Krest's death scene (also Kananga's)

Wint and Kidd far-out

It is very gory by implication through the splash of blood we see on the round chamber window and Sanchez orders to launder or wash, the money within.

But how realistic is it? For that matter Kananga's death also? Granted because of censorship standards they could not have Kananga's innards flying everywhere. But all that aside, would the effects of what was done to Kananga and Krest really have been as what happens in their respective movies. They probably would both be fatal, however do they make realistic sense, or are they far-fetched cinematic artistry?

superado

In Tom Clancy's "Without Remorse," the first novel in which the supporting character of John Clark, ex-Navy SEAL and future CIA operative finally became the main character, he tortured someone to speak using a decompression chamber. I don't remember if it went as far as the victim exploding, but it read very realistically in keeping with Clancy's signature "techno-realism." I also wonder if Krest's death in LTK influenced Tom Clancy?

caractacus potts

Wint and Kidd far-out wrote:

It is very gory by implication through the splash of blood we see on the round chamber window and Sanchez orders to launder or wash, the money within ... They probably would both be fatal, however do they make realistic sense, or are they far-fetched cinematic artistry?

you are quite right. They each imply the human body is nothing but a flesh balloon filled with blood. There should be innards, and bone fragments, and brain tissue and other completely disgusting details to make it realistic.
Other films do dare show that level of detail, horror films, Alien, Cronenberg, some of the hideous atrocities to the human body in the new Twin Peaks series. Or think Pulp Fiction, where we do not see precisely what happened in the back seat, but we see, amongst all the splatters of blood, what are evidently chunks of brain tangled up in Samuel Jackson's afro (it took me a few viewings to notice that unnecessary but hilarious detail). The two Kingsmen films revel in telling James Bond type stories with horror movie type specific gory detail.

Bond films are meant for a more general audience than goes to see horror or Tarantino. Roger Moore era especially there would have been lots of kids in the theatre. They were deliberately skewing more mature during the Dalton era, and there are a few other very disgusting deaths in Licence to Kill, but even then they are more implied than shown realistically.

It's a paradox with the Bond series. The very concept is he has a License to Kill. Yet the vast majority of deaths, we don't even see bullet wounds, the minions just seem to fall down and go to sleep.
And the big villains death is always supposed to be something special, ironic or high concept, but usually we just see the big villain turn at the last minute and scream as he sees whats about to hit him, and the camera cuts away before it actually happens.
So the promise of bloodshed is a main part of the attraction, alongside all those babes in bikinins in all the classic era posters. Yet it is never actually shown, only ever implied. (like the sex, come to think of it).

hehadlotsofguts

IRL, While Krest would die in the chamber, Sanchez and Perez, would also be affected. It'd cause a sound spike, knocking Sanchez and co off thier feet and rendering them deaf. I read this in the film's trivia or goofs page on IMDB.

Kananga swallowed a Co2 pellet. I think he wouldn't die irl. He'd just get really bad wind. Similar to drinking fizzy pop too fast.

Both deaths suited the respective actors playing Bond. Kananga's death was jokey and not to be taken seriously and Krest's death was brutal and hard edged.

Wint and Kidd far-out

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

IRL, While Krest would die in the chamber, Sanchez and Perez, would also be affected. It'd cause a sound spike, knocking Sanchez and co off thier feet and rendering them deaf. I read this in the film's trivia or goofs page on IMDB.

Kananga swallowed a Co2 pellet. I think he wouldn't die irl. He'd just get really bad wind. Similar to drinking fizzy pop too fast.

Both deaths suited the respective actors playing Bond. Kananga's death was jokey and not to be taken seriously and Krest's death was brutal and hard edged.

That's very interesting. On a side note, one may wonder why the sharks don't immediately fall upon Bond and Kananga before either of them could do anything. I've seen somewhere online that IRL, sharks detest human meat. That's not to say they won't take a bite before discovering they don't like the taste of somebody in the water. Unfortunately due to the overall size of their jaws that one bite can prove to be potentially fatal in any case.

Firemass

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

Both deaths suited the respective actors playing Bond. Kananga's death  was jokey and not to be taken seriously and Krest's death was brutal and hard edged.

Even within the context of LALD, Kananga’s death sticks out as being cartoonish and of low-quality compared to the rest of the film. I don’t think it represents all 7 of Moore’s Bond films which had quite a wide variety of deaths ranging from comedic to quite brutal.

hehadlotsofguts

With Krest's death, the scene before it was tense. We see Sanchez's goon whisper to Sanchez, telling him where the money is. The anticipation of what's going to happen, make this scene really frightening.

Wint and Kidd far-out

hehadlotsofguts wrote:

With Krest's death, the scene before it was tense. We see Sanchez's goon whisper to Sanchez, telling him where the money is. The anticipation of what's going to happen, make this scene really frightening.

Ah yes. The combination of knowing what was going to happen without knowing precisely what was going to transpire. Most people would probably have expected Sanchez to either order his men to seize Krest and kill him or maybe pull out a weapon and do the cold job himself. I think Bond's expression mirrors that of the audience. I've seen somewhere somebody say that not even Bond anticipated Sanchez to kill Krest in such a manner.