Varda Bridge Fall

CmdrAtticus

I found out that the height of the Varda railway viaduct is 322 feet. Does anyone have a problem with Bond falling from the top of it (and add another dozen feet since he is on top of the train) and surviving this fall into the river? This is as barmy to me as Berry diving off the top of the cliff in DAD from what the camera's viewpoint looked to be about the same ridiculous height. Why do the filmmakers put in this Road Runner/Coyote garbage? Am I to understand they went to the viaduct and looked down and actually believed this was a plausible plot point? They go to such great pains and expense to make the films look real, then they ruin them by injecting cartoon physics. Why? I know that the scenery is visually impressive, but couldn't they have had Bond get shot but fall over onto the roof of the car and knock the villain off the train, then show it pass through another tunnel and as it exits show no sign of Bond? At least it would be left up to my imagination as to what happens to him, instead of the cartoon fall we see in the trailer.

Loeffelholz

Quite a long fall, no doubt. I'll see how it plays out before I render an opinion, though. In the grand scope of Bond's half-century of unlikely survival, however, it's merely another entry -{

welshboy78

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

Wilde

welshboy78 wrote:

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

Yea, even in the world of post reboot, Quantum gave us Bond jumping out of that DC10 sans parachute!

Thunderpussy

If you did want to fake your Death, would you choose to be shot from a moving train,
Then falling hundreds of feet. With No Witnesses, So much could go wrong that you
might end up Dead for Real. )

walther p99

Because its not jut visually impressive but for dramatic purposes as well, his literal sky fall.

HowardB

If you want stark realism stick to "Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy" (which I happen to like also). If you want to see something fantastical, watch a Bond film. Craig's Bond may be "grittier" and have half a foot in reality but he is still climbing up scaffolding and cranes like a circus performer, running through walls, and his most unbelievable stunt of all, having sex a couple of weeks after having his privates beaten to a pulp. As far as I am concerned, James Bond can fall 322 feet from a moving train into a river and survive. Hell, James Bond can fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and survive. Roger Moore could fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and only need to straighten his tie. Today's grittier, more realistic Bond, Daniel Craig, would emerge from the bucket rumpled and bloodied but then use the bucket to beat the hell out of a bad guy. The name is Bond, James Bond.

The joy of a Bond film for me is for a couple of hours, I get to be 12 again. -{

canoe2012

HowardB wrote:

If you want stark realism stick to "Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy" (which I happen to like also). If you want to see something fantastical, watch a Bond film. Craig's Bond may be "grittier" and have half a foot in reality but he is still climbing up scaffolding and cranes like a circus performer, running through walls, and his most unbelievable stunt of all, having sex a couple of weeks after having his privates beaten to a pulp. As far as I am concerned, James Bond can fall 322 feet from a moving train into a river and survive. Hell, James Bond can fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and survive. Roger Moore could fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and only need to straighten his tie. Today's grittier, more realistic Bond, Daniel Craig, would emerge from the bucket rumpled and bloodied but then use the bucket to beat the hell out of a bad guy. The name is Bond, James Bond.

The joy of a Bond film for me is for a couple of hours, I get to be 12 again. -{

I love this post. Sums up the whole Bond experience perfectly for me!

Moore Than

Improbable but not impossible. I am sure people such as parachutist's have survived falls from much greater heights. It appears Bond is unconscious in the water so someone must save him, but surely not Eve because she is too far away. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out.

minigeff

Moore Than wrote:

Improbable but not impossible.

I think this has been the mantra for bond films right from the word go has it not?

sniperUK

Unlikely but not impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

Thunderpussy

Still think there's easier ways to Fake your Death. :007)

Gala Brand

Thunderpussy wrote:

Still think there's easier ways to Fake your Death. :007)

I don't think he faked his death. Eve shot him by mistake and since everyone thought he was dead he decided to stay dead, at least for awhile.

welshboy78

Gala Brand wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Still think there's easier ways to Fake your Death. :007)

I don't think he faked his death. Eve shot him by mistake and since everyone thought he was dead he decided to stay dead, at least for awhile.

