99 replies to this topic

[draxingtonstanley]

On third viewing,the boat flip is the only puzzler. But I'll go with Sorking's explanation.

In the dogfight,the parachute could have been deployed a tad earlier. It came off a bit Point Break as it was,but sort of worked within the scene's momentum.

Great Bond flick overall for me.

[Judo chop]

Saw it again last night and the boat makes no sense. The action is boring and the stunts are boring and with the information we're given, the finale is illogical.

[DamnCoffee]

*LeSigh*

I've already said this, but I'll say it again...

Bond threw the Anchor onto the second boat and accelerated, 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.

[Harmsway]

Saw it again last night and the boat makes no sense. The action is boring and the stunts are boring and with the information we're given, the finale is illogical.

Quite so. The boat chase is overall a tremendous disappointment.

[HildebrandRarity]

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

THANK YOU!
Martin Campbell would have directed it instead of Marc Forster, we would have had a better movie.

Hello!

The same Martin Campbell who had James Bond flying like a ing fairy in an effort to get to a nose diving air plane?

HELLO!!!

Knock Knock!!!

Anyone in there!!!???

[DamnCoffee]

The boat chase is overall a tremendous disappointment.

It's certainly alot better than The World is not Enough's.

[sharpshooter]

Bond threw the Anchor onto the second boat and accelerated, 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.

Sounds about spot on to me.

[bondrules]

For me, it was the lowpoint of the movie. I can't believe they spent so much money and time on it.

It was one of my cons, as being completely unnecessary.

I still give the movie a 9/10.

[Mr_Wint]

The boat chase is overall a tremendous disappointment.

It's certainly alot better than The World is not Enough's.

No! It's not even close to the boat chase in TWINE.

[Harmsway]

The boat chase is overall a tremendous disappointment.

It's certainly alot better than The World is not Enough's.

I'm not crazy about the boat chase in TWINE (and I detest that film overall), but I'm going to have to give it the hand in this one. It's the better sequence by a pretty significant margin.

[Judo chop]

Harms, you're right.

It's pedestrian, as you put it, and poorly executed at that. Bad stunts, bad shooting, bad idea.

(But the skydiving was even better the 2nd time around.)

[draxingtonstanley]

*LeSigh*

I've already said this, but I'll say it again...

Bond threw the Anchor onto the second boat and accelerated, 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.

Ah yes so you did. Thanks for clearing that up. Was online rather late last night so overlooked your post. Sorry.

[MattofSteel]

I'm really not looking to pick a fight about it, but that still doesn't make any physical sense to me.

Why does the boat flip when he accelerates? Why doesn't the rope just go taught and Bond's boat starts pulling the inflatable behind him?

Also, Bond is still standing at the back of his boat when the "flip" occurs, he's nowhere near the controls.

And, we see the anchor's rope uncoiling rapidly prior to the flip - yet Bond's boat is not moving anywhere with respect to the inflatable.

Like I said...not trying to stir the pot, loved the film, but this one thing is just urking me. I know we've reached a pinnacle of internet fanboy nitpicking here, but it just doesn't make physical sense to me.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm really not looking to pick a fight about it, but that still doesn't make any physical sense to me.

Does it really matter? Its just the same as asking why the roof of the Double Decker bus came off in Live and Let Die and why the bus didn't stall half way under the bridge.

[sorking]

Why does the boat flip when he accelerates? Why doesn't the rope just go taught and Bond's boat starts pulling the inflatable behind him?

Also, Bond is still standing at the back of his boat when the "flip" occurs, he's nowhere near the controls.

And, we see the anchor's rope uncoiling rapidly prior to the flip - yet Bond's boat is not moving anywhere with respect to the inflatable.

Like I said...not trying to stir the pot, loved the film, but this one thing is just urking me. I know we've reached a pinnacle of internet fanboy nitpicking here, but it just doesn't make physical sense to me.

