Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films.
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.
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... ;%
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films
Fair points. though I maintain it would have been very easy to 'purify' Craig-Bond had he not run through the wall, and had the Madagascar stuff been better, and differently, written.
Wouldn't have taken much. and would the audience have felt cheated without the sillies? I doubt it.
I don't believe any "purification" was required, but I see where you're coming from. And I agree that the audiences probably would not have felt cheated if what you call the "sillies" were left out. But for me, the Madgascar sequence was an exciting and thrilling start to the film, and it didn't bother me at all. I guess the level of my suspension of disbelief differs from yours, but I get your point.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films
Fair points. though I maintain it would have been very easy to 'purify' Craig-Bond had he not run through the wall, and had the Madagascar stuff been better, and differently, written.
Wouldn't have taken much. and would the audience have felt cheated without the sillies? I doubt it.
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
True, but again, this is supposed to be a reboot where they were supposed to be getting away from that type of superman action. Anyway, comparing that scene to the bridge fall would be like Brosnan not pulling that plane out of its dive from the chemical factory, crashing, then crawling away from it. At least the crashing plane scene in the last act was ok since it was a controlled crash and the trees hitting the wings and the plane skidding on the forest floor slowed its speed considerably before crashing to a halt (and they also had the two knocked out and injured).
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!
I've skydived, and I thought that was well filmed. More believable than the Schwarzenegger stunt in ERASER. Good luck in putting on a chute rig in a freefall. The speed they show Craig falling is pretty realistic as well. I just wished the editor had them pulling the chute a few seconds earlier so they would have hit the ground with less force where it would have just winded them, but then, he botched the editing in that whole film.
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 don't want stark realism, I just don't want them mixing near realism with outright cartoon violence. I don't want it to be a Le Carre reality, but I don't want it to be Blazing Saddles either. I can leave my brain at the door when I watch a film like Ironman - it's a comic book story. Bond films are not meant to be like comic books. I
don't want to leave my brain at the door..I want my senses to be engaged but I don't want my idea of reality totally suspended, because it just pulls me back out of the film.
Given Bond's training, I didn't think it was his acrobatics that were over the top in CR. My quibble was with the parts where he jumped dozens of feet and caught himself without injury to his extremities or jumped equally exaggerated distances and hit the ground without ending up in an ambulance. That wall he ran through was only plasterboard, and I've put my leg through that with no injury (except for a red face).
The sex after the torture recovery? I don't know. How long does it take to recover from that? I've had a few really bad blows there (once from a baseball bat - all accidents of course), and I was fine after just a couple of days (but then I was pretty young). I've read of POW's being tortured like that and they recovered within a short time. Anyway, I'm glad there are people who can swat off the Bond falling like Yosemite Sam in the circus into a glass of water and surviving because it's only an escapist film for them. For me personally, I'd like them to leave that to the superhero comic films.
Yes, not impossible in all those cases, but the survivors suffered horrible multiple injuries, and even in those instances, their falls were slowed down by obstacles. Hitting directly into water from such a height no matter what position you're in either kills you or leaves you permanently disabled. From my research, it is impossible because of the physics (they did a segment on this on Mythbusters).
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?
These points have been covered before, in that it's inferred that he can afford his clothes and lifestyle because he is a successful gambler and it's possible he had gotten an inheritence from his parents (which is why he could go to Eton and Fettes). The Aston is supplied by the Service, so he doesn't own it.
Yes, not impossible in all those cases, but the survivors suffered horrible multiple injuries, and even in those instances, their falls were slowed down by obstacles. .
Alkemades horrific sprained leg .
"Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one, preferring to die by impact rather than fire. He fell 18,000 feet (5500 m) to the ground below.
His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg."
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.
My point was that this "Bond universe" - the rebooted version, is supposed to be more realistic, and showing him surviving something this fatal used to be the thing they had in the pre-Craig films, though I can't recall any film where Bond was involved in a stunt that would have been this fatal (they left that up for characters like Jaws).
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films.
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.