Precisely what i was going to say, he uses it as an opportunity to be dead

The Domino Effect

I like semi-real films to at least be plausible. If I have to suspend my incredulity too much, I tend to lose interest. While recent Bonds and other films like Bourne or M.I. certainly have me turning a blind eye to reality, none do so to such an extent that my entertainment suffers. I have no issue with the bridge fall anymore than so many other things in many films.

David Schofield

And add to the ludicrousness that he manages to shag every bird he wants to, that they all fancy him whether he be rugged and Celtic, a plastic dressed-up Aussie, an ageing leathery comedian, a dour, brooding Byronic hero, an 80s soap opera identifit, or a knackered, rough-looking, dwarf.

Plausibility? Not round here, please!

Thunderpussy

Eve shot him by Mistake, OK I'll go with that. Although
If her aim is that Bad I wouldn't trust her with a Razor. )

welshboy78

Thunderpussy wrote:

Eve shot him by Mistake, OK I'll go with that. Although
If her aim is that Bad I wouldn't trust her with a Razor. )

Hahaha - wonder if he sleeps with her or its one of those will he / won't he things which drags on like Mulder and Scully lol. I presume she will be signed up for the next one and become his sidekick

Thunderpussy

I think that's the least she could, after shooting him.
and as you say, Mabey she wont sleep with him and they
become colleagues, with Her becoming the PA of the New
M. Many have speculated, a certain Miss M............... )

Gala Brand

David Schofield wrote:

And add to the ludicrousness that he manages to shag every bird he wants to, that they all fancy him whether he be rugged and Celtic, a plastic dressed-up Aussie, an ageing leathery comedian, a dour, brooding Byronic hero, an 80s soap opera identifit, or a knackered, rough-looking, dwarf.

Plausibility? Not round here, please!

Implausible?

How about a mid-level civil servant who wears Tom Ford clothes and an Omega watch and drives around in a classic Aston Martin DB-5?

Gala Brand

CmdrAtticus wrote:

I found out that the height of the Varda railway viaduct is 322 feet. Does anyone have a problem with Bond falling from the top of it (and add another dozen feet since he is on top of the train) and surviving this fall into the river? This is as barmy to me as Berry diving off the top of the cliff in DAD from what the camera's viewpoint looked to be about the same ridiculous height. Why do the filmmakers put in this Road Runner/Coyote garbage? Am I to understand they went to the viaduct and looked down and actually believed this was a plausible plot point? They go to such great pains and expense to make the films look real, then they ruin them by injecting cartoon physics. Why? I know that the scenery is visually impressive, but couldn't they have had Bond get shot but fall over onto the roof of the car and knock the villain off the train, then show it pass through another tunnel and as it exits show no sign of Bond? At least it would be left up to my imagination as to what happens to him, instead of the cartoon fall we see in the trailer.

You forgot that he fell off a train that looked to be doing about 35 MPH. That alone would cause serious injury.

00-Shane

Bond probably wouldn't have survived past Dr. No if there wasn't some element of fantasy ) Getting too caught up in analysing whether each and every stunt was entirely realistic can take from your enjoyment of the film. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride guys -{

WordsAndDreams

Chances are he would be be dead, but it is possible to survive a fall into water from that height if he hit it in just the right way. No doubt he would still break most of his bones and mess up most of his organs, but if someone found him soon after, then they could save him. Jumping from the golden gate bridge, 220 ft, has a ~98% fatality rate, which actually happens a lot and is well documented. No doubt this is a further and deadlier fall, so I'm assuming Eve (and M) can easily assume he's dead, which is why they do in the film.

Like others have said, even though it's highly improbable to survive this, I'm sure there is even less of a chance of Bond surviving everything else he's been through, so in a way this fall is believable in the Bond universe.

Blackleiter

You nailed it, HowardB. Thanks!