Matt, you're spot on with this breakdown - the rope-unravel flip happens before Bond returns to the controls. Both vehicles are in the same place and moving at the same speed when it occurs.

Hence: unseen dropping anchor.

[DavidSomerset]

I'm really not looking to pick a fight about it, but that still doesn't make any physical sense to me.

Does it really matter? Its just the same as asking why the roof of the Double Decker bus came off in Live and Let Die and why the bus didn't stall half way under the bridge.

Or how does Bond's car still work even after it is cut into half in AVTAK? Or how do the tire rims fit the railway tracks exactly and run on them in OP? How does Bond defy physics in the plane catch sequence in GE?

The question and the comments show that we fans are taking the "realism" a bit too far...I know I will be flamed for this

Edited by DavidSomerset, 21 November 2008 - 05:37 PM.

[tim partridge]

There's a big difference between occasionally crossing the line and actually failing to communicate a crucial story point. Type "can't direct action to save his life" into Google and I am pretty sure you'll see Marc Forster/QOS mentioned lots on the first response page!

Hilarious as that is (and it's really not, sorry),

Actually, I have heard and read the words "can't direct action to save his life" spoken about Forster pretty frequently since QOS opened.

it's a judgement call - for many, the 'what just happened' nature of a line-cross is egregious and confusing.

And for me one missing shot is a disappointment, but not proof that the rest of the sequence - or the half-dozen others - didn't work in toto. So my simple point stands: a single flaw isn't enough to crucify any director. Most of what's more widely debated is about taste, not competence. For every person who concurs with your suggestion, I can find two who don't.

Yeah, but in the bigger picture I bet you there are more criticisms on here about QOS' incomprehensible action than the odd moment Campbell crossed the line in the GE PTS.

BTW- I wouldn't crucify Forster for anything, as I very much enjoyed most of QOS. However, I simply did not agree with every creative choice he made on the film.

But then, I don't consider Hamilton sophisticated, rather crass-but-often-well-suited. Slack on action, interesting on tone. Though I concur on Glen and Young as craftsmen (albeit it, in the latter case, one who had sharp eye on the measure of his leading character) . Gilbert may have been a solid drama director elsewhere, but those talents escaped him on Bond. And fair enough - he wasn't aiming for drama. He made gorgeous-but-shallow fun movies. More power to his colourful elbow.

I agree that Hamilton was pretty crass with Bond, but his work outside of 007 was never as patronising and childish as he could get with Bond. AN INSPECTOR CALLS, FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE, the Agatha Christie movies, even BATTLE OF BRITAIN were all played straight, tonally consistent and the sophisticated humour, when present, came from clever characteristation in the bigger picture. By contrast on 007, Hamilton seemed to be far more interested in isolated sight gags, physical humour and (at his best) money shot moments of suspense and iconography as oppose to the narrative driven thriller aspect of working for MI6. Take that pointless Jalopy gag lingering during th LALD boat chase, for example. The machine gun firing old lady from GOLDFINGER. Sherriff Pepper. These are the details he is always hung up on, like he's aspiring to be a self concious, second rate Hitchcock (whom he seems to have more respect for than say a dedicated but standard workman like Terence Young). He's also not a visual stylist (especially compared to Gilbert), yet his stuff always ranges from the directed over the phone to lavishing extensive time and energy on single shots that may interest him. Sometimes even in the dramatic moments (who doesn't love Bond scaling the Whyte House on DAF)? Completely inconsistent. MWTGG- How anyone could go from that BATMAN villain henchman gangster, inappropriately dressed in a campy period costume on that sweltering Thai Island opening to the rough, rugged and almost uncomfortably mysoynistic scene with Maud Adams is beyond me. What about the duck hat from GOLDFINGER? How he can go from that to the cool, iconic tux reveal in a heartbeat... Hamilton would never do that to a Christie adapation. Then again, for most of GOLDFINGER and LALD he got it right, and played as much of it straight as possible, or at least come off better as audio/visual experiences rather than well told stories.

