I guess studying damaged WWII aircraft does have its uses after all (leaking fuel lines, in spite of self-sealing fuel tanks, often literally blew an aircraft out of the sky no matter what was hitting them, although AP rounds would cause sparks...as for compressed air, one sad end for many a B-29 due to the pressurized cabin was explosive decompression). )
Breaking the air pipe on the train would cause the brakes to come on both the forward and rear sections of the train after they separate. Once the air pressure in the pipe drops below a certain level the locomotive would also lose power.
I have not gotten back to see the film a second time, but one of the things that bothered me the first go round:
When the train "falls" through the hole, we see the Engineer (driver) of the train, but it appeared to me that the rest of the train was empty. Every other train in those scenes was packed with people.
I kinda thought that was a "deliberate error", 45Wheelgun (nice choice, by the way...may I ask if you prefer the S&W Model 1917 or the Colt Model 1917? Or is it a reference to the Colt 1873 SAA or some other revolver in .45 LC?). As in, "we're killing enough people, so wiping out an entire tube train in rush hour would seem a bit gratuitous" or alternately "we don't want the film restricted by ratings due to mass murder in some countries".
I have not gotten back to see the film a second time, but one of the things that bothered me the first go round:
When the train "falls" through the hole, we see the Engineer (driver) of the train, but it appeared to me that the rest of the train was empty. Every other train in those scenes was packed with people.
The train has an Out of Service sign on it. I am pretty certain it was wisely decided that it would be too insensitive and controversial to do that underground train crash scene with passengers on board. Fifty two innocent people were killed in London on the 7th July 2005 when three bombs were detonated on underground trains and one on a bus.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I can understand why they bottled it, but for all that, it's like the shot of it was used for the trailor, where you think, wow, lots of people killed, this Bond film will be different. Yes, it had out of service on the train but a good many people didn't notice that, myself included, so it seems like another plot hole at the time, though I'd given up counting 'em by that time.
But of course, you couldn't have Bond going off in pursuit of Silva with a hundred badly wounded passengers dying, though with this incarnation I wouldn't put it past him.
It just seemed unbelievable to me. I don't know much about the London Underground, but I can't imagine the scenario where there is a train traveling at a high rate of speed during rush hour that is completely empty.
S&W 1917 all the way. I prefer the S&W prewar "long action" to the action in the Colt. Both are fine guns (I have owned them both), but I prefer the S&W.
And it is JUST like the London Underground to have an entire tube 'out of service' at rush hour )
I do think that was the right decision... having hundreds of people killed on the tube, not that long after the terrorist attack would be tacky... and doesn't add to the plot at all.... I mean the outcry audiences would have if it had been full of passangers, and Bond just ran off.... what would that achieve?
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
S&W 1917 all the way. I prefer the S&W prewar "long action" to the action in the Colt. Both are fine guns (I have owned them both), but I prefer the S&W.
All right, that's my choice as well! I once had the privilege of shooting some old .45 Auto Rim out of a Colt, though. Shame that never caught on as a caliber because honestly, it beats the half-moon clips. Funny as I usually prefer Colt wheelguns (the Police Positive of that era is one of my favorite revolvers, period), but the S&W just seemed better-built for .45 ACP.
Onto Bond, I never noticed the "Out of Service" sign on the tube train, either, although making it SUPER-conspicuous would have certainly made the scene worse.
In all honesty, all I was thinking was "oh sh1t, Jesus, oh bloody hell.... FOOK WHAT A COOL SHOT!!"
I think if you're sat there trying to read what the little sign on the front says, wondering where all the passengers are, why the lights didn't go out on the train or if those wheels are correct for that particular year of rolling stock then you're not allowing yourself to really get into the film.
or if those wheels are correct for that particular year of rolling stock then you're not allowing yourself to really get into the film.
Although I'm a chronic nitpicker, I actually agree with you on this one. Remember those Turkish railway cars? They don't still operate trains like that near Istanbul. Those cars were phased out of passenger service at least thirty years ago and probably more. A mistake, but an obviously deliberate one. I mean, the TCDD (Turkish State Railways) hasn't used two-axle passenger coaches on its mainline trains (the livery of the locomotive) since the early 1970's at least, probably even earlier. Heck, the roofs on the cars literally were rusting. Yet, I somewhat doubt the TCDD would say "oh sure, yeah, you can use an execavator to cut apart our in-service passenger coaches, go right ahead," especially in light of a poor safety record.