HowardB wrote:

If you want stark realism stick to "Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy" (which I happen to like also). If you want to see something fantastical, watch a Bond film. Craig's Bond may be "grittier" and have half a foot in reality but he is still climbing up scaffolding and cranes like a circus performer, running through walls, and his most unbelievable stunt of all, having sex a couple of weeks after having his privates beaten to a pulp. As far as I am concerned, James Bond can fall 322 feet from a moving train into a river and survive. Hell, James Bond can fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and survive. Roger Moore could fall 322 feet into a bucket of water and only need to straighten his tie. Today's grittier, more realistic Bond, Daniel Craig, would emerge from the bucket rumpled and bloodied but then use the bucket to beat the hell out of a bad guy. The name is Bond, James Bond.

The joy of a Bond film for me is for a couple of hours, I get to be 12 again. -{

David Schofield

Gala Brand wrote:

David Schofield wrote:

And add to the ludicrousness that he manages to shag every bird he wants to, that they all fancy him whether he be rugged and Celtic, a plastic dressed-up Aussie, an ageing leathery comedian, a dour, brooding Byronic hero, an 80s soap opera identifit, or a knackered, rough-looking, dwarf.

Plausibility? Not round here, please!

How about a mid-level civil servant who wears Tom Ford clothes and an Omega watch and drives around in a classic Aston Martin DB-5?

Some girls are a little less materialistic?

Well, that's always been my excuse when the fairer sex have rejected me...

CmdrAtticus

welshboy78 wrote:

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

That's my point. Craig's films were leaning towards a more realistic edge (showing real emotions and Bond getting physically battered), then they keep sticking in the old Bond cartoon physics. I thought they were trying to dispense with that by the reboot. That's why as much as I enjoyed the excitement of the foot chase scene in CR, I cringed when it showed him leaping and falling dozens of feet and catching himself whereas in reality he
would have dislocated his arms and fallen, or hitting the ground and jumping up from falls that would have actually put him in an ambulance. They got rid of the invisible cars and laser satellites, I think they should dump the cartoon physics. Even the scenes of the villains firing hundreds of bullets at Bond while running and never getting him are more believable that these falls.

David Schofield

CmdrAtticus wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

That's my point. Craig's films were leaning towards a more realistic edge (showing real emotions and Bond getting physically battered), then they keep sticking in the old Bond cartoon physics. I thought they were trying to dispense with that by the reboot. That's why as much as I enjoyed the excitement of the foot chase scene in CR, I cringed when it showed him leaping and falling dozens of feet and catching himself whereas in reality he
would have dislocated his arms and fallen, or hitting the ground and jumping up from falls that would have actually put him in an ambulance.

I think the moment Craig-Bond decided, ludicrously, to charge UP the crane in Madagascar rather than just wait for Mallaca(?) to come down and then burst through a stoothing wall rather than run through the open space next to it demonstrated we were still in the same cartoon road-runner world of Roger Moore.

Are EON really afraid to go the whole hog and make Bond totally serious? LTK, a film without any real zaniness, was a bust as far as EON and the critics (but not me) are concerned....

Blackleiter

You can legitimately complain about some of the lack of realism, but I think comparing the Craig films to the cartoonish silliness of most of the Roger Moore Bonds is a bit much. And let's not forget, LTK had a helicopter "fishing" for a plane and an oil tanker doing wheelies - realistic? No, but I don't really think moments like that were enough to put LTK in the "cartoonish" category. Same for CR.

David Schofield wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

That's my point. Craig's films were leaning towards a more realistic edge (showing real emotions and Bond getting physically battered), then they keep sticking in the old Bond cartoon physics. I thought they were trying to dispense with that by the reboot. That's why as much as I enjoyed the excitement of the foot chase scene in CR, I cringed when it showed him leaping and falling dozens of feet and catching himself whereas in reality he
would have dislocated his arms and fallen, or hitting the ground and jumping up from falls that would have actually put him in an ambulance.

