of the rope is connected to Bond's boat (not sure if this would work) or Bond throw a counterweight in the water (not shown).

The hook is something Bond throws over into the enemy boat while it's still on top of his own. The a LOT of rope - not a couple of feet, but yards and yards - sweeps away, finally creating a pull that yanks them off and momentarily downwards. Hence - an anchor.

At no point does he separately push the boat away manually first.

I've seen the movie a few times & this one just doesn't make sense. Assuming the anchor theory is correct, the angle the boat is pulled back at seems wrong. The boat would have been pulled sideways versus up since Bond threw the hook in more on the side of the boat than the front of it. The definitive answer on this one might have to wait until March when I get the DVD home.

That is why I said that Bond use raw force to push the enemy boat off.

The hook goes into the enemy's boat absolutely front and centre. You even see one of the guys run to the front to try to disconnect it, knowing what's about to happen.

When the anchor pulls hard on the front of a speeding boat, it acts as a downward force. It's like a sudden, drastic steering change - with the force of the boat's momentum being urged directly down. The physics of it make sense. Exaggerated, but essentially all in the right directions.

Yes, the amount of rope that it stretched (at least it seems like that, but hard to tell) kinda kills my theory that Bond push the boat off. But then, as Dent pointed out, the direction the boat is pulled back at doesn't make sense.

[Judo chop]

When the anchor pulls hard on the front of a speeding boat, it acts as a downward force. It's like a sudden, drastic steering change - with the force of the boat's momentum being urged directly down. The physics of it make sense. Exaggerated, but essentially all in the right directions.

Good work, Sorking. Appreciate the clarification. I'll know what to look for come tomorrow eve.

Heaven forfend that people who think it's a disappointing piece of work actually give examples, eh? After all, if one can't communicate an action sequence (or perhaps even decide how the mechanics even work) in an action film, what hope has one for the plot?

Yes, that's right Markt. If one clip of an action scene falls short (or even fails catastrophically - however severe you wish to make it sound) that means we should LOSE HOPE for the entire plot of the film.

Whose sense of logic has gone bye-bye here?