AutoRim is great, and I'm not a fan of the 1/2 moon clips either, but full moon clips ROCK. Watch as Jerry Miculek fires 6 rounds on target, reloads and fires 6 more in less than 3 seconds. Only with full moon clips and a 45Wheelgun. A World record.
I remember watching that on TV when he set those records! Very impressive! On the other hand, I don't know where to get a full moon clip for a S&W Model 1917.
To stay on-topic, since I see every Bond film with my father, I asked him if he noticed any mistakes. He did, but of the ones not mentioned...
"A bit like Bond dropping the double rifle at Skyfall, and then going over ground where nothing except the rifle moved: what happened to Kincade's sawed-off 12-bore? We don't see him drop it, put it down, or anything. I grant you, it could have been dropped off screen, but why not just have him set it down inside the tunnel when he notices M stumbling? I would think such a scene would build tension because you have the knowledge that he's unarmed and incapable of defending M."
"The 'Turkish' passenger coaches don't look Turkish to me. I don't believe the TCDD had service railings on top of its coaches. They could be Indian, especially since I know some the Indian railways still run wooden, two-axle coaches."
5) When Silva arrives in Skyfall, one moment it looks as if it's noon and the next second the sky is pitch black.
Could that have been the spotlight on the copter that made it look like noon when shining through the window? I know what you're saying that it appears it goes from dusk to pitch black in a instant but you know how movies go regarding time.
I think you see Kincaid lay the shotgun on the table before he opens the hidden door, he should have kept it.
Thanks Turnkey, I missed that! Odd that we once again don;t see it, though, when Bond passes by the same exact place. Look at the baddies' bodies and their dropped guns. They actually do a superb editing job of keeping them from moving around.
Yes, hard to see but only the driver at the head of the train, which was to divert police from M's hearing and not just to "derail" Bond...
Bond clearly gestures at his lower torso when he tells Eve, "Four ribs and..." so there's no scar on his chest in the rest of the film. The sniper shot would have gone clean through him when it ripped him off the train...
Patrice's bullet wouldn't have killed Bond because it's radioactive but because it shattered and his bone (clavicle? sternomastoid?) stopped the penetration through his vitals...
I'm sure someone can enlighten me regarding Craig's bullet wound in the shoulder...I was under the impression that it was a scar left from Eve's shooting him off the train, but after he digs out the shrapnel and does the analysis, the data identifies Patrice. My problem is I don't recall Patrice actually shooting him. I recall several bullets being fired into the cab of the digger on the train, but when Bond leaps to the next car he seems to be whole and hearty (including his suit). Did I miss something?
Took me two viewings to figure it out. When Bond was hit inside the cab
of the digger, it was from the shrapnel of one of the bullets hitting the cab.
It's why he was able to keep going even though he was wounded. Many
soldiers (including ones I have known in the past) were similarly wounded
and kept fighting - some did not even know they were hit because their
adrenaline was pumping so high. The problem with him getting hit by Eve's shot is the scar from it doesnt seem to show up on him when his
naked torso is revealed in different scenes - just the scar from the shrapnel. Maybe I missed the other scar, I'll have to see it again, I guess.
I'm sure someone can enlighten me regarding Craig's bullet wound in the shoulder...I was under the impression that it was a scar left from Eve's shooting him off the train, but after he digs out the shrapnel and does the analysis, the data identifies Patrice. My problem is I don't recall Patrice actually shooting him. I recall several bullets being fired into the cab of the digger on the train, but when Bond leaps to the next car he seems to be whole and hearty (including his suit). Did I miss something?
Took me two viewings to figure it out. When Bond was hit inside the cab
of the digger, it was from the shrapnel of one of the bullets hitting the cab.
It's why he was able to keep going even though he was wounded. Many
soldiers (including ones I have known in the past) were similarly wounded
and kept fighting - some did not even know they were hit because their
adrenaline was pumping so high. The problem with him getting hit by Eve's shot is the scar from it doesnt seem to show up on him when his
naked torso is revealed in different scenes - just the scar from the shrapnel. Maybe I missed the other scar, I'll have to see it again, I guess.
