45 replies to this topic

[5 BONDS]

If Bond did a bungee jump "off" and landed at the "bottom" how is he jumping off a "mountain" towards the end of the pre-title sequence?

Where was the dam and how did he arrive to be on top of a mountain?.

Always wondered this, finally able to point this out.

Edited by 5 BONDS, 04 August 2011 - 02:12 PM.

[Simon]

Yup - always wondered the same too.

And bearing in mind the dam will be at the bottom of a long river, itself having a source still higher up in mountains, that was some seriously hilly countryside Jim was bouncing around in.

[Wade]

I've always seen it as an absence of linking shots. When Bond leaves the men's room, meets up with Trevelyan and goes to the room they're going to destroy, we really don't see their whole journey. They could've met low, near the only vulnerable point where Bond could break in, and then climbed.

Or it could just be Michael France jerking us around.

[AMC Hornet]

I was going to suggest that the conveyor belt that whisked Bond away from the chemical storage area took him uphill for a while, but that doesn't make sense, as Ouromov could have stopped it with the touch of a button, plus the buildings that blew up were likewise on the surface.

I guess we're just supposed to accept that the dam was placed on a river so high up in the mountains that there was another ravine directly below it (although there wouldn't be much source water that high up, would there?).

Although many people are put off by the free-fall to the falling plane stunt, I found it gobsmackingly audacious, as the long shots of the plane, motorcycle and body were real. It's the sort of thing that's so easily (and badly) faked nowadays in movies like Charlie's Angels and Agent Cody Banks. Give me real stuntmen every time!

[Binyamin]

Yeah, I've never quite understood why so many people get their panties in a bunch over the airplane stunt. Airplane was at very low speed when it went over. Motorcycle was at very high speed. Bond has less drag than an idling aircraft with massive wings.

If you drop a Cessna and a man out of a cargo plane, which one will reach the ground faster? The man.

[doublenoughtspy]

Yeah, I've never quite understood why so many people get their panties in a bunch over the airplane stunt. Airplane was at very low speed when it went over. Motorcycle was at very high speed. Bond has less drag than an idling aircraft with massive wings.

If you drop a Cessna and a man out of a cargo plane, which one will reach the ground faster? The man.

People aren't mad about the stunt or the physics involved if it were done for real.

People get mad because the part of Brosnan pretending to be Superman looks so horribly fake.

[jaguar007]

People get mad because the part of Brosnan pretending to be Superman looks so horribly fake.

yes, what he said.

It not only looked fake, it also just looked stoopid.

[TCK]

Goldeneye PTS = whatever, let's bring the house down.

[AMC Hornet]

It did that.

Did anybody really care what Bond was doing? Wasn't the most important part the fact that he was back doing it?

Take it from one who was there - nobody objected to Pierce Brosnan becoming 007, especially those who remembered him getting shafted in '86.

[Binyamin]

Yes, this was sixteen years ago. Did anybody complain about the stunt WHEN IT CAME OUT? I bet it wasn't until many years later. Compare that to, say, Die Another Day's "stunts" that made people groan in the theater. I'll take GoldenEye's stuntwork any day.

[Binyamin]

Your math is a bit wrong -- just because somebody didn't go see GoldenEye when they were younger doesn't mean they "must be under 20."

Anyhow, I actually agree that it should have been done for real, and yes, LICENSE's air work was superior. I'm just saying it wasn't as horrible as many claim, and I personally have never heard anybody complain about it until the last few years.

Edited by Binyamin, 04 August 2011 - 11:28 PM.

[Loomis]

Did anybody really care what Bond was doing? Wasn't the most important part the fact that he was back doing it?

Quite.

In GOLDENEYE's defence, I saw it on its opening Friday night at the Odeon Leicester Square and the audience went wild during the PTS.

The bungee jump brought the house down with cheers and applause (I could feel the audience holding its collective breath as Bond made his descent), and there was another round of whooping and clapping (seriously - I'm not making this up) as the plane flew away and the opening credits kicked in.

It was more like being at a rock concert than at a cinema screening. I've never been to another screening quite like it.

