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
I'll say this. None of the Bond movies does make much sense, except maybe FRWL.
It's fiction and the cinematic Bond was early on a fantasy/thriller genre later mixed with comedy and OTT action.
The plot is not expected to make perfect sense, Bond never takes itself too seriously.
Bond bungee jumping down into a canyon - only to end up on top of a mountain when he's escaping the facility..... we don't know the specific layout of said chemical facility, and it could very well be that Bond used a roundabout way into the facility - in layman's terms, breaking into the basement in order to get to the top floor.. we are only shown a brief montage showing him bungee down a dam, laser through a sealed air duct, and then exit out into a bathroom - there could've been a lot between points B and C there that they didn't show us.... but even still, it is jarring juxtaposition..
What was the end game to Trevelyan faking his death?... Others have dissected this scenario to death, and better than i ever could.. obviously him and Orumov were in cahoots - but did Orumov's soldiers at the base know of this deception as well, were they kind of a rouge set of troops (like in Die Hard 2)??... but could there not have been an easier way to enact his revenge plot on England? - or was the whole hiding for 9 years, and becoming the mysterious head of a criminal organization in that span of time (9 years) and waiting for the right moment for the Tiger helicopter to get invented so they could steal it and eventually steal the Goldeneye all part of this clever "air tight" plan from the beginning.....
i always thought that an interesting way to view all of that, was maybe Alec was a good guy and really did get shot by Orumov, but somehow managed to survive (kind of like Renard), and Bond leaving him to die ate away at him for years, so he formed an alliance with Orumov so he could get revenge............. but that wouldn't make sense, as Alec's revenge plot had been in place since he was a kid - which really makes you stop and think.....................
Of course it does:
It makes sense that it is the high water mark of the Brosnan era
It makes sense that it ranks in the top 5-6 of most people's "Best Bond Films list"
It makes sense as it is the last one that Cubby had his hands on...
It makes sense why after GE the Brosnan films progressively got worst.
no he didn't... he took a back seat and let BB and MGW have the reigns.
Exactly.
All they are is basically nuclear warheads floating in orbit. Granted a nuclear bomb is quite heavy but putting one in orbit, when set against the context of the arms race, would hardly be prohibitively expensive.
I think the script is pretty clear that there are only two and that once London had gone Alec would have nothing in his locker. Presumably once he'd done it he would sit in his lair counting all his filthy lucre that was now worthless?
And I doubt very much if the US would invade Cuba as the world would be too busy dealing with a global financial meltdown but even if they did 'mad little Alec' would have his revenge and surely that is more important to him than money as he seems to be rich enough to build a classic villains lair. Or is the Cuba facility owned by the Russians and Ouromov gave him the key? Natalya certainly alludes to this when she says 'like your secret transmitters in New Zealand' as if we Russian have similar facilities in Cuba.
https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/goldeneye-oral-history/
I see your point there, and I tend to agree; I thought about that a long time ago. Why would Alec spend so much freaking money on an underground base instead of just keeping it for himself? He would have so much more millions on his bank account - and that would have been even better for him, as his lucre after the EMP blast would become useless.
I would have to agree with this as well. That's all part of the plot, obviously. But I just tried to come up with a better intro.
What if Alec was not a field agent but an undercover scientist working on the facility throughout a considerable time so that he could help Bond infiltrate it easier by making a path for him? Basically, he could be Dr. Doak.
Then he could have been "randomly" killed by Ourumov during the firefight - that would have been a better plot.
If you guys ever wonder why, Alec as a scientist could actually check what were Ourumov's plans and hand them over to MI-6. That could be only a part of the whole investigation.
1) In St. Petersburg, Bond in the tank sees Natalya, Ouromov and Onatopp get on Alec's train, which then goes speeding down the tracks, presumably for miles, and then we see Bond in the tank blocking the tracks. How could he've gotten there so fast.
2) If Boris is such a computer expert, why is his riddle password only a simple 5-letter word.
Reality is often stranger than fiction, after all people make stupid things all the time. So yeah, the inconsistencies which one may find by dissecting a movie piece by piece are not that absurd.
Yeah because that totally answers the question of this thread. What a pointless contribution to this thread.
I realize it was a lot of people's introduction to Bond and has a special place for them, but as a longtime fan, it still doesn't come close to the freshness and excitement I found with the introductory films of Dalton and Craig. I felt they were actually trying to do something fresh with the character and series in TLD and CR and with GE it was like "here's what you like about Bond, so here it is again in the style of the other popular action films of the day."
No, let's not stop with Bond escaping Archangel, let's have him dive off a cliff and fly into a plane.
I haven't actually watched GE all the way through since it came out on VHS tbh, so may not be best qualified to comment on the plot. I don't remember being that bothered by the story - it was more the generic cheapness of it and the fact I felt Brosnan was so inferior to any of his predecessors. Also the cartoonishness of the characters. Famke, Robby Coltrane and Sean Bean are all good actors but they seem to be in a Sunday afternoon BBC crime drama.
It has few redeeming qualities (if any) for me, but I wouldn't actually say a lack of narrative coherence was it's primary fault.
The kind of thing we should totally ignore.
--
Another inconsistency I find is when Bond tries to run to the helicopter while it is taking off. What 007 was even trying to do? He wouldn't stop it anyways.
Hard to ignore when it's been going on for almost a decade. =))
I have seen it in full. Twice. More than enough.
You act like you're Brosnan's personal bodyguard or something. It's only an online forum. Criticism of the actors and their films is par for the course
That said, Bond movies are generally light enough to be nonsensical, so it's not fatal to the film. For me, the turgid melodrama and underwhelming action ruin it.
But then having said that, the repeated defence that most Bond movies are as nonsensical as this one is just not true. There are little, and legitimate, nitpicks one can make (how did Drax build his space station without being noticed?), but I can't think of any Bond film where fundamental questions of motive, opportunity, or indeed, what the hell is even going on, are as opaque as in Goldeneye.