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
In FRWL, with the Lektor, it would be the apparatus itself rather than its current coding (which could be altered anytime anyway), same in FYEO's McGuffin ATAC.
Having an enigma machine helped Turing figure codes and feed false info.
Skyfall's McGuffin isn't a good analogy.
Playing his golden harp
Yeah, well-put.
I don’t know. It’s a pointless discussion when it comes to FRWL anyway, and I don’t care enough about coding machines in the Cold War to go through the finer details of the film or book to find any discrepancies or logical fallacies.
I’m not sure what this has to do with SF’s list of agents in this instance…
The inquiry scene is surprisingly well constructed plot/story wise and has a lot of callbacks, parallels, and big character moments (I like that Mallory gets shot similar to how Bond does at the beginning of the film. It plays well into him seeing Bond shoot accurately for the first time and display his skills). And it’s quite cool with those wonderful Bondian moments/flair.
Because they didn't know the allies had one: if they had they would have changed the system. It doesn't make sense in the films, but it's fine, we don't worry about it.
The point is the allies would be able to use Enigma
messages between each other. The Nazis could change their code, the giant b-words, but not the Allies'.
Same with the Lektor.
Shall I go on about the mechanism...
The culmination of an hour's build-up is an easy win for the good guys, as they swag, wink and smile at each other. Smugly.
It's a good point about Fukunaga. Even Bond would have been killed, the smug bastard.
I can't parse this.
Look, trying to prove it's perfectly water-tight is pointless: what we're saying is that all Bond films have these imperfections. Getting caught up on them is pointless.
Just seems a really weird take to me. One of them's been shot in the shoulder, the others are scared but competent: Bond is a bit swaggery but again, if you're not keen on that then you're watching the wrong series of films.
Aye, nothing's perfect. No point trying to claim one McGuffin justifies another, not that anyone did.
Always thought the inquiry room sequence lacked genuine menace and concern. Just came across as really smug. It robbed whatever tension was available.
The Lektor is a typical McGuffin in this sense. It doesn’t matter what the object is specifically. Change it from a decoding machine to a list of Soviet agents it changes nothing.
The list in SF is a bit different. As I said it’s a mix between a McGuffin and Chekov’s Gun in a way and ties more directly into the stuff going on in terms of Silva and M as characters. Which is fine. Actually it’s more interesting in many ways.
Fair enough I suppose. If you didn’t feel it worked or was exciting on watching it there’s not much anyone can do. Not sure I completely understand or agree with your justification/logic, but then again I love the scene and do find it exciting so it is what it is I guess.
Aye, that's true, they probably didn't specify because the audience could understand it, anyway.
A list of agents just makes absolutely no sense.
But your overall point is dead on.
Worth saying my point there was that the list of agents in SF is arguably more interesting in terms of its function in the story and how it’s used.
They didn’t specify because it’s not good storytelling in this instance. The more you go into details of coding the more audiences will start asking themselves questions, even picking up plot holes rightly or wrongly. The nature of a classic McGuffin is it doesn’t matter what it is. It simply drives the characters. In fact many films purposely don’t reveal what theirs actually is - ie. Pulp Fiction, MI:3.
Yes it's true, because it tells us something about how far Silva has gone as a person who used to be one of those agents, plus how bad it is for M, the BBC news report etc. For a macguffin plot which ends halfway through, it's explored pretty well.
Yes, it’s trickier changing that list to a decoding machine and it having quite the same effect as a story device.
Yes, there's stuff in the plot which doesn't entirely add up (the bit I always squint at, because it's hard to swallow while you're actually watching it, is when Bond figures out the Granborough Road code because he's looking at a readout from Q's screen- it's just a lot to accept, and it resolving into a map seems like nonsense, but it's visual I guess) but it feels like a coherent story while you're watching it and the stakes are conveyed extremely effectively.
It is a good McGuffin; it promotes concern, is urgent and commands recovery. It's just any serious intelligence agency wouldn't maintain such a list.
I appreciate its quality as this will be because of narrative, and that's valid. It's an amuse bouche and not the main course.
Just it's batshit crazy.
Well, fair enough, you don't care about such. Each their own. But it still holds.
The Aston Martin thing is plausible (though extremely unlikely), as is Oddjob's hat and such. Think of it in terms of the umbrella which killed Georgi Markov.
Wonder if they'll get those poison-dart wrist-guns in the stores for Christmas...
Well so does the issue with the Lector. You can try to write little bits of fanfic to explain how it might work, much as I can with the agent list (the idea that SIS have their agents on file is hardly outrageous); but ultimately both are the same in that any issues with them only become apparent when you sit down and think about every detail of the film- they're not important while you're watching it, and the explanations to make them work would just become clutter and lore that the audience don't require. It's a code-breaker- we need it; it's a list of agents- we need it. Easy to understand, straightforward macguffins.
I mean, if we're at the point where you're saying that an Aston Martin with machine guns is more plausible than a spy agency having details of its own agents, I'm wondering if we're losing perspective a bit.
For me it’s only second best behind FRWL. I personally find SF riveting. It’s one of those movies I could switch a channel on in the middle of its run and be hard pressed to look away. I remember intending to only watch the William Tell scene on TV but ended up finishing the whole thing. That movie just works.
Indeed, every one of the films can be picked apart and scrutinized plot-wise. I remember this coming up when Spectre was released. On his press tour Craig was asked how and why Bond is taking a tuxedo with him on the train. His answer said it all: "It's a Bond film. We're not really supposed to worry about such things."
There is no issue with the lucrative Lector. I think we agree in principle about the use of McGuffin, but maybe disagree on the realism, but that's fair enough.
I just think the Lector is a serious prize whereas the agent list is highly improbable and provokes too many inconsistencies, most of which sift into the overall plot.
Disingenuous.
A spy's vehicle, or personal effects, having concealed weapons is plausible (not to the extravagant degree of GF, as I have stated earlier). See the Markov example above.
Also, it isn't simple details about agents, rather crucial information about agents embedded in terrorist cells. Like police officers undercover, such information will not be simply written, ready to be easily downloaded a la Skyfall.
A senior intelligence officer like M would know this, and although SF acknowledges this with her sacking, it allows her insubordinate, Q, carte blanche to do similar.
Inconsistent plotting.
Should have been like a proper Bond movie and had him dress as a clown.
It’s not really the focus of the film, so it doesn’t matter. The movie is more about the conflict between Bond/M vs Silva, not the list. It doesn’t hold the same importance to the story the way that other plot devices in Bond films do.
Yeah. That's true.
Shame though, because in the earlier drafts of the Spectre script Madeline literally asks him why he's brought his tux along, and he just sort of stares at her as if she's asked why he's brought his toothbrush with him or something: he can't understand why anyone wouldn't! And I think that's a pretty fun gag!
There is absolutely an issue with the Lector: I've already explained it. But it's fine, it's not something we're supposed to think about.
I don't know what you mean about inconsistencies which bleed into the plot?
I think it's pretty disingenuous to say an Aston with machine guns is the equivalent of an umbrella hypodermic: it's an extrapolation and exaggeration of one into a work of entertainment. Much as having a list of agents can be extrapolated as a list of NATO agents undercover in terrorist cells: making it big for the sake of entertainment. It's kind of nitpicking.
I'd say it does matter, especially if it influences the remainder of the film's plot, which it does enormously.
So, when you're just watching the film, perhaps having a beer or two, you think about the list of agents being utterly preposterous and can't possibly engage with the film?