Forster reminds me very much of Hamilton at his best and worst, going from the brilliant scenes with Fields (deliberately unnatural, stilted performance for comic effect, in a trenchcoat with that campy bob), to the irreverance of dumping Mathis in a skip (which I thought was brilliant and made me laugh out loud at the cinema), Bond's kicking the thugs arm into the elevator after the fight, the random, subititled conversation in the taxi, the amusing cut at the end to the locals in their traditional head attire etc. On the other hand I could totally see Hamilton dropping those location titles into a Bond movie, had he been given the chance (they are no more inappropriate than that groan-inducing whistle during the car stunt from MWTGG). As I said though, I think as far as mise en scene is concerned that Forster wipes the floor with Hamilton in terms of consistency, and is way more comparable to Lewis Gilbert in that department.

I must say though, as much as I find Hamilton to be the most painfully frustrating, and ultimately responsible for the longterm damage to the franchise as a once serious spy series, I'd rather watch any of his films over Youngs!

I also agree that Lewis Gilbert made "gorgeous-shallow-fun" Bonds. I admire him so much and believe him to be my favourite of the heavyweight Bond directors, not just because he's the most accomplished and experienced of them, pushing the mise en scene beyond where it ever went before or after, but principally because he is the most consistent with all of this. He put his all in every shot in his 007 films, even when the scripts went beyond silly. While it's all relatively shallow compared to say FRWL, OHMSS, LTK or CR (in terms of pushing the character or exploring Bond's world), how Gilbert managed to keep the tone consistently menacing and fun at the same time leaves me aghast. There are some great descriptions in the recent MOONRAKER thread here particularly that say it very well. Formalities of editing, gunbarrels, action and title sequences aside, I think Forster also possesses these strengths and makes it look effortless. Hamilton at his infrequent best also.

I disagree that Forster saw the franchise as beneath him. But rather that he needed convincing that it had gained the substance that had been so lacking for so long. DAD, let's face it, IS beneath a director of Forster's merits and priorities. Lest we forget, Campbell also needed convincing to return, certain that the Bond thing had been done already. Both directors were brought back on similar promises.

That's very interesting also, good points. It just goes to emphasise the damage caused by DAD, especially when you look at how only a film before on TWINE, they were already engaging with the back to basics, dramatic-driven approach, hiring Apted and having Bond in a serious relationship. I doubt Apted would have agreed to a DAD style film either.

I'm very much enjoying conversing with you, Sorking. Many thanks!

Edited by tim partridge, 21 November 2008 - 06:24 PM.

[MattofSteel]

I'm really not looking to pick a fight about it, but that still doesn't make any physical sense to me.

Does it really matter? Its just the same as asking why the roof of the Double Decker bus came off in Live and Let Die and why the bus didn't stall half way under the bridge.

Of course not, but let's not forget that this IS a Bond message board, the definitive place where one can come and geek out about 007 whilst asking nitpicking questions about the films. As I've said, I loved the film and I'm certainly not losing sleep over the issue. But this is the "Boat Chase question" thread, and as far as I can read we haven't come to a definitive resolution yet. I'm just furthering the conversation on it .

I'm really not looking to pick a fight about it, but that still doesn't make any physical sense to me.

Does it really matter? Its just the same as asking why the roof of the Double Decker bus came off in Live and Let Die and why the bus didn't stall half way under the bridge.

Or how does Bond's car still work even after it is cut into half in AVTAK? Or how do the tire rims fit the railway tracks exactly and run on them in OP? How does Bond defy physics in the plane catch sequence in GE?

The question and the comments show that we fans are taking the "realism" a bit too far...I know I will be flamed for this

I'm not flaming anyone, and no one should be flaming you otherwise. Primarily because it's a waste of time.

We're talking about two different things here: suspension of disbelief, and suspension of logic.