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... ;%
Yes, not impossible in all those cases, but the survivors suffered horrible multiple injuries, and even in those instances, their falls were slowed down by obstacles. .
Alkemades horrific sprained leg .
"Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one, preferring to die by impact rather than fire. He fell 18,000 feet (5500 m) to the ground below.
His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg."
Yes, but its still apples and oranges. Hitting water at even ten or twelve floors is liking hitting concrete. What a lot of news reports on these falls don't mention is that usually the bodies explode on impact like ripe melons.
Yes, not impossible in all those cases, but the survivors suffered horrible multiple injuries, and even in those instances, their falls were slowed down by obstacles. .
Alkemades horrific sprained leg .
"Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one, preferring to die by impact rather than fire. He fell 18,000 feet (5500 m) to the ground below.
His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg."
Yes, but its still apples and oranges. Hitting water at even ten or twelve floors is liking hitting concrete. What a lot of news reports on these falls don't mention is that usually the bodies explode on impact like ripe melons.
And I have attended a murder scene were the victim died after one punch to the head, I have also been at a collision when a stolen car struck a stationary armoured vehicle at 100 MPH (I was in the pursuing vehicle and there was no attempt to brake) and two of the three occupants walked away the other had a serious head injury. It is highly unlikely that some one could survive that fall but impossible?
And I have attended a murder scene were the victim died after one punch to the head, I have also been at a collision when a stolen car struck a stationary armoured vehicle at 100 MPH (I was in the pursuing vehicle and there was no attempt to brake) and two of the three occupants walked away the other had a serious head injury. It is highly unlikely that some one could survive that fall but impossible?
Wow - good point though, these miracles do happen.
Even if one were to concede that you are absolutely correct that it would be impossible for any human to do what Bond did in the Madagascar scene, does that mean CR is "cartoonish" in any way or worthy of comparison to "Blazing Saddles"?!!!! Sorry, but I just don't see it. Sounds like a fair bit of exaggeration and hyperbole to me. And of course I can only speak for myslef, but I don't believe the average Bond fan is as troubled by that scene as you apparently were. And that's certainly not because we're a bunch of dolts who "checked our brains at the door." (That notion is pretty condescending, don't you think?) It's because we are able to enjoy a Bond film, even one intended to be more realistic than the earlier films, without being pouring over every stunt to determine if it's physically possible for a person to do everything Bond does on screen. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the Bond films would be a lot less enjoyable if I started viewing them from that perspective.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films.
Apparently the world record for a dive is 174 feet (link). The difference in speed between 174 feet and 322 probably is only a few MPH. I did read somewhere that the chances of surviving a high fall into water are improved of you're wearing tight fitting clothing, so Craig's Tom Ford suits have to be factored into the equation.
"Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one, preferring to die by impact rather than fire. He fell 18,000 feet (5500 m) to the ground below.
His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg."
Yes, but its still apples and oranges. Hitting water at even ten or twelve floors is liking hitting concrete. What a lot of news reports on these falls don't mention is that usually the bodies explode on impact like ripe melons.
And I have attended a murder scene were the victim died after one punch to the head, I have also been at a collision when a stolen car struck a stationary armoured vehicle at 100 MPH (I was in the pursuing vehicle and there was no attempt to brake) and two of the three occupants walked away the other had a serious head injury. It is highly unlikely that some one could survive that fall but impossible?
Unfortunately, yes. The examples you give have a large amount of variables in the physics involving the situations you describe. People can die or not die from a punch. A vehicle crash can be surviveable depending on what angle it strikes, airbags, seatbelts, braking and dozens of other odd variables. It's impossible to survive a fall from the height we're discussing because when people impact on water it explodes them apart no matter what angle they hit. This is because water cannot disperse fast enough to reduce the speed of impact at that velocity. There have been 83 recorded survived impacts from parachute failures and the its usually due from landing in thick bramble or a muddy field. Many of these were not going at terminal velocity because their chutes - though not fully open - still created some drag. All parachute failures where anyone strikes solid ground such as concrete or a body of water are always fatal (and not pretty to look at).
