It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
We probably all don't know exactly what the real value of the ATAC was. I personally never really undestood how the device worked and why this item that looks like a futuristic typewriter from the 70s could ever be so important but the final sequence when Bond destroys the ATAC and says to Gogol "That's detente, comrade; You* don't have it, I don't have it." really shows that this device has an enormous value not only for the Russians but also for the Western Countries. Especially when Gogol start laughing and being OK with this scenario. Further, if the ATAC was of no value for the MI6, why did Bond not destroy it but took it out of the sea?
Hence I think Bond and Kristatos faced the three scenarios:
Best scenario: I have the ATAC
Second best scenario: Nobody has the ATAC
Worst scenario: My enemy has the ATAC
I am not an expert on the topic but as far as I know you cannot locate a sunk ship with a standard military submarine so very easily.
Archologist who are trying to detect sunk ships usualy have a mother ship and a small sub. However since the mother ship cannot operate secretely they have to use an undercover agent. Havelock, a well known archeologist working in the region for years, is actually a perfect cover for searching the spy ship.
It also would be a risk using a British sub marine which has no legitimacy to operate in this area. If it was detected it would have also been a big scandal.
Yes, Bond fans on here at least tend to be Bond's strongest critics. Now whether that's good or bad or warranted or not I don't want to speculate ...I'm guilty too. However the constant negativity does tend to zap my enthusiasm and appreciation of all things Bond.
We nag more than my ex wife.
Presumably it is supposed to be the UK equivalent of the nuclear football.
The point is that the British don't need it (hence Mac trying to blow it up at the start) but it would be a huge coup if the Russians got hold of it.
No idea why Bond felt the need to retrieve it except Melina might have got stroppy if he set off a bomb next to all those ruins.
Your scenarios fail to take into account that the British already have it. This is not the only ATAC there are dozens on submarines and ships and at naval bases.
Thus for the British 'My enemy has the ATAC' is the only scenario that matters. If they have it themselves or no one has it that's fine with them.
The Russians on the other hand don't have it and no one having it all doesn't help them.
It's the difference between being in posession of the Ashes or Ryder Cup and only needing to draw while the other side have to win to claim the trophy.
I still think that these inconsistencies are minor to others in the frachise. For the biggest part of the film, the motivations and the behaviour of the characters are quiet feasibel. This cannot be said for many Bond films.
He was taken in by MI6, in their Bladen safe house. ;)
He means between Havelocks murder & Melina and Bonds belated arrival.
Max had plenty of nuts floating around his cabin. There.
Remember Melina says 'Pistachios for Max' and then goes into the cabin.
If we assume that while Gonzalez was turning round she put them into a feeder with some sort of delay mechanism that stops him eating them all at once then his survival is reasonably credible as long as his water was topped up to the brim.
I also like the idea that at the end of FYEO there's a conversation along these lines:
Bond: What are you going to do with Max?
Melina: I hate the bloody thing. Was planning to put him in a sack with a brick and sling him over the side.
Bond: I can't let you do that. I'm from Britain where we consider cruelty to animals worse than cruelty to humans. Tell you what - I know a chef at a place called Blayden. I happen to know he loves parrots (despite the fact having a live animal in your kitchen surely rides roughshod over basic food hygene laws). I'm sure he'd love to take him.
Melina: Fine. I really couldn't care less. Look I'm stood here starkers and waiting for that moonlight swim. Are you coming in or not?
And seen as it's you @Birdleson :P
I wish it was Melina who stuck her arrow in Kristatos that would've been better.
That part is unintentionally hilarious to me because he is just so slow!
So, next week it could be 'Does DR NO Make Any Sense'? And we can have some good humoured discussion about the merits of the plots, story development, casting etc for each film.
Of course FRWL may get off extremely lightly, and there aren't enough hours in the day for some members to 'discuss' Skyfall, but hey ho.
Does this sound like a good idea while we wile away the days waiting for B25 information?
Fair enough.
And don't assume FRWL is going to get off as lightly as all that!
I think that's a fine idea, but give us a little more time with this one please. No one has even mentioned Bibi Dahl yet, so I think there's room for more discussion here...
That is absolutely true. Imo she is the worst element of the film. I have always wondered what the hell is she doing in that film. Maybe one can justify her by being a reason for Kristatos to stay in Cortina so that we get those great action scenes there. Otherwise, it would have been very strange why Loque would even go there.
Let's not get sidetracked into just a standard 'slagging off aspects of the films we don't like'. My interpretation of this thread is it examines gaps in the logic of the plot construction and character motivations.
Yes by all sane measures of scriptwriting Bibi should be nowhere near a Bond film. However her inclusion, objectionable though it is, does not seem to impinge on the logic of the story. She has pretty much zero relevance at all in fact, except to hint that Kristatos is a dirty old man; although does his impassioned 'The day she wins the gold medal will be the greatest in my life' speech hint that maybe he is only interested in the skating? Perhaps as part of his deal with the Russians for the ATAC involved nobbling the judges in the 1984 Olympics?
Yes, this one has been up for only 2 days, so we will leave it a week before a change. We won't necessarily progress in anything other than a random order, so nearer to next Monday people can suggest the next film.
And Wiz is right, this is not a slagging off thread, more a way to delve into the films and discuss the logic of character motivation, casting, plot progression or whatever.
Are we really going to go into casting here? I could do 6 hours on Halle Berry and several months on hapless old Rory which, whilst always enjoyable, I'm not sure would be particularly illuminating.
Agree. She is not essential to the plot but therefore also does not harm it.