All the things you've mentioned stretch the imagination. I've never questioned them, they're part of the Bond films for goodness sake! What I'm asking (and this wasn't even my thread), is just, plain and simple, what is the CONTENT of what's happening.

It would be like Bond pulling out a grenade during the car chase, throwing the PIN at his persuers, and their car blows up. Logically it's not there.

[sorking]

There's a big difference between occasionally crossing the line and actually failing to communicate a crucial story point. Type "can't direct action to save his life" into Google and I am pretty sure you'll see Marc Forster/QOS mentioned lots on the first response page!

Hilarious as that is (and it's really not, sorry),

Actually, I have heard and read the words "can't direct action to save his life" spoken about Forster pretty frequently since QOS opened.

Oh, I don't doubt it. But then I've also heart it spoken about Paul Greengrass (not to get into yet another Bourne thing!) and many others - where it's more about not liking the style of action.

Aside from anything else, I do genuinely feel that for the most part Forster's action is very specific on showing cause and effect. It's not just 'look how many shots I've got!', it's progressive and shows a direct relationship between action and impact. If it's too zippy for some, fair enough, but (this one shot aside) I do think it's all THERE.

I guess what I'm saying is: it's easy to toss around all-encompassing phrases like that. Doesn't make them the whole truth. Only I'm using a lot more words, as usual.

it's a judgement call - for many, the 'what just happened' nature of a line-cross is egregious and confusing.

And for me one missing shot is a disappointment, but not proof that the rest of the sequence - or the half-dozen others - didn't work in toto. So my simple point stands: a single flaw isn't enough to crucify any director. Most of what's more widely debated is about taste, not competence. For every person who concurs with your suggestion, I can find two who don't.

Yeah, but in the bigger picture I bet you there are more criticisms on here about QOS' incomprehensible action than the odd moment Campbell crossed the line in the GE PTS.

BTW- I wouldn't crucify Forster for anything, as I very much enjoyed most of QOS. However, I simply did not agree with every creative choice he made on the film.

Oh, me neither. But then I can't think of a filmmaker alive where I agree 100% on everything. The Fly is my favourite movie of all time, but I still don't think the villain should have had a beard...

Again, though, the volume of crit is a 'to each his own' thing. My only point is that the number of actual, substantiated 'errors' made by Forster are as small in number as any other Bond director, including those most revered. The missing shot is a genuine error, for me - but it's the only time the QoS has, so far, done something that I consider 'wrong' rather than 'a judgement call'.

People ask a lot of questions - my own QoS review has been found more times by the Google search "Confused by ending of Quantum of Solace" than any other criteria! - but in every other instance I've had a simple, clear answer ready. The film has all the info it's meant to have. We know what the ending was about, we know what the Tierra Project was, we know how Bond located Slate. The info is all there.

Just, y'know, not about this one boat thing.

By contrast on 007, Hamilton seemed to be far more interested in isolated sight gags, physical humour and (at his best) money shot moments of suspense and iconography as oppose to the narrative driven thriller aspect of working for MI6.

This is a very good dissection of Hamilton's Bond work, actually. Well put. He lucked out a bit, in that two of his four movies thrived on those kind of unusual icons - gold-painted girl, bowler-hatted henchman, voodoo galore. And the connection to Forster's style is very interesting - though I think it's only the location titles that overstep the mark for me.

While it's all relatively shallow compared to say FRWL, OHMSS, LTK or CR (in terms of pushing the character or exploring Bond's world), how Gilbert managed to keep the tone consistently menacing and fun at the same time leaves me aghast. There are some great descriptions in the recent MOONRAKER thread here particularly that say it very well. Formalities of editing, gunbarrels, action and title sequences aside, I think Forster also possesses these strengths and makes it look effortless. Hamilton at his infrequent best also.

Indeed. It's nice to see Gilbert being given a fair critical shake, too - his films are too easily dismissed by some, and his skill at creating a wholly rounded fictional universe remains massively impressive. (I still maintain that under his watchful eye DAD would have been terrific.)