When you go to see "Skyfall" as soon as Bond falls from the bridge and hits the water just figuire in reality he would be dead, get up and leave the theatre. ) However, since a Bond film is not reality, it's also ok to suspend your disbelief, stay and enjoy the rest of the film. -{
Even if one were to concede that you are absolutely correct that it would be impossible for any human to do what Bond did in the Madagascar scene, does that mean CR is "cartoonish" in any way or worthy of comparison to "Blazing Saddles"?!!!! Sorry, but I just don't see it. Sounds like a fair bit of exaggeration and hyperbole to me. And of course I can only speak for myslef, but I don't believe the average Bond fan is as troubled by that scene as you apparently were. And that's certainly not because we're a bunch of dolts who "checked our brains at the door." (That notion is pretty condescending, don't you think?) It's because we are able to enjoy a Bond film, even one intended to be more realistic than the earlier films, without being pouring over every stunt to determine if it's physically possible for a person to do everything Bond does on screen. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the Bond films would be a lot less enjoyable if I started viewing them from that perspective.
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that the stunts I pointed out in LTK were impossible - just unrealistic in the context of the movie. Just as I don't believe the Craig stunts were impossible, and they certainly don't fit my definition of "cartoonish". Let's not forget that all Bond films are action "fantasy" films, and if we parsed every action taken by Bond we would find things that strain credulity in every one of them. In my opinion, those moments are much less frequent and handled much better in the Craig films.
Amen to that.
I wasn't accusing fans of the Bond films of "checking their brains at the door" to enjoy them, I was only inferring that there are certain scenes (or even small parts of certain scenes) the producers have shot that make me groan for a moment due to the impossible physics. Yes, it's just a personal observation on my part, but again, I don't think they're necessary in the Bond films, and certainly not in the rebooted ones. I apologize if I left readers thinking I was being condescending. Even though I've been personally involved in shooting films, I can still suspend my reality awareness when I see action films - particularly the comic book versions (Superman, The Avengers, etc). When I watch the Bonds, I don't obsess about the reality of the stunts. Again, there are small moments when I've winced at the "surviving without injury" scenes, but they are usually fleeting because of the speed of the editing in the films. I'm fully aware of the fact that the average Bond fan takes no notice of these events and just enjoys the time spent in the dark, and will probably ignore the improbability of surviving the bridge fall in the new film. I was just making a personal point that I don't feel the series needs to stick in an over the top stunt that would certainly be fatal outside the cinema to make the films enjoyable and different. If Craig had somehow only had to leap and drop ten feet instead of what appears to me to be thirty feet to the other crane in the CR construction scene, I would have not winced at the ridiculousness of it and still would have enjoyed it, as would have most audiences. One of my favorite scenes is when the gun is thrown at him and he catches it and throws it back! Now, I know the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but I didn't care - it was exactly the type of thing I expect the cinema Bond to do (and I got a good laugh from it). I won't waste any more time on this, as it appears that I'm in a minority (or probably even the only one that feels this way), but I want to once again stress that this is not anything I obsess about, I was just making a personal observation and was wondering if it bothered anyone else.
Okay, I've got it now. Interesting observations. (By the way - I had the same reaction to the gun throwing scene - I thought it was improbable, but a cool Bond move!)
Even if one were to concede that you are absolutely correct that it would be impossible for any human to do what Bond did in the Madagascar scene, does that mean CR is "cartoonish" in any way or worthy of comparison to "Blazing Saddles"?!!!! Sorry, but I just don't see it. Sounds like a fair bit of exaggeration and hyperbole to me. And of course I can only speak for myslef, but I don't believe the average Bond fan is as troubled by that scene as you apparently were. And that's certainly not because we're a bunch of dolts who "checked our brains at the door." (That notion is pretty condescending, don't you think?) It's because we are able to enjoy a Bond film, even one intended to be more realistic than the earlier films, without being pouring over every stunt to determine if it's physically possible for a person to do everything Bond does on screen. Maybe I'm in the minority, but the Bond films would be a lot less enjoyable if I started viewing them from that perspective.