I think the moment Craig-Bond decided, ludicrously, to charge UP the crane in Madagascar rather than just wait for Mallaca(?) to come down and then burst through a stoothing wall rather than run through the open space next to it demonstrated we were still in the same cartoon road-runner world of Roger Moore.

Are EON really afraid to go the whole hog and make Bond totally serious? LTK, a film without any real zaniness, was a bust as far as EON and the critics (but not me) are concerned....

CmdrAtticus

David Schofield wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

welshboy78 wrote:

Hmm but Daniel Craigs Bond is too serious remember

This is perfectly fine in my "Bond Viewing", we have had much much worse, sky diving off cliffs into planes etc In fact compared to past exploits I would consider this believable lol

That's my point. Craig's films were leaning towards a more realistic edge (showing real emotions and Bond getting physically battered), then they keep sticking in the old Bond cartoon physics. I thought they were trying to dispense with that by the reboot. That's why as much as I enjoyed the excitement of the foot chase scene in CR, I cringed when it showed him leaping and falling dozens of feet and catching himself whereas in reality he
would have dislocated his arms and fallen, or hitting the ground and jumping up from falls that would have actually put him in an ambulance.

I think the moment Craig-Bond decided, ludicrously, to charge UP the crane in Madagascar rather than just wait for Mallaca(?) to come down and then burst through a stoothing wall rather than run through the open space next to it demonstrated we were still in the same cartoon road-runner world of Roger Moore.

Are EON really afraid to go the whole hog and make Bond totally serious? LTK, a film without any real zaniness, was a bust as far as EON and the critics (but not me) are concerned....

I don't believe LTK lacking any "zaniness" was the reason it was a bust - there were several other factors that were to blame (bad marketing, up against other blockbustes, etc.). As far EON not going all the way with being serious, that obviously would not work. They can have over the top stunts in the Craig reboots, they just don't need to keep putting in the cartoon versions we saw in the Moore and Brosnan films. They obviously want to keep the films in the old style of the first Connery entries, and I never saw any stunts in those that were as cartoon like as they did starting with YOLT. As far as Craig chasing the bomber up the crane, I explained the possible logic behind this in one of my earlier posts: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/37883/cr-free-running-scene/.

welshboy78

Personally I think they have the balance about right.

Imagine the uproar if they did take out these lighter elements - DC has enough flak as it is for this kinda thing

David Schofield

Blackleiter wrote:

You can legitimately complain about some of the lack of realism, but I think comparing the Craig films to the cartoonish silliness of most of the Roger Moore Bonds is a bit much. And let's not forget, LTK had a helicopter "fishing" for a plane and an oil tanker doing wheelies - realistic? No, but I don't really think moments like that were enough to put LTK in the "cartoonish" category. Same for CR.

David Schofield wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

That's my point. Craig's films were leaning towards a more realistic edge (showing real emotions and Bond getting physically battered), then they keep sticking in the old Bond cartoon physics. I thought they were trying to dispense with that by the reboot. That's why as much as I enjoyed the excitement of the foot chase scene in CR, I cringed when it showed him leaping and falling dozens of feet and catching himself whereas in reality he
would have dislocated his arms and fallen, or hitting the ground and jumping up from falls that would have actually put him in an ambulance.

I think the moment Craig-Bond decided, ludicrously, to charge UP the crane in Madagascar rather than just wait for Mallaca(?) to come down and then burst through a stoothing wall rather than run through the open space next to it demonstrated we were still in the same cartoon road-runner world of Roger Moore.

Are EON really afraid to go the whole hog and make Bond totally serious? LTK, a film without any real zaniness, was a bust as far as EON and the critics (but not me) are concerned....

But the truck actually DID a wheelie, no CGI involved. ?:) Not sure if "fishing" with a choper for a plane is/isn't possible...

But the point is Dalton-Bond doesn't do anything cartoonish in LTK whereas Craig-Bond in CR... ;%