Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Everything Wrong With Goldfinger In 16 Minutes Or Less
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I thought the same about Goldeneye.
They were able to keep The Room to less than the official runtime, so I'm confident they could manage that here.
But I do love this DAD review:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NbFxag2qyJk"; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
'Hide in plain sight' I believe is the term. :))
Well Skyfall certainly failed in that regard as i was laughing so much at all the plotholes that didnt make sense while i was watching the movie for the first time.
All can be explained, even the appearance of the tricked-out DB5 in SF, although explaining that does require creative thinking.
The film does not provide any help.
Mendes didn't care if the scenario made any sense.
But everything else can be explained by the film.
Mind you there are continuity errors in the films, but I think Bond even keeps these to a minimum eg Bond saying he's never been to Japan in YOLT, which contradicts what he said in FRWL.
Exactly. Not to throw the thread of topic, but I like to think DAF is a direct Sequel to YOLT rather than a Sequel to OHMSS.
People say not to think about continuity in Bond but I can't help it. By golly I put the pieces together! :))
Wow really? Talk about throwing down the gauntlet! All right then time to put your money where your mouth is.Please explain.....
1) Silvas plan.Pretty much all of it but specifically how did he know Q would plug in his laptop at just the right moment that he could escape from his cell and overpower two armed guards AND do it just in time for him to be a certain spot in the london underground where he could detonate a bomb that would drop a tube train on Bond during a chase he could not have known was going to happen and that said tube train would be empty at rush hour?
2) How does Bond survive being shot twice, fall off a train at high speed into a river and drown during the PTS.
3) Why does Bond not know Eves last name is Moneypenny? She knew his name after all.
4) Why does no one lock down the building/ go on security alert at the enquiry when Silva escapes and Bond tells them he is coming to kill them and how does Silva know they will not do this?
5) Why does M, the head of MI6 not have any security at her house especially so soon after a terrorist attack on the building?
Who was it on the team back in the 60s who said something like "just keep things moving and people wont have a chance to scrutinize". Watch the movie. Enjoy it for what it is.
Often people mistake something contrived and/or convenient in the plot for a plothole. Fiction is full of convenient plot points. Tintin stumble upon an adventure after his dog looked in a bin, or returning the briefcase of a man he saw on a park. Corto Maltese's starting point of an adventure could be an argument between two men while he was sitting at the table of a café. The only Simon Templar novel I read had the story start by having the Saint being woken up by some noise outside...
@AstonLotus cites above things in SF that are contrived and sometimes borderline deus ex machina... but none are truly plot holes.
of these 5 points, only the first question challenges. There you have hit on the real headscratchers that do require a couple of viewing to suss out.
The movie purposely invokes cinematic-license to leave out the exposition that would explain these occurrences.
SF has been out for 2-and-a-half-years now. All of this stuff was thoroughly discussed and solved in the SF threads of the day, which are probably still accessible. All issues resolved.
SF is not one of my favourite Bond films. I have watched at least 10 times, but not in the last year or so, but I will revisit and address all these matters. I could address from memory, but I want to get it right.
As for the other questions. I really don't think they need an answer. All you are questioning is veracity of the scenario, not whether it could indeed exist
ie "I think Bond should have known MP's last name"
Maybe he did, but was playing along, or maybe just didn't care what her last name was. Clearly he had access and means to finding out what it was, but maybe he didn't use it, or learned at one point, and then allowed the info to slip way down on his list-of-things- he- keeps-top-of-mind, as we all do with info, that ceases to be of real interest to us.
#2 Again. Nothing says he had to die, therefore the question doesn't really need an answer, because living is possible. ie the gunshots were not lethal, the fall did not kill him, and his lungs did not fill up with water to the point that he actually drowned.
#3 the answer here is because they chose not to lock-down the building. Politicians routinely overule security concerns. They want to do their weasal polticial business. That is their priority. Their attitude can be "deal with your security issues in such a way that allows us to continue our "vital" ego-driven business."
But we honestly don't know what happened. It doesn't matter. You are just stating what you think should have happened, so do feel free to trash the film for being implausible in your opinion, but the scenario itself is not impossible.
How did Peter Franks not notice that Bond was making out with himself and not become suspicious? This is the territory we are in. Individual takes on plausibility.
Here's a scenario: whoever was running the meeting, said "thanks for the advisory, keep me posted," hoping the security could be dealt with, without interrupting the meeting.
Silva didn't know anything about the immediate security response.
He was on his way, with henchman, to do battle and kill M, come hell or high water.
He had his gameface on,and was ready to deal, but as we saw he chickened out at crunch time. This was Silva's initial endgame, to take out M, but he blew it.