I wasn't accusing fans of the Bond films of "checking their brains at the door" to enjoy them, I was only inferring that there are certain scenes (or even small parts of certain scenes) the producers have shot that make me groan for a moment due to the impossible physics. Yes, it's just a personal observation on my part, but again, I don't think they're necessary in the Bond films, and certainly not in the rebooted ones. I apologize if I left readers thinking I was being condescending. Even though I've been personally involved in shooting films, I can still suspend my reality awareness when I see action films - particularly the comic book versions (Superman, The Avengers, etc). When I watch the Bonds, I don't obsess about the reality of the stunts. Again, there are small moments when I've winced at the "surviving without injury" scenes, but they are usually fleeting because of the speed of the editing in the films. I'm fully aware of the fact that the average Bond fan takes no notice of these events and just enjoys the time spent in the dark, and will probably ignore the improbability of surviving the bridge fall in the new film. I was just making a personal point that I don't feel the series needs to stick in an over the top stunt that would certainly be fatal outside the cinema to make the films enjoyable and different. If Craig had somehow only had to leap and drop ten feet instead of what appears to me to be thirty feet to the other crane in the CR construction scene, I would have not winced at the ridiculousness of it and still would have enjoyed it, as would have most audiences. One of my favorite scenes is when the gun is thrown at him and he catches it and throws it back! Now, I know the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but I didn't care - it was exactly the type of thing I expect the cinema Bond to do (and I got a good laugh from it). I won't waste any more time on this, as it appears that I'm in a minority (or probably even the only one that feels this way), but I want to once again stress that this is not anything I obsess about, I was just making a personal observation and was wondering if it bothered anyone else.
Comments
Fair points. though I maintain it would have been very easy to 'purify' Craig-Bond had he not run through the wall, and had the Madagascar stuff been better, and differently, written.
Wouldn't have taken much. and would the audience have felt cheated without the sillies? I doubt it.
True, but again, this is supposed to be a reboot where they were supposed to be getting away from that type of superman action. Anyway, comparing that scene to the bridge fall would be like Brosnan not pulling that plane out of its dive from the chemical factory, crashing, then crawling away from it. At least the crashing plane scene in the last act was ok since it was a controlled crash and the trees hitting the wings and the plane skidding on the forest floor slowed its speed considerably before crashing to a halt (and they also had the two knocked out and injured).
I've skydived, and I thought that was well filmed. More believable than the Schwarzenegger stunt in ERASER. Good luck in putting on a chute rig in a freefall. The speed they show Craig falling is pretty realistic as well. I just wished the editor had them pulling the chute a few seconds earlier so they would have hit the ground with less force where it would have just winded them, but then, he botched the editing in that whole film.
I don't want stark realism, I just don't want them mixing near realism with outright cartoon violence. I don't want it to be a Le Carre reality, but I don't want it to be Blazing Saddles either. I can leave my brain at the door when I watch a film like Ironman - it's a comic book story. Bond films are not meant to be like comic books. I
don't want to leave my brain at the door..I want my senses to be engaged but I don't want my idea of reality totally suspended, because it just pulls me back out of the film.
Given Bond's training, I didn't think it was his acrobatics that were over the top in CR. My quibble was with the parts where he jumped dozens of feet and caught himself without injury to his extremities or jumped equally exaggerated distances and hit the ground without ending up in an ambulance. That wall he ran through was only plasterboard, and I've put my leg through that with no injury (except for a red face).
The sex after the torture recovery? I don't know. How long does it take to recover from that? I've had a few really bad blows there (once from a baseball bat - all accidents of course), and I was fine after just a couple of days (but then I was pretty young). I've read of POW's being tortured like that and they recovered within a short time. Anyway, I'm glad there are people who can swat off the Bond falling like Yosemite Sam in the circus into a glass of water and surviving because it's only an escapist film for them. For me personally, I'd like them to leave that to the superhero comic films.
