I don’t think this has been discussed at much length, even outside the Dope (shocking, I know), though it’s briefly mentioned in the Quantum thread…
What the hell was up with the brief-but-clear shot of the hotel attendant’s naked crotch? What an odd and even unsettling moment, especially in a film that treats its male star, visually, almost as if he were a beautiful woman (to the delight of female and gay male viewers– same with Casino Royale).
Not just that it was shown at all – whether it was planned beforehand or caught on camera and kept in in editing – but that it didn’t come halfway through a Bond love scene or as part of a sexy silhouette, but after she was raped (or about to be raped). I just can’t see the director’s motivations for requesting it or keeping it in. Is it really as simple as hoping teenage boys will watch and delight in it with cries of, ‘Hey, check out her vag!’?
I didn’t notice it, but my guess would be that, simply, no one making the film noticed it either.
When you’re filming something, the actors really might as well be flower pots for all that the crew cares, they’re more concerned with the lighting, movement, and emoting. Plus for pretty much all of the production process, people are looking at the film in a small rectangle on their regular computer monitor, not a massively larger than life version being projected up on the wall with the lights off.
Weird, I remember noticing it at the time but immediately forgot about it, I guess because with that terrible directing style you’re getting bombarded by so many brief, flashing images right then that it really doesn’t have much of an effect on you, leaving it kinda like every other fight scene in the movie, eminently forgettable.
It would seem strange to have been left in by accident. If they didn’t mean to catch that degree of realism then why would they have her film it pantyless?
I can vouch that there was a brief vag shot. It jarred me a bit too. But, like lieu, I forgot about it pretty quickly…before the end of the movie, in fact.
In retrospect, it’s pretty unnecessary. No…it’s completely unnecessary. And I’m generally all in favor of more vaginas on the big screen.
I noticed it because I read about it here first! But yeah- it was most definitely a beaver shot and totally unnecessary.
Accidental? Doubt it very much. Her crotch was almost in the center of the screen- no way a director or editor misses it, even in dailies. Maybe it was the only usable shot from that angle…
I haven’t seen the movie but I thought there was a rule for the Bond films that while Bond spends plenty of time doing the hokey pokey, they’ll never show nipple or genitals. I guess they threw that out the window for this one, along with the lack of cool gizmos.
Oh- and there’s no way in hell that someone didn’t notice it during production. Every square millimeter of every frame is inspected by everybody from the cinematographer to the director to the editor to legal to whoever views the dailys to everyone attending the various screenings and so on. Beaver shots don’t just accidentally slip in.
This is a great example of why eyewitness testimony is unreliable. From awldune’s link, it’s clear – even at downloaded, pirated movie resolution – that she’s wearing white panties. There is no “brief-but-clear shot” of a “naked crotch,” nothing “pantyless,” no “brief vag shot” to “vouch” for, and most certainly there was not “most definitely a beaver shot.”
Either you four need to sit closer to the movie screen next time, or you have very little experience with what a vagina looks like.
The images were pretty low quality. I couldn’t tell one way or the other, though I will agree that if she had indeed been pantyless that it would indeed most likely have been noticed by the film crew.
I was thinking it was an up-the-skirt, the angle just happened to work out shot, but that was spread legs, hiked up skirt.
So, personally I’d take that as evidence that she was wearing underpants. If it looked otherwise, I’d assume that it was just the color, shape, shadows, and suddenness that confused people.
I’ve run images 13 and 21 from the linked set through some adjustments in Photoshop and there’s no longer any question in my mind that she’s wearing panties.
Really? In Cafe? It’s beyond your capacity to refrain from dumping such a completely asinine load of unprovoked snark?
Obviously “sitting closer to the movie screen” wouldn’t do squat to determine what happened in the flash or you yourself could posit from there. Instead you for some strange reason choose to ridicule unnecessarily from the vantage of someone else’s microscopic inquiry.
Not like you were forced to do so either. Other made their point quite nicely without showing everyone what an ass looks like.
I thought he made a good, if blunt, point.
You had 4 people each of whom claimed to see something that was not there and were quite adamant about it, this is indeed a good reason why “eyewitness” testimony should only be given so much credence.
Would that have occurred if the movies editing wasn’t so quick or if people sat closer? who knows really, but I can say with some confidence that if the panty scene continued longer it’d have been classed as pandering to teenage boys and been complained about
Maybe a new thread about scenes remembered from films and books that did not occur would be a decent idea, I seem to recall people having mentioned that they remembered scenes from the Star Wars picture book as having been in the movie so it seems like it’s not an uncommon occurrence.
Really? On the Straight Dope? It’s beyond your capacity to simply say, “Whoops, my mistake”?
I’m not entirely sure I follow the tortured sentence structures, but I do think it’s funny that now you’re willing to admit that the scene happened in a flash (pun intended). Before you were proven wrong, there were no such excuses – you noticed the pantyless, even though it wasn’t there.
No, I wasn’t forced to do so, but you were ignorant, so I “fought” you. (And wrong, but the slogan of this message board is “Fighting Ignorance,” not “Fighting Wrongness.”) And unapologetically ignorant and wrong, it would appear.
I very well may be an ass (although, really, you should know better than to fling insults outside of the Pit), but at least I can be man enough to admit when I’m wrong.