I noticed that too - some are suggesting the Eve shot was in the same place???? Not sure myself
I though When Bond falls from the train, there is another Blood stain Below
the first ( Lower ribs). Later when Bond is shaving you can see another Exit
wound on his back On his right side above the waist, Which I took to be the
exit wound from Eve's bullet.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Silva needed something over M, some leverage to threaten her with. My take on it is this;
As a back-story, Silva gets his hands on the NATO list. He then allows it to fall into the hands of MI6, who believe they've obtained something very scarce and valuable.
Silva then sends Patrice in to 'steal' the list, leading MI6 to believe that someone knows about and wants the list, Patrice succeeds and M craps herself as the list is now in someone else's possession.
Later on, Silva threatens M with releasing the names of the NATO agents, which he already had in the first place, so basically the list is a ruse and Silva's way of getting M's attention and his 'way in' to MI6.
He wants M, and the list is the only thing he has to threaten her with. If he just got in touch and said he had it, he might not have been dealt with the top brass. By setting up Patrice to 'steal' it, it makes it appear that MI6 have got a fight on their hands and so M gets involved to oversee the recovery of it. By making it appear that she's fucked up in the recovery (loosing 3 agents, then eve shooting bond and Patrice getting away with the list) it also pins the blame on M, which is ultimately what Silva wants, a public execution as it were.
Silva needed something over M, some leverage to threaten her with. My take on it is this;
As a back-story, Silva gets his hands on the NATO list. He then allows it to fall into the hands of MI6, who believe they've obtained something very scarce and valuable.
Silva then sends Patrice in to 'steal' the list, leading MI6 to believe that someone knows about and wants the list, Patrice succeeds and M craps herself as the list is now in someone else's possession.
Later on, Silva threatens M with releasing the names of the NATO agents, which he already had in the first place, so basically the list is a ruse and Silva's way of getting M's attention and his 'way in' to MI6.
He wants M, and the list is the only thing he has to threaten her with. If he just got in touch and said he had it, he might not have been dealt with the top brass. By setting up Patrice to 'steal' it, it makes it appear that MI6 have got a fight on their hands and so M gets involved to oversee the recovery of it. By making it appear that she's fucked up in the recovery (loosing 3 agents, then eve shooting bond and Patrice getting away with the list) it also pins the blame on M, which is ultimately what Silva wants, a public execution as it were.
This is all peachy, except . . . why didn't the movie reveal all of this if it is true? 8-) By failing to explain how an MI6 agent ended up with a list of undercover NATO agents, the screenplay really tripped itself up.
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there. Quantum of Solace was rammed with untold story, right from the start, where did bond get another DBS from? When did he tell M to get to Italy? Where's the new suit come from?
Sometimes a story is more interesting when you have to think about it.
Comments
When the train "falls" through the hole, we see the Engineer (driver) of the train, but it appeared to me that the rest of the train was empty. Every other train in those scenes was packed with people.
The train has an Out of Service sign on it. I am pretty certain it was wisely decided that it would be too insensitive and controversial to do that underground train crash scene with passengers on board. Fifty two innocent people were killed in London on the 7th July 2005 when three bombs were detonated on underground trains and one on a bus.
But of course, you couldn't have Bond going off in pursuit of Silva with a hundred badly wounded passengers dying, though with this incarnation I wouldn't put it past him.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
S&W 1917 all the way. I prefer the S&W prewar "long action" to the action in the Colt. Both are fine guns (I have owned them both), but I prefer the S&W.
It's there....
And it is JUST like the London Underground to have an entire tube 'out of service' at rush hour
I do think that was the right decision... having hundreds of people killed on the tube, not that long after the terrorist attack would be tacky... and doesn't add to the plot at all.... I mean the outcry audiences would have if it had been full of passangers, and Bond just ran off.... what would that achieve?
All right, that's my choice as well!
Onto Bond, I never noticed the "Out of Service" sign on the tube train, either, although making it SUPER-conspicuous would have certainly made the scene worse.
I think if you're sat there trying to read what the little sign on the front says, wondering where all the passengers are, why the lights didn't go out on the train or if those wheels are correct for that particular year of rolling stock then you're not allowing yourself to really get into the film.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Although I'm a chronic nitpicker, I actually agree with you on this one. Remember those Turkish railway cars? They don't still operate trains like that near Istanbul. Those cars were phased out of passenger service at least thirty years ago and probably more. A mistake, but an obviously deliberate one. I mean, the TCDD (Turkish State Railways) hasn't used two-axle passenger coaches on its mainline trains (the livery of the locomotive) since the early 1970's at least, probably even earlier. Heck, the roofs on the cars literally were rusting. Yet, I somewhat doubt the TCDD would say "oh sure, yeah, you can use an execavator to cut apart our in-service passenger coaches, go right ahead," especially in light of a poor safety record.