It's nowadays very fashionable in Bond fandom (or so it seems to me) to knock GOLDENEYE. But I was there at the time and can honestly report that, in 1995, it worked.

"So what, Loom?" I hear you cry. "The Lumiere Brothers' five-minute TRAIN PULLING INTO A STATION knocked 'em dead in 1895, but no one would be excited by it today." Maybe so, but GOLDENEYE really was the CASINO ROYALE of its day. Audiences and critics loved it (no, not everyone, obviously, but on the whole it had a great reception - and rather more so, I think, than QUANTUM OF SOLACE). It was viewed at the time as having saved the Bond franchise.

Then again, I remember audiences going wild at screenings of DIE ANOTHER DAY (of which I went to about four, if memory serves, sad git that I am).

If younger Bond fans are thinking to themselves "Thank goodness we have good, serious, proper James Bond films these days with Daniel Craig - just think of the rubbish that Bond fans had to subsist on back in the day", what I'd say to them is this: stop looking at the, erm, present through rose-coloured spectacles. There was always great fun to be had during all the previous eras, yes, even the Brosnan era. People genuinely did love it at the time (and rightly so, really).

[Lachesis]

We see Bond infiltrate a facility, seemingly inside a mountain... we see him exit somewhere else. Sometimes we see Bond in exotic location the next he's back in London, is it really a nescessary that we need to see every moment of a journey to buy into it? Is it equally so incredible for a security weakness to be located a considerable distance from the active nerve centre of a facility, or for a base seemingly carved into a mountian to have more than one level? IN the scehme of things there are far greater issues here and in many other Bond's but the key is are you entertained...I could have happily dropped the scene where he catches the falling plane but for the remainder of GE I certainly was.

[Lachesis]

If younger Bond fans are thinking to themselves "Thank goodness we have good, serious, proper James Bond films these days with Daniel Craig - just think of the rubbish that Bond fans had to subsist on back in the day", what I'd say to them is this: stop looking at the, erm, present through rose-coloured spectacles. There was always great fun to be had during all the previous eras, yes, even the Brosnan era. People genuinely did love it at the time (and rightly so, really).

In all honesty one of the greatest issues I have with any Bond film occurs in this 'serious era' and focusses on the thought process that permits Bond to elect to crash through a wall rather than follow his quarry, or similarly the thought porcess that has the jumping bean elect to run away UP a crane is equally boggling. Forcing a contrives scenario is always more credible imo to having a character elect to take one... but thats just me.

Horses for courses but analysing individual details in isolation often belies or denies the effectiveness of the overall experience.

[Loomis]

Horses for courses but analysing individual details in isolation often belies or denies the effectiveness of the overall experience.

Quoted for truth.

[doublenoughtspy]

Yes, this was sixteen years ago. Did anybody complain about the stunt WHEN IT CAME OUT? I bet it wasn't until many years later. Compare that to, say, Die Another Day's "stunts" that made people groan in the theater. I'll take GoldenEye's stuntwork any day.

How long have you been a Bond fan? Of course people complained about the stunt WHEN IT CAME OUT. I was there opening day, at the World Premiere, and trust me, people complained about the dodgy CGI.

Every Bond film is dissected to the nth degree by Bond fans, regardless of era.

We were very happy to have Bond back, but that didn't give Eon a blank check or a freedom from criticism.

So if you are betting man, you lost.

[Loomis]

How long have you been a Bond fan? Of course people complained about the stunt WHEN IT CAME OUT. I was there opening day, at the World Premiere, and trust me, people complained about the dodgy CGI.

Of course, we all have different experiences of other fans' reactions to Bond films at the time of release, but the only complaint I recall from a fellow 007 buff when GOLDENEYE came out was that the car chase directly after the opening credits was redundant and overly Moore-ish.

Apart from that, all I remember is huge love for GOLDENEYE and fellow Bond fans saying they wished Campbell would come back for BOND 18.

I'll add that I'm not a GOLDENEYE nut, as such, although it sure as hell revived my waning Bond fandom (and indeed that of the world at large) and that opening weekend showing will probably always be one of my most cherished cinemagoing experiences. As it stands, though, GOLDENEYE probably isn't even among my top ten favourite Bond flicks (and CASINO ROYALE is unquestionably a much better film - indeed, so is every other Bond actor's debut with the exception of LIVE AND LET DIE).

