Up skirt shot

Pud2002

Found this comment on IMDB

"Apologies for lowering the tone but I have just watched QoS and noticed that at the end of the attempted assault of a waitress close to the end of the film, the camera appears to focus up the victim's skirt revealing her 'womanliness' in the style of Sharon Stone a la 'Basic Instinct.'

I though it must have been just me mistaking panty for flesh but my girlfriend turned to immediately afterwards noticing the same thing.

Are we the only ones who noticed this? I am guessing that when this is out on DVD this will be edited out and even if it is not my girlfriend is sure to hide the remote so I cannot freeze frame to check.

Can anyone confirm or otherwise my observation?"

I thought i'll post it here because i noticed it too and wondered if anyone else did?

emtiem

It is a bafflingly strange and oddly long shot. You don't see anything, though, no.

ak007

Yes i saw that too...
It was strange to say the least. If it was indeed what we think it is then why on earth is the film a 12a?

John Drake

ak007 wrote:

Yes i saw that too...
It was strange to say the least. If it was indeed what we think it is then why on earth is the film a 12a?

I saw that too, but whether I saw more than I should have I have no idea as it was pretty dark up there.

maddyhind

its certainly not 12a material...

i expect u2 die

I found this shot really baffling - I also thought we were seeing the 'real thing'. The fact that so many of us have assumed this, suggests that the shot doesn't belong in a James Bond film, let alone a 12a. A major artistic misjudgment, I think.

bondaholic007

I am surprised this wasn't cut-out by the BBFC ?

Gassy Man

Shhhhhhhhhh . . . so they don't cut it out of the U.S. release.

John Drake

Gassy Man wrote:

Shhhhhhhhhh . . . so they don't cut it out of the U.S. release.

{[]

Like they've done with every video and DVD release of TLD, panning and scanning so we never see Virginia Hey's chest.

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5

It was very ood, the shot did seem to linger a while.

There's a shot that lingered in CR too. When Bond and Vesper are lying on the remote beach towards the end of the film, it seems to linger on Daniel Craig's muscley, sandy back. Or is that just me?

A7ce

Er right, for the purposes of verification of thiis thread, I kept an eye out for this scene in the interest of science - and she was wearing skin tone tights/stockings.

Ravenstone

I'm absolutely 100% certain she is wearing panties, and so is my partner.

I think there is a reason for the shot, although we both thought it a little odd at the time. However, on thinking about it, it could be there to show that she hasn't been raped. She is still wearing her knickers and has therefore been saved that degredation.

I think it's film-maker's shorthand.

If we didn't see the knickers, we'd always be wondering why a rape scene was shown in a 12A. As it is, we can see it was an attempted rape scene.

Mind you, I can't see the point in 12A. Either a 12 year old can see it, or they can't. What's having an adult with them going to change?

chrisno1

I didnt think the shot was done deliberately at all, it's just another example of the general poor quality of the film. They probably didnt even notice what they had filmed and chose not to re-shoot it, it was probably the only decent shot they had, so they kept it in. You dont see anything. I didn't think the rape scene was necessary, it was clear the general was a bstd anyway

Shaken_not_Stirred

I dont know what yall are complaining about, I loved it.

;);)

~SNS

walther p99

that was a pretty awkward shot

Tears in the Rain

Maybe it was the Q*** of Solace:p

Predator

Tears in the Rain wrote:

Maybe it was the Q*** of Solace:p

Clever not funny.

In truth, I thought the scene crass and unnecessary but that's me.

You don't see anything, but it is the concept that I disagree with ... does it add anything to the scene apart from some fanboy titillation at what they think they can see. Bond is better than that.

lavabubble

I do think it's one of the most questionable parts of the film and I don't understand fully why it didn't end up cutting room floor material.

The threat of rape is there, the significance of how the scene plays out is all there in terms of how it relates to Camille's past so why such a gratuitous shot? I don't get it.

Gassy Man

Well, now that I've seen it, I must say that I thought I saw a little camel toe going on there . . . my old eyes might be deceiving me, of course. I believe the shot was not gratuitous -- at least no more gratuitous than anything else where we see people get blown up, blasted, shot, roasted alive, and drowned in motor oil. It added a hint of "adult" to the Bond films that hasn't been a part of the series' flavor for many, many years.

