20 replies to this topic

[Dan Gale]

I'm sure in this age of illegal downloads and multi region DVD players, everyone has seen Never Say Never Again's most infamous stunt in it's original form (the one that's always censored for the UK VHS, DVD and TV market).
I was unable to find it on YouTube anywhere so, in case you haven't, here it is. I'd like to say no horses were harmed in the making of this scene, but I'm pretty sure at least one terrified horse was pushed into the sea by Irvin Kershner from a ruddy great platform in the name of entertainment.

EDIT
The shot that's often cut is the slow motion shot of the horse falling into the water.
I'm hope the horse was fine and there's no guarantee the animal swimming away was the same one as the one that falls. But it can't have been that dangerous or else the human stunt performers wouldn't have done it either! Also, it's not from the top of a castle (the first shot of the fall is clearly a matted on model), the fall itself may only be about 30 feet o so, but the slow motion makes it look further.
The reason it's always cut in the UK is due to complaints from the RSPCA and BBFC; there's no way of proving the horse wasn't forced to do this stunt against it's will.

Edited by Dan Gale, 27 March 2012 - 07:32 PM.

[Miles Miservy]

Why would this have been censored? I thought it was a GREAT gag.

[thecasinoroyale]

God that is awful...but what bit was cut out of UK broadcasts? I've never seen it more than once and can't remember..

[Royal Dalton]

The shot of the horse landing on its back.

[thecasinoroyale]

Ahh...makes sense. Still, daft edit!

Christ, in 'Jingle All The Way' they show Schwarzenegger punching a reindeer! Oh well...thanks for the info!

[OHMSS Fan]

Hey guys, for more on this stunt and information on this please read Vic Armstrong's autobiography "legends of a stuntman", in it he describes how the stunt was set up and what happened, they couldn't do it on the first day they set the stunt up, because if caring for the horse, and making sure it was ok. There are even pictures showing how the stunt was set up. No horses were harmed and if you read his book, Vic is very very very protective of his horses. That's all, its not meant to be an angry reply it's jus to give you more information on where u can find out about this stunt. The book is very good too.

[larrythefatcat]

Yeah, this is definitely one of the more ridiculous British edits I've ever seen. (and most of the other ones I've seen involved cutting out headbutts... why does the BBFC seem to only have issues with those when it comes to violence?)

The long shot showing the horse falling is clearly a visual effect and then the shot where the horse actually falls in the water is just a horse falling in the water... wow. Horses are competent swimmers and the water looks like it's easily deep enough that there was no fear of the horse being injured.


Things like this being cut make me guess that something like "Milo and Otis" could NEVER be released in the UK... at least not with anything below an 18 certificate!!

Edited by larrythefatcat, 27 March 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Yeah, Vic Armstrong takes every precaution and is very protective of his horses.

[Henry-Jones-Sr]

I thought Vic Armstrong and his defence of this stunt in his book was idiotic.

He goes on and on about his love for horses but then goes on to describe in great detail how he forced the horse (who, according to Vic, was terrified and refused to co-operate) to complete the stunt by tipping the animal out of a box which was suspended high up in the air.

His claims to 'know best' about the horses he 'loves' just don't wash with me. The man is an idiot, and so are the people who enjoy watching the stunt or think it doesn't matter or think it's funny.

So all this, plus all that eye-rolling rubbish about the 'sexy ladies' he's worked with ... and his blokey anecdotes about how his stunt crew are crazy because they like to party ... and his bitterness at other successful stuntmen despite the fact he is the most successful of them all ... made him an extremely unlikeable character.

[Royal Dalton]

I haven't read his book. But I wouldn't have thought dropping a horse onto its back from a height was a very good way of taking care of it.

Especially when the stunt could have been done using a dummy horse.

[marktmurphy]

I thought Vic Armstrong and his defence of this stunt in his book was idiotic.

He goes on and on about his love for horses but then goes on to describe in great detail how he forced the horse (who, according to Vic, was terrified and refused to co-operate) to complete the stunt by tipping the animal out of a box which was suspended high up in the air.

