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
@vzok The thread won't change if the discussion is still clearly ongoing, no worries there.
I do think though over the past few pages that your first point has been addressed.
When does this ever happen? Bond's last contact with MI6 is on the intercom to Tanner (or if you like with Luigi) but he is never told to hunt down the ATAC. He only goes to Greece after Cortina to follow up on the lead to Columbo from Kristatos at the ice rink.
He does this of his own accord to my mind and when he meets Q in the confessional shouldn't he be in the shit because it's his ineptitude in retrieving the ATAC on his own/not blowing it up there and then in the St Georges that has led it to fall into Kristatos's hands?
They 'thought' that there were no notes? Based on what exactly? Clearly not by doing even the most cursory search of the boat and finding Havelock's diary. It just didn't occur to them to search for the slightest clue that Havelock might be on to something? And these are the people safeguarding the nation's security?
Also once Havelock is dead the British don't send anyone else out to look for the ATAC at all (Bond finds it but wasn't ordered to by MI6 - see above). Is Havelock really the only person in the world who can conduct underwater searches? If so perhaps they might have done better if they'd left him with a bit more back up than an old woman, a girl with a bag of pistachios and a parrot?
I was just trying to reiterate what had been said on here so far, to see if I could get my head round this bit of the plot. I still don't get what MI6 were going to do about the ATAC.
The ATAC is a MacGuffin, and Hitchcock always thought that they were something for characters to chase after to kick start the film. I guess this is why they can get forgotten or sidelined.
I agree that the ATAC is a perfect example for a MacGuffin since no one even knows what the ATAC really is and how it works. All we need to know is that it is a very important device that should not fall in the wrong hands.
@WizardofIce
Keep in mind that the mission was Top secret. They cannot just send some agents there to get the ATAC out of the water. They need sepcific equipment to locate it and then raise it. You also need a good cover that allows you to operate secretely. In this regard FYEO was actually pretty close to real espionage.
MI6's original plan was to locate and probably raise the ATAC. However, they were not allowed to operate there officially. How should they do that and with what kind of justification? The St. George was secretely spying in Abanian waters. It would have been a disaster for MI6 if anyone got to know about it and that it had such a specific devise on board.
As they could not start an official investigation, they asked Haveloc who as a acknowledged scientist living there for years had a perfect cover. At that point in time they did not even know if the Russians or anyone else had any information about the ATAC. After the death of the Havelocs MI6 realised that their initial plan had failed and that they were not the only ones to know about the ATAC.
It would have been too risky to just repeat the mission with another random scientist who by the way also may lead the enemies to the ATAC in case he finds the St. George.
It's no surprise that the ATAC causes something of a plot anomaly, as it is only a McGuffin to weave the adapted short stories, 'FYEO and 'Risico' into a single story for film purposes.
That's the clearest explanation I've seen. Thanks.
When the men who was sideways working for MI6 was killed they naturally curious as to way the killing which was why 007 was send to investigate the killer. And next his paymaster.
Melina and 007 only found out the whereabouts of the St George when the discovered the coded writings of her father who had seen a boat with serious diving gear near a certain spot. they then went looking for the boat.
The first part of the movie was actually 007 detecting why Havelock was killed and by whom. Only then we get to the ATAC and the race to keep it out of the hands of Gogol.
This story is brilliant when compared to the QoS & Craig and Mendes movies which were poorly written and executed (blame Forster and Mendes).
You can carry on discussing it if you so desire, but in the mean time it feels pertinent to delve into the riches on offer from the original Bond movie. Dr No burst onto our screens in 1962 and the action/adventure genre had been reinvented overnight.
Based on Ian Fleming's novel it's hard to discuss any of those early movies so closely associated with the great man's work and be anything but humble and appreciative, but at the end of the day we simply must ask the question...
Does DR NO actually make any sense?
I agree on your points. I am also not really sure why Bond actually kills Dent. I mean would it not have been better to arrest him and get further information baout Dr. No from him? He could have also used him as an opportunity to enter Crab Key. Of course the kill is great but it seems a bit unnecessary to me.
True, but he would probably just kill himself a la Mr Jones.
I thought Spectre funded him
Yes I thought so too. Maybe one could have just made the kill a bit more feasible.But I also have no solution at the moment. It is certainly not a big issue that I am holding against the film.
I'm presuming that the Russians or Chinese are paying SPECTRE to take down the US rockets?
What Hitler and the U.S. governement cared about was finding the ark; had Hitler found it he would have felt invincible (not necessary because he would have used it, but as a symbol of power - it was Belloq who wanted to open it, not the nazis, and this is clearly stated in the movie) and would have started WW2 in 1936.
It is also very un-Bondian, since Fleming's Bond hates cold-blood kills.
Regarding Dent's killing: I doubt the Professor had much to give Bond and as I think after being the target of many assassination attempts Bond felt vindictive. A reckless action maybe but in line with his state of mind at the time. Why wouldn't Bond make mistakes sometimes?
Who?
Sorry Mary. No idea why I thought Tess.
You can partly explain the attempts on Bond - Dr No tries to make them appear accidental, but then when they fail (I will not tolerate that) he just wants Bond killed fast. But that doesn't make much sense when didn't cover up the first 2 kills.
Spectre wanted the toppling to happen, so must have paid, but usually someone pays them to do that sort of thing (as in YOLT), but there is no sign of that here. Still makes sense, even if everything isn't spelt out.
Or that :
Now, back to the movie : notice that, when Bond comes back to the Carribeans, no mention is made of the fallout of Dr. No's headquarters' destruction ? Granted, it was only a small nuclear reactor, not Chernobyl, but still....
Rather than calling it un-Bondian I would suggest that the filmmakers had a Bond character in mind that somewhat deviates from the literary character. Literary Bond would never ever have made a quip such as, "Make sure he doesn´t get away." And especially in Dr. No, Bond is portrayed as a bit unpatient, and his reply when offered a place in SPECTRE suggests that he is to some degree prone to the urge for vengeance. Thus, Bond killing Dent fits in.
that plot is so fanstastikical and full of holes.
1. The UK was such a minor player on the world stage and would not be referring a talk between USA and USSR
2. No way that space capsule could have been launched and then re enter the atmosphere without US or Soviet spy satellites picking it up and finding out in short fashion that it come from Japan...
3. WFT did SPECTRE get the resources to mount such an operation following the losses in the previous film?
4. Addendum to 3 above: the costs in material, personnel in building the volcano hideaway could not be done without someone from Japanese authorities to Soviet and American spy satellites would have known something was going on in that area long before Blofeld completed construction.
All in all the movie is just as fantastical as MR or DAD.
By now we have arrived at the Doctor NO, so keep the good stuff until we get there.
In regard to DN, they could not just say Strangeways had run off as Mi6 had the attempted transmission and that is what set off the bells and whistles. M was going to send an agent to look into this right away.
The bad guys could have cleaned up the mess after they killed her and attempted make it look like she had run off by packing a bag, making flight reservations but there was always the issue of the radio going dark...
Personally I don't care if a plot makes sense as long as you can follow it and the movie is fun and doesn't take itself too seriously.
That has worked for 23 Bond movies.
Only Skyfall failed because it's the only Bond movie where fun and entertainment was replace with dreary drama and too much seriousness.
As for Dr. No:
I never had the slightest problem with that plot. It's simple and it makes sense for me.
Presumably works for MI6 and has no discernible personality or impact on the story.
Are we seeing a prototype for Rory Kinnear's Tanner here?
Who knows,MI6 yep,but he was one pompous pratt wasnt he ?