But credit where it's due: back in 1995 GOLDENEYE worked a treat and people loved it.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Or it could just be Michael France jerking us around.

Michael France only wrote the first two drafts, which didn't have the sequence; to me, it feels like something Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Feirstein worked out with a committee... while playing a game of "turn the script page down to the last line, and make the next guy guess what came before when he writes what happens next".

And, hence, a ravine turns into a mountain.

[Jim]

I mean, you look at that dam and there's quite clearly a set of steps down it - whyohwhyohwhy doesn't he take the stairs rather than ostentatiously jump off???? I cannot wait for the widespread use of the internet to make this point in umpteen years time in the hope that it will change the film somehow and make me look utterly butterly. The film is FLAWED and when I saw it people were throwing knives and slashing seats and it was like Rock Around The Clock all over again. I spurn GoldenEye like I would spurn a rabid dog.

Etc.

Is what I honestly thought in 1995. Honestly. And that bit when Mr Brosnan's hair changes shape and the other bit when he minces down the staircase and the other bit when he asks for "a pint" and the other bit when he does some toilet trading - they all made me cry blasts of hot vomit and they did at the time, they did, I wasn't caught up in the moment, I went with a notebook and a flask of weak lemon drink and I noted all the shocking flaws in this documentary and you should see the one I filled in for Jurassic Park - there aren't any dinosaurs any more! Did no-one else notice this? Every page of painstakingly scribed notes points this out! The fools! And you should see my notebook for Jurassic Park 2 - they made the same mistake! Grrrrrr! And Ngggggggg! And more Grrrrrrr!

[AMC Hornet]

It makes me wonder why we bother.

[Jim]

...and that bit in On Her Majesty's Secret Service when an avalanche tries to kill two stick figures - there are NO recorded deaths of stick figures in avalanches, avalanches present stick figure NO threat this is a FACT and that bit in the same reprehensible farrago of lies when in the pre titles she looks like she's overtaking one side and then we see she overtakes on the other side and I blame the shakeycam editing style you cannot see what's going on. How can ANYONE derive any passing couple of hours of fleeting light entertainment from these amateurish outrages is beyond me. When I went to the Royal premiere of The World is not Enough and in the pre-titles they got the geography of the River Thames so very wildly wrong I bascially shat vomit over the Queen sitting in front of me and her tiara dripped so and the way she still looks when you see her on the telly now with her nose stuck up in the air suggests she's still got a bit of my undigested weak lemon drink in the folds of her swan-fed flesh.

[SecretAgentFan]

...and that bit in On Her Majesty's Secret Service when an avalanche tries to kill two stick figures - there are NO recorded deaths of stick figures in avalanches, avalanches present stick figure NO threat this is a FACT and that bit in the same reprehensible farrago of lies when in the pre titles she looks like she's overtaking one side and then we see she overtakes on the other side and I blame the shakeycam editing style you cannot see what's going on. How can ANYONE derive any passing couple of hours of fleeting light entertainment from these amateurish outrages is beyond me. When I went to the Royal premiere of The World is not Enough and in the pre-titles they got the geography of the River Thames so very wildly wrong I bascially shat vomit over the Queen sitting in front of me and her tiara dripped so and the way she still looks when you see her on the telly now with her nose stuck up in the air suggests she's still got a bit of my undigested weak lemon drink in the folds of her swan-fed flesh.

[Santa]

back in 1995 GOLDENEYE worked a treat and people loved it.

In your own words, quoted for truth. Despite my well known disdain for the Brosnan era, I was mega excited for Goldeneye when it came out and didn't leave the cinema disappointed. I don't think it has stood up well to the ravages of time but even I was excited to see the next Brosnan Bond film back then. That's not to say I thought it was perfect - yes, the action was a little cheesy but the air of optimism about the whole allowed me to brush over that aspect.

when he asks for "a pint"

I have to admit that bit made me wince, even through my pant-wetting excitement.