His claims to 'know best' about the horses he 'loves' just don't wash with me. The man is an idiot, and so are the people who enjoy watching the stunt or think it doesn't matter or think it's funny.

So all this, plus all that eye-rolling rubbish about the 'sexy ladies' he's worked with ... and his blokey anecdotes about how his stunt crew are crazy because they like to party ... and his bitterness at other successful stuntmen despite the fact he is the most successful of them all ... made him an extremely unlikeable character.

I agree that he does come off as a bit of a prat in his book (at the very least!) but he does know what he's talking about.

[AMC Hornet]

Things like this being cut make me guess that something like "Milo and Otis" could NEVER be released in the UK... at least not with anything below an 18 certificate!!

Is that Milo & Otis you're talking about, or Milo/Otis?

[Simon]

Well, it was a stunt which was created in the early 80s, but we, as Bond fans, are constantly dissecting the various scenes and as a result, they probably come in for more focus than animal stunts in the films of the 50's.

I only say this as this is probably an example of an animal stunt where the animal was Not trained to perform in this way, and similarly Western films (cowboys, not films made in the English language) wrapped lassoos around horses front legs which were then tightened when the horse rider wanted to the horse to fall over, causing the legs minimal movement and thus a trip.

Clearly, both these examples are of horses being forced to do stuff that they would otherwise have said no to, had they had the wherewithall.

That said, we, and the BBC, do not comment or cut Those scenes. Double standards?

So, all this is to say, time moves on and we develop. Bond won't be throwing a horse into the water again any time soon.

Horses for courses.

[doublenoughtspy]

I asked Vic about the controversial stunt in my interview with him when his book came out: (3rd question):

http://debrief.comma...rong-interview/

[Shaun Forever]

Ugh, the music in that scene is terrible, who on earth hired the composer?


Thanks for the clip though, being in the UK, this is the first time I've seen it properly.

[Jim]

Such cruelty to a dumb animal, making me watch some of that film.

[Dustin]

From a layman's view, wouldn't it have achieved much the same result if Bond and Domino had dismounted and dived without the horse? I for one don't think the dive on horseback adds anything - beyond obviously a most distressed creature not even getting a mention in the credits for its pains - to the general appeal and drama of the whole affair. The CGI shot is quite awful and I feel THE THIEF OF BAGDAD overall did similar scenes better. And didn't have to kick a horse in the bargain.

[MarkA]

The CGI shot is quite awful

Without being pedantic CGI had nothing to do with that. Way before CGI, good old fashion photographic optical and matte painting.

[larrythefatcat]

Things like this being cut make me guess that something like "Milo and Otis" could NEVER be released in the UK... at least not with anything below an 18 certificate!!

Is that Milo & Otis you're talking about, or Milo/Otis?

I have no idea what "Milo/Otis" is... but I'm referring to a relatively well-known film entitled The Adventures of Milo and Otis: an English language version of the Japanese film Koneko Monogatari.

I guess I also don't know what "Milo & Otis" is if there's another similarly-titled film with an ampersand in the title.

From a layman's view, wouldn't it have achieved much the same result if Bond and Domino had dismounted and dived without the horse? I for one don't think the dive on horseback adds anything - beyond obviously a most distressed creature not even getting a mention in the credits for its pains - to the general appeal and drama of the whole affair. The CGI shot is quite awful and I feel THE THIEF OF BAGDAD overall did similar scenes better. And didn't have to kick a horse in the bargain.

I must agree that the stunt is quite inane and absolutely unnecessary regarding the movement of the film's plot. It is merely spectacle at its most base/boring.

Another point with which I must agree, however, is: "CGI"?... I think you're using "CGI" when you should be using "chromakey".

Edited by larrythefatcat, 30 March 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

It was an optical matte shot.

[Dustin]

Well, the trick, however the details of that happen to be. It wasn't a particularly good job even back then when I first saw it.