Venice, Pilings, Water Depth

charleyhankins

My friend says that sinking the building in Venice was unrealistic for the following two reasons.

1) Buildings in Venice supported by pylings and not by the air-filled devices in the movie.

2) The water in Venice is not deep enough for a six-story building to sink in.

I think my friend is full of it. I hope you can help me prove it to him.

Thanks,
CH

walther p99

well, its a movie, secondly its a Bond movie.

charleyhankins

Yes, but my friend is an a-hole and I so desperately want to prove him wrong LOL!

killrmonkey

My take on this:

1.)I'm sure most buildings in Venice are supported by pylings, but the building that is destroyed and sunk in the film was under construction/restoration. I'm assuming those large airbags are there for temporary supports while the pylings and foundation is repaired. Whether or not their the destruction of those airbags would collapse the whole building like that is debatable (I'd assume in reality it wouldn't), but it's reasonable to assume that removing them while the building is still being repaired could result in considerable damage.

2.) He's probably right here. A six-story building would be over 50 deep. While I don't know the depth of the water there, I find it hard to believe it's deeper than that. However, the building could have collapsed enough that it would be able to sink completely below the water.

I think your friend is probably right and wrong on this one, but it's best not to think too hard about this particular scene. It's one of the weaker scenes in Casino Royale for me; both with the action feeling a bit flat (for the only time in the film) as well as being unneccesary and straining credibility in an otherwise fairly realistic film.

Jason

s96024

When the world Trade centers collapsed. Look at what a fraction of their original size they ended up as. Extreme example. buildings don't just sink.

More to the point films are always full of things that realistic would not happen in real life. Depends to what degree that annoys you. For me I don't care, I know it's a film so it does not have to be 100% realisitic.

Bond_James_Bond

who says the building is sinking - it is probably breaking up under the surface of the water - as previously mentioned like the WTC.

Mikep99

Bond_James_Bond wrote:

who says the building is sinking - it is probably breaking up under the surface of the water - as previously mentioned like the WTC.

That is exactly what I thought. The building didn't "sick" but rather crumble down into the water.

Gassy Man

I'm sure the producers consulted a building engineer about the possibilty -- though perhaps not probability -- of this event occuring. The impression one gets is that the building collapse is something of a controlled implosion, and, indeed, it is destroyed in a similar way to a typical building demolition, though without the requisite number and location of chrages, remains more intact in the upper elements of the architecture.

PoorMansJB

Bond_James_Bond wrote:

- it is probably breaking up under the surface of the water - as previously mentioned like the WTC.

The WTC also spread outward and not simply straight down. There was also phenomenal compaction; I won't go into the niceties of that part.

Mikep99 wrote:

That is exactly what I thought. The building didn't "sick" [sic] but rather crumble down into the water.

Except that Bond has no trouble reaching the elevator/lift which, per your theory, would be buried in rubble.

That the entire building descends and rather too easily (shooting the floation bags suggests that a tool dropped from an upper floor could have been equally disasterous) is one of the sillier elements in the film; I could see the thing dropping a floor or so (the Grand Canal is only some 10' deep so I would imagine the rest--and thus the city itself--to be the same or shallower) but no further than that. Much the same thing happens in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen though I think seems less idiotic in that film asthe whole thing is so clearly a fantasy.

In truth, while the airbag thing makes some sense, in reality they more often close off an area and actually drain the canal in order to repair pilings or dredge the channel.