I disagree that Forster saw the franchise as beneath him. But rather that he needed convincing that it had gained the substance that had been so lacking for so long. DAD, let's face it, IS beneath a director of Forster's merits and priorities. Lest we forget, Campbell also needed convincing to return, certain that the Bond thing had been done already. Both directors were brought back on similar promises.

That's very interesting also, good points. It just goes to emphasise the damage caused by DAD, especially when you look at how only a film before on TWINE, they were already engaging with the back to basics, dramatic-driven approach, hiring Apted and having Bond in a serious relationship. I doubt Apted would have agreed to a DAD style film either.

I'm very much enjoying conversing with you, Sorking. Many thanks!

Likewise and ditto!

Poor old Apted. Now there is a guy who struggled with action. It's too easily dumped on the second unit, but he really didn't seem to know that a zoom doesn't work the same as a track in. One conveys movement, the other conveys 'looking', and you can't use one for the other. If your boat is headed for an object, and you switch to POV, that image has to be travelling forwards, not zooming in. It makes the impact seem less imminent, not more.

Forster never makes that kind of misjudgement, at least. He's clearly studied the form before going in.

Edited by sorking, 21 November 2008 - 08:30 PM.

[Harmsway]

It's nice to see Gilbert being given a fair critical shake, too - his films are too easily dismissed by some, and his skill at creating a wholly rounded fictional universe remains massively impressive. (I still maintain that under his watchful eye DAD would have been terrific.)

Oh, Gilbert's one of the best Bond directors. It's no mistake that his three Bond films are among the three most iconic entries in the franchise, and that they're all visually engaging. I wish he had done more.

And yes, I do think a Lewis Gilbert-helmed DIE ANOTHER DAY would have been a wonderful, stylish entry. Gilbert was able to make over-the-top silliness come off with elegance, but all Tamahori was able to do was produce a crass, ugly imitation of the style of Bond that Gilbert had instituted.

[MattofSteel]

Oh, I don't doubt it. But then I've also heart it spoken about Paul Greengrass (not to get into yet another Bourne thing!) and many others - where it's more about not liking the style of action.

Aside from anything else, I do genuinely feel that for the most part Forster's action is very specific on showing cause and effect. It's not just 'look how many shots I've got!', it's progressive and shows a direct relationship between action and impact. If it's too zippy for some, fair enough, but (this one shot aside) I do think it's all THERE.

Spot on, here. If you look at some of the "hectic" action scenes a bit more closely, you'll find that every shot is used to communicate a precise part of the narrative drive. The tunnel car chase part is a great example.

This, as opposed to the Bourne films where sometimes it feels as if Greengrass is throwing shots in literally to increase the claustrophobic effect.

That's probably why the boat chase finale irks me, it just feels like something critical wasn't communicated as opposed to everything else.

It's nice to see Gilbert being given a fair critical shake, too - his films are too easily dismissed by some, and his skill at creating a wholly rounded fictional universe remains massively impressive. (I still maintain that under his watchful eye DAD would have been terrific.)

Oh, Gilbert's one of the best Bond directors. It's no mistake that his three Bond films are among the three most iconic entries in the franchise, and that they're all visually engaging. I wish he had done more.

And yes, I do think a Lewis Gilbert-helmed DIE ANOTHER DAY would have been a wonderful, stylish entry. Gilbert was able to make over-the-top silliness come off with elegance, but all Tamahori was able to do was produce a crass, ugly imitation of the style of Bond that Gilbert had instituted.

I've always felt somewhat the same way. There are some extremely well done parts of DAD, but others where it felt like they were aiming for a Gilbert/Hamilton vibe and ended up somewhere near the Wachowski brothers.

[Harmsway]

That's probably why the boat chase finale irks me, it just feels like something critical wasn't communicated as opposed to everything else.