AutoRim is great, and I'm not a fan of the 1/2 moon clips either, but full moon clips ROCK. Watch as Jerry Miculek fires 6 rounds on target, reloads and fires 6 more in less than 3 seconds. Only with full moon clips and a 45Wheelgun. A World record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpCellB_UQ
Taking the wife to see Skyfall at the IMAX on Saturday. We watched it in a regular theater first. I'll keep an eye out for the "Out of Service" sign.
To stay on-topic, since I see every Bond film with my father, I asked him if he noticed any mistakes. He did, but of the ones not mentioned...
"A bit like Bond dropping the double rifle at Skyfall, and then going over ground where nothing except the rifle moved: what happened to Kincade's sawed-off 12-bore? We don't see him drop it, put it down, or anything. I grant you, it could have been dropped off screen, but why not just have him set it down inside the tunnel when he notices M stumbling? I would think such a scene would build tension because you have the knowledge that he's unarmed and incapable of defending M."
"The 'Turkish' passenger coaches don't look Turkish to me. I don't believe the TCDD had service railings on top of its coaches. They could be Indian, especially since I know some the Indian railways still run wooden, two-axle coaches."
Could that have been the spotlight on the copter that made it look like noon when shining through the window? I know what you're saying that it appears it goes from dusk to pitch black in a instant but you know how movies go regarding time.
Thanks Turnkey, I missed that! Odd that we once again don;t see it, though, when Bond passes by the same exact place. Look at the baddies' bodies and their dropped guns. They actually do a superb editing job of keeping them from moving around.
Bond clearly gestures at his lower torso when he tells Eve, "Four ribs and..." so there's no scar on his chest in the rest of the film. The sniper shot would have gone clean through him when it ripped him off the train...
Patrice's bullet wouldn't have killed Bond because it's radioactive but because it shattered and his bone (clavicle? sternomastoid?) stopped the penetration through his vitals...
Sigh.
Took me two viewings to figure it out. When Bond was hit inside the cab
of the digger, it was from the shrapnel of one of the bullets hitting the cab.
It's why he was able to keep going even though he was wounded. Many
soldiers (including ones I have known in the past) were similarly wounded
and kept fighting - some did not even know they were hit because their
adrenaline was pumping so high. The problem with him getting hit by Eve's shot is the scar from it doesnt seem to show up on him when his
naked torso is revealed in different scenes - just the scar from the shrapnel. Maybe I missed the other scar, I'll have to see it again, I guess.
I noticed that too - some are suggesting the Eve shot was in the same place???? Not sure myself
Definitely not the same place. When Bond meets up again with Eve at the new MI6, he mentions being shot in the ribs.
the first ( Lower ribs). Later when Bond is shaving you can see another Exit
wound on his back On his right side above the waist, Which I took to be the
exit wound from Eve's bullet.
As a back-story, Silva gets his hands on the NATO list. He then allows it to fall into the hands of MI6, who believe they've obtained something very scarce and valuable.
Silva then sends Patrice in to 'steal' the list, leading MI6 to believe that someone knows about and wants the list, Patrice succeeds and M craps herself as the list is now in someone else's possession.
Later on, Silva threatens M with releasing the names of the NATO agents, which he already had in the first place, so basically the list is a ruse and Silva's way of getting M's attention and his 'way in' to MI6.
He wants M, and the list is the only thing he has to threaten her with. If he just got in touch and said he had it, he might not have been dealt with the top brass. By setting up Patrice to 'steal' it, it makes it appear that MI6 have got a fight on their hands and so M gets involved to oversee the recovery of it. By making it appear that she's fucked up in the recovery (loosing 3 agents, then eve shooting bond and Patrice getting away with the list) it also pins the blame on M, which is ultimately what Silva wants, a public execution as it were.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
This is all peachy, except . . . why didn't the movie reveal all of this if it is true? 8-) By failing to explain how an MI6 agent ended up with a list of undercover NATO agents, the screenplay really tripped itself up.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there. Quantum of Solace was rammed with untold story, right from the start, where did bond get another DBS from? When did he tell M to get to Italy? Where's the new suit come from?
Sometimes a story is more interesting when you have to think about it.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20555621