[Dustin]

...I bascially shat vomit over the Queen sitting in front of me and her tiara dripped so and the way she still looks when you see her on the telly now with her nose stuck up in the air suggests she's still got a bit of my undigested weak lemon drink in the folds of her swan-fed flesh.

You'd be knighted by now.

And pardoned.

After the knighthood.

Or whatever that ceremony with the sword means...

[doublenoughtspy]

Of course, we all have different experiences of other fans' reactions to Bond films at the time of release, but the only complaint I recall from a fellow 007 buff when GOLDENEYE came out was that the car chase directly after the opening credits was redundant and overly Moore-ish.

Not a single person you knew complained about the soundtrack and Serra's score, and the masterpiece that is (isn't) Experience of Love? Hmm.

Lots of Bond fans I knew at the time liked the theme song but were incredibly disappointed by Serra's score, one even famously comparing its sound quality to "Yoko Ono clubbing baby seals."

I do remember watching the trailer dozens of times, loving that Bond was back. Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Goldeneye, but this rose colored glasses stuff wasn't happening back in 95...

[Santa]

Not a single person you knew complained about the soundtrack and Serra's score, and the masterpiece that is (isn't) Experience of Love? Hmm.

Ah yes, those were crap. I have to admit that while they have come to annoy since, well, probably my second viewing, on first viewing I was definitely wearing the rose coloured glasses and easily able to ignore them in my Bondgasmic state. Honestly I can find more holes in GE now than a piece of Emmental but didn´t first time around.

[Jim]

Bondgasmic state

...the mind boggles.

Although it might explain how he can jump off twice during a pre-credits sequence

[Miles Miservy]

Not a single person you knew complained about the soundtrack and Serra's score, and the masterpiece that is (isn't) Experience of Love? Hmm.

Ah yes, those were crap. I have to admit that while they have come to annoy since, well, probably my second viewing, on first viewing I was definitely wearing the rose coloured glasses and easily able to ignore them in my Bondgasmic state. Honestly I can find more holes in GE now than a piece of Emmental but didn´t first time around.

You crazy kids can pick this scene apart all you like. It was still an enjoyable sequence and a far cry more realistic than that GOD-AWFUL helicopter/cuisinart gag in TND. That one all but spent whatever credibility the film had.

[Santa]

Not a single person you knew complained about the soundtrack and Serra's score, and the masterpiece that is (isn't) Experience of Love? Hmm.

Ah yes, those were crap. I have to admit that while they have come to annoy since, well, probably my second viewing, on first viewing I was definitely wearing the rose coloured glasses and easily able to ignore them in my Bondgasmic state. Honestly I can find more holes in GE now than a piece of Emmental but didn´t first time around.

You crazy kids can pick this scene apart all you like. It was still an enjoyable sequence and a far cry more realistic than that GOD-AWFUL helicopter/cuisinart gag in TND. That one all but spent whatever credibility the film had.

Yeah, but when it comes to TND we reach whole new levels of crap and I haven´t the command of the English language to be able to do justice to that particular scene. Or film as a whole. Yuk.

[Loomis]

Of course, we all have different experiences of other fans' reactions to Bond films at the time of release, but the only complaint I recall from a fellow 007 buff when GOLDENEYE came out was that the car chase directly after the opening credits was redundant and overly Moore-ish.

Not a single person you knew complained about the soundtrack and Serra's score, and the masterpiece that is (isn't) Experience of Love? Hmm.

Lots of Bond fans I knew at the time liked the theme song but were incredibly disappointed by Serra's score, one even famously comparing its sound quality to "Yoko Ono clubbing baby seals."

Admittedly, one person I knew did express mild disapproval of Serra's score, likening his version of the James Bond theme that played over the opening gunbarrel to drum n' bass (in those days a trendy subculture of UK pop music), but he also said that Serra was a great choice based on LEON (THE PROFESSIONAL).

Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Goldeneye, but this rose colored glasses stuff wasn't happening back in 95...

All I'm saying, really, is that GOLDENEYE got an extremely positive response at the time and that many people felt that the Bond series had not only been resurrected but resurrected with a degree of success beyond anyone's wildest dreams (and the same trick would be pulled off again even more spectacularly in 2006). Would you disagree with this?