Yes, not impossible in all those cases, but the survivors suffered horrible multiple injuries, and even in those instances, their falls were slowed down by obstacles. Hitting directly into water from such a height no matter what position you're in either kills you or leaves you permanently disabled. From my research, it is impossible because of the physics (they did a segment on this on Mythbusters).
These points have been covered before, in that it's inferred that he can afford his clothes and lifestyle because he is a successful gambler and it's possible he had gotten an inheritence from his parents (which is why he could go to Eton and Fettes). The Aston is supplied by the Service, so he doesn't own it.
Alkemades horrific sprained leg .
"Alkemade opted to jump from the aircraft without one, preferring to die by impact rather than fire. He fell 18,000 feet (5500 m) to the ground below.
His fall was broken by pine trees and a soft snow cover on the ground. He was able to move his arms and legs and suffered only a sprained leg."
My point was that this "Bond universe" - the rebooted version, is supposed to be more realistic, and showing him surviving something this fatal used to be the thing they had in the pre-Craig films, though I can't recall any film where Bond was involved in a stunt that would have been this fatal (they left that up for characters like Jaws).
Amen to that.
Yes, but its still apples and oranges. Hitting water at even ten or twelve floors is liking hitting concrete. What a lot of news reports on these falls don't mention is that usually the bodies explode on impact like ripe melons.
And I have attended a murder scene were the victim died after one punch to the head, I have also been at a collision when a stolen car struck a stationary armoured vehicle at 100 MPH (I was in the pursuing vehicle and there was no attempt to brake) and two of the three occupants walked away the other had a serious head injury. It is highly unlikely that some one could survive that fall but impossible?
Wow - good point though, these miracles do happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uHkyMh9FW4
Unfortunately, yes. The examples you give have a large amount of variables in the physics involving the situations you describe. People can die or not die from a punch. A vehicle crash can be surviveable depending on what angle it strikes, airbags, seatbelts, braking and dozens of other odd variables. It's impossible to survive a fall from the height we're discussing because when people impact on water it explodes them apart no matter what angle they hit. This is because water cannot disperse fast enough to reduce the speed of impact at that velocity. There have been 83 recorded survived impacts from parachute failures and the its usually due from landing in thick bramble or a muddy field. Many of these were not going at terminal velocity because their chutes - though not fully open - still created some drag. All parachute failures where anyone strikes solid ground such as concrete or a body of water are always fatal (and not pretty to look at).
I wasn't accusing fans of the Bond films of "checking their brains at the door" to enjoy them, I was only inferring that there are certain scenes (or even small parts of certain scenes) the producers have shot that make me groan for a moment due to the impossible physics. Yes, it's just a personal observation on my part, but again, I don't think they're necessary in the Bond films, and certainly not in the rebooted ones. I apologize if I left readers thinking I was being condescending. Even though I've been personally involved in shooting films, I can still suspend my reality awareness when I see action films - particularly the comic book versions (Superman, The Avengers, etc). When I watch the Bonds, I don't obsess about the reality of the stunts. Again, there are small moments when I've winced at the "surviving without injury" scenes, but they are usually fleeting because of the speed of the editing in the films. I'm fully aware of the fact that the average Bond fan takes no notice of these events and just enjoys the time spent in the dark, and will probably ignore the improbability of surviving the bridge fall in the new film. I was just making a personal point that I don't feel the series needs to stick in an over the top stunt that would certainly be fatal outside the cinema to make the films enjoyable and different. If Craig had somehow only had to leap and drop ten feet instead of what appears to me to be thirty feet to the other crane in the CR construction scene, I would have not winced at the ridiculousness of it and still would have enjoyed it, as would have most audiences. One of my favorite scenes is when the gun is thrown at him and he catches it and throws it back! Now, I know the odds of this happening are pretty slim, but I didn't care - it was exactly the type of thing I expect the cinema Bond to do (and I got a good laugh from it). I won't waste any more time on this, as it appears that I'm in a minority (or probably even the only one that feels this way), but I want to once again stress that this is not anything I obsess about, I was just making a personal observation and was wondering if it bothered anyone else.