Like Bond he had mommy issues too, but different ones. ie hard to kill your mother, or immediate family,even if you can't stand them. Not everyone can be as cold as Michael Corleone (Fredo).
#5 We don't know what security she had or didn't have. We just know that Bond managed to breach it, which shouldn't be a big schock considering his skills.
But back to #1.
I will attempt to answer without accessing the old threads or reviewing the film.
Silva didn't know when Q would plug in the laptop. He just rightly anticipated that he would at some point, thus triggering his malware, which opened his cell.
He overpowered the guards because he could. Why not? He has skills. He's a former agent, master criminal, had the element of surprise presumably.
The big boys, in these movies are always getting the drop on the door-guarders and various and sundry lower-level watchdog, henchman, security types.
Clearly Silva had the bomb rigged well ahead of time, ready to be detonated when needed.
He detonated it when needed.
He a had a rough knowledge of the train intervals at that time of day, on that line.
eg I even know the local subway lines here, well enough to know at what intervals trains are likely to come by, at any given time of day, and that's without consulting a schedule.
Silva stalled Bond long enough, some of it maybe was fortuitous timing, but basically he had a card (the bomb and his remote detonator) and he was able to play it, ie get in position, wait for Bond to appear and then hope and finesse Bond into staying put, or close enough, long enough, so that he could shoot a train at him, when the moment provided. It worked out for him sort of . He didn't manage to kill Bond, but it might not have worked out at all either, if Bond had decided to charge after him immediatley upon seeing him,in which case he wouldn't have been able to play the card. Like in a poker game he would have had to eat it. But in this case he didn't eat, he played it, but still didn't get the full result he wanted ie dead Bond.
He was playing a poker hand that he had created ahead of time.
As for the train, someone in the earlier discussion familiar with the London subways, said that empty trains run all the time. It's just the transit system moving them about for whatever reason, and also would a guy like Silva care if the train was occupied or not, but I realize, that's not the point. The point is why was the train empty? But again cinematic license. .
It also may seem fortuitous that when Silva escaped he was able to get his people coordinated, but clearly they had the scenarios mapped out ahead of time. ie if he gets captured, here's what we do.
It also might seem fortuitous that upon capture he could find his way to M.
He couldn't know ahead of time where she would be when he escaped, but he could know in the moment and decide to strike, which it seems, is what he did.
Action films such as Bond cannot get bogged down in over-exposition.
Although admittedly, Mendes with SF, was verging into Guy Hamilton territory, with the chintzing on the exposition.
Actually, I do think Mendes pushed the envelope way further than anything Hamilton did.
SF is new territory even for Bond. Hence pages of threads discussing what the hell was going on?
====
1) Silvas plan.Pretty much all of it but specifically how did he know Q would plug in his laptop at just the right moment that he could escape from his cell and overpower two armed guards AND do it just in time for him to be a certain spot in the london underground where he could detonate a bomb that would drop a tube train on Bond during a chase he could not have known was going to happen and that said tube train would be empty at rush hour?
2) How does Bond survive being shot twice, fall off a train at high speed into a river and drown during the PTS.
3) Why does Bond not know Eves last name is Moneypenny? She knew his name after all.
4) Why does no one lock down the building/ go on security alert at the enquiry when Silva escapes and Bond tells them he is coming to kill them and how does Silva know they will not do this?
5) Why does M, the head of MI6 not have any security at her house especially so soon after a terrorist attack on the building?
==
These questions remind me somewhat of the mystery of how did Tiffany spot Blofled in drag in the casino. There was never any indication that she even knew he existed let alone might recognize him, and in disguise no less.
But what tipped her? Blofeld knew - the pussy! And how did she know about the pussy, when she didn't even know about its owner?
Simply because, she could have. Even though there was no exposition to that effect, she had been in the custody of Bond and Leiter and the good guys, for quite some time ,
post Circus Circus.
Plenty of time for them to fill her in on Blofeld and his cat. Blofeld (not cat though) was now common enemy to all of them. His goons had tried to kill her but got Plenty instead. She's now playing for the white hats.
I do agree that SF is a real headscratcher especially re question 1 , which is why much ink has been spilled on these boards, discussing those very questions, but these movies aren't so badly conceived that the scenarios are brazenly impossible or contradictory. They can all be explained within the context of the film.
But continuity errors are different. They are actual mistakes. I am suprised Bond doesn't have more of them. Its got lots of little ones, like what happened to M's purse that she brought into the meeting with Mallory, and then suddenly there was no trace of it when she was leaving. Eagle eyes pick this stuff up.