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5

Hasn't been part of the series ever?

7289

The "shot" in question fit in with the rather crude going's on in the scene and did not strike me as an attempt to be "sexy" or a tribute to Sharon Stone.

Other viewers in the theatre gave out "woops" of joy, but I attribute that to persons locked into a permanent state of pre-pubescent stupidity.

Whatever it was, no where near as "shocking" as Eva Green's moment in CR'06.

Gassy Man

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5 wrote:

Hasn't been part of the series ever?

N'ah, for the time, the early Bonds pushed the envelope of what was considered prurient . . . right from the start with Sylvia Trench's sexy cigarette lighting at the gambling table and appearance in Bond's apartment wearing what appeared to only be high heels and Bond's dress shirt. Those elements seem quaint by today's standards, but they made the Bonds at the time seem much more adult than their contemporaries; I even recall the warnings of "mature" content before the films were broadcast on TV in the 70s and my parents making me look away during certain parts that were considered too naughty. I'm not saying the upskirt shot was classy or sexy by any stretch, but it is along the lines of pushing the envelope in an age where teens ejaculating in beer glasses and movies with "porno" in the title are de riguer.

c_a_r_t_e_r_3_5

I never considered the time in which the earlier films were released. I've only ever looked back on them with my naive eyes!

agent 00

Just enjoyed the film and as far as I've seen after freezing the scene she still has her panty's on.

BFAzure

Again, just stupid film-making. Just like the parachute-jump scene, without giving anything away. Just stupid.

This director did a terrible job with this film. There's nothing else to say, really.

Oh, and I loved the downright insulting allusions to "Godfather" (Pts 1&3) and "Battleship Potemkin". Jerk.

Agent Wade

While the upskirt was focused on for a longer-than-comfortable amount of time, it paled in comparrison to JAMES BOND IS OPENING UP MR. SLATE'S HOTEL ROOM AND HE'S WEARING AN OMEGA WATCH WHILE HE'S DOING IT BECAUSE OMEGA IS THE WATCH THAT JAMES BOND WEARS. TRUST OMEGA TO BE THE WATCH YOU NEED TO WEAR WHEN YOU ARE SNEAKING INTO BAD GUY'S ROOMS. THAT'S RIGHT, OMEGA. If you didn't catch onto that one, then you really weren't even watching.

susinggih

Just in case anyone of you still curious or in doubt. She's wearing a panties so it's quite safe.
Here's the captured pics for you to see.

Captured Upskirt Shot

Johmss

Agent Wade wrote:

While the upskirt was focused on for a longer-than-comfortable amount of time, it paled in comparrison to JAMES BOND IS OPENING UP MR. SLATE'S HOTEL ROOM AND HE'S WEARING AN OMEGA WATCH WHILE HE'S DOING IT BECAUSE OMEGA IS THE WATCH THAT JAMES BOND WEARS. TRUST OMEGA TO BE THE WATCH YOU NEED TO WEAR WHEN YOU ARE SNEAKING INTO BAD GUY'S ROOMS. THAT'S RIGHT, OMEGA. If you didn't catch onto that one, then you really weren't even watching.

- Rolex?
- Omega.

Bond has the special ability to always show his "tools".

The rape scene, although it was believable (he has going to rape her), it has more sense that other sadly scenes (yes, i'm looking at you bed scene from DAD), it was very explicit and yes, it would be better if those 30 seconds were destined to something else.

it always seems that she was showing something more than her "knikers" (?) but perhaps it was a sicological response to the fact that i haven't seen those (in a bond film)

ToshTogo

Tears in the Rain wrote:

Maybe it was the Q*** of Solace:p

Bwaa hahahhahaha, you cunning linguist !!!

Saw the scene again, and im pretty sure she is wearing panties ( damn )

sped98

you guys stop spoiling it...
she wasnt wearing any underwear as im 100% positive i seen **** lol....now leave us to enjoy the lingering thought.

Clean it up, dude. HB

heartbroken_mr_drax

Yea the shot was a little pointless, but I define the purpose as showing the rape has stopped without showing her face.

Problem was though it felt out of place.