Quite so. It's the only section of the film, IMO, where the editing really falters. I can discern stuff in the rest of it.

There are some extremely well done parts of DAD

I must have missed them.

[MattofSteel]

I didn't say they were large in number.

[sorking]

It's nice to see Gilbert being given a fair critical shake, too - his films are too easily dismissed by some, and his skill at creating a wholly rounded fictional universe remains massively impressive. (I still maintain that under his watchful eye DAD would have been terrific.)

Oh, Gilbert's one of the best Bond directors. It's no mistake that his three Bond films are among the three most iconic entries in the franchise, and that they're all visually engaging. I wish he had done more.

And yes, I do think a Lewis Gilbert-helmed DIE ANOTHER DAY would have been a wonderful, stylish entry. Gilbert was able to make over-the-top silliness come off with elegance, but all Tamahori was able to do was produce a crass, ugly imitation of the style of Bond that Gilbert had instituted.

I've always felt somewhat the same way. There are some extremely well done parts of DAD, but others where it felt like they were aiming for a Gilbert/Hamilton vibe and ended up somewhere near the Wachowski brothers.

My particular favourite duff directing choice is the way Bond is left in the middle of a frantic car-on-car battle...so we can watch the villain get his equipment together and get on a plane.

Duff CGI you blame on time and money. Silly fake beard you blame on make-up and scheduling. But leaving what's meant to be a thrilling bit of combat to essentially watch the bad guy PACK A SUITCASE?!

[byline]

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.

OK, how did he die? I could see that Bond stabbed him, but where I'm not certain. In the back? It was hard to tell.

[sorking]

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.

OK, how did he die? I could see that Bond stabbed him, but where I'm not certain. In the back? It was hard to tell.

(From memory) In the middle of combat Bond knifed him in the neck. On the floor he holds the guy's arm away from his neck, preventing him from applying pressure to the wound, waiting for him to bleed out and die.

[Innukchuck]

I think the boats were inflatable, so, when Bond throw the anchor and speeded his boat, the anchor puncturated the boat, making him desinflate.

By the way, Sorry by the spelling, i'm new on the CBN Forums and i'm not american/english.

[joshkhenderson]

Or how does Bond's car still work even after it is cut into half in AVTAK?

A car can be cut in half like that and still work. Top Gear did it last season with a Fiat Panda, before Jeremy turned it into a limo.

[byline]

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.

OK, how did he die? I could see that Bond stabbed him, but where I'm not certain. In the back? It was hard to tell.

(From memory) In the middle of combat Bond knifed him in the neck. On the floor he holds the guy's arm away from his neck, preventing him from applying pressure to the wound, waiting for him to bleed out and die.

After seeing it a third time last night, I got the feeling that Bond stabbed him in the leg, hitting the femoral artery, and just waited till he bled out. But, again, it happened so fast. . . .

[Double-Oh Agent]

Actually I had a problem in understanding how Slate died after Bond stabs him in the leg. Later this was cleared up.

OK, how did he die? I could see that Bond stabbed him, but where I'm not certain. In the back? It was hard to tell.

(From memory) In the middle of combat Bond knifed him in the neck. On the floor he holds the guy's arm away from his neck, preventing him from applying pressure to the wound, waiting for him to bleed out and die.

After seeing it a third time last night, I got the feeling that Bond stabbed him in the leg, hitting the femoral artery, and just waited till he bled out. But, again, it happened so fast. . . .

I saw it for the second time today and that is what happened. After getting stabbed in the neck, Slate tries to stop the bleeding there by putting his hand over the wound. Bond then grabs Slate's leg and stabs him in the femoral artery. He then grabs Slate's other hand to keep him from putting pressure on the new wound thereby allowing Slate to bleed out that much faster. Bond never takes Slate's pulse, by the way, as I have read in another thread. He just grabs Slate's palm and waits for him to die. Coldly efficient that was.