Yeah...things are pretty cut-and-dried for the Ugandan. He didn't care who screwed up the deal...he just wanted his money back, hence Le Chiffre's high stakes poker game.
The reason why the money was lost was what confused me initially. For people who know little about the stock market (like me ?:) ) then at first glance it doesn't make sense that Le Chiffre was planning to make money by investing in a stock and then forcing that stock to plummet.
It seemed like an overly elaborate plan...after all, there is the classic joke:
"How do you make five million dollars by investing in the stock market?...invest ten million dollars in an airline!" >insert rimshot here<
Le Chiffre doesn't invest in the stock, he invests in put options - after Bond stops the attack on the plane, the broker calls him up and goes "the puts expired".
Basically, buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a fixed price on or before a certain date.
So Le Chiffre would buy a put to sell the stock at $20, then when the stock plummets to $1 he would still be able to sell for $20 and make $19 profit.
My brain hurts reading all this. Did it really need to be so complicated?
Yes. It's a common trick since OP. Confuse or baffle the audience and they'll go along with it pretty much unquestioningly.
See also conflict diamonds in DAD.
But guys -- (and although I'm linking to NP's post, I'm talking here to all of us, myself included, who don't fully understand selling short) We shouldn't ask Eon to give us silly or simple plots: we're liable to get them (i.e. madman threatens the world with wonder weapon ... mmmmm ... where have I seen that before?). I'd rather they didn't dumb things down for me, and you guys shouldn't either. I'll figure it out sooner or later. I may be a little slow but I'm not thick ) One of the things I happen to like about CR is that the plot is complicated. At least I remember it. I can't say the same for the plots of most of the other movies. Besides, CR's plot gives us something to talk about on AJB for the next two years.
My brain hurts reading all this. Did it really need to be so complicated?
Yes. It's a common trick since OP. Confuse or baffle the audience and they'll go along with it pretty much unquestioningly.
See also conflict diamonds in DAD.
But guys -- (and although I'm linking to NP's post, I'm talking here to all of us, myself included, who don't fully understand selling short) We shouldn't ask Eon to give us silly or simple plots: we're liable to get them (i.e. madman threatens the world with wonder weapon ... mmmmm ... where have I seen that before?). I'd rather they didn't dumb things down for me, and you guys shouldn't either. I'll figure it out sooner or later. I may be a little slow but I'm not thick ) One of the things I happen to like about CR is that the plot is complicated. At least I remember it. I can't say the same for the plots of most of the other movies. Besides, CR's plot gives us something to talk about on AJB for the next two years.
It's not so much as asking for a simple plot, but simply stage the plot so the audience can understand and follow clearly the action and motivation on the screen. This can be done, with a only the addition of a few lines, or a cleverly inserted scene. If the person watching the screen doesn't know exactly what it is he or she is watching, the scene is simply a lot of 'sound and fury'...eye candy. If you engage the mind of the audience, it heightens the involvement in the film. Otherwise, you might as well just watch a music video. No one here said the plot had to go...simply that the film lost a lot of audience members by not giving them insight into what was going on.
When telling a story, you typically have two options: You can tell the story from the protaganist point of view, and things are revealed as the hero discovers them...or you can tell if from an omniscient point of view where the the story is enjoyed from all aspects. Bond didn't know about the 'stock-shorting', and we could have enjoyed the Miami airport scene as Bond tried to stop a terrible incident...simple enough. But when the writers give a prologue about 'investing money' but with no clear idea of how it relates to the scene, it muddies the film. A simple scene of Le Chiffre saying a few words to Mr. White like "When the plane is destroyed, our stock options will be worth millions...you have my word." For a moment, I was left wondering if destroying the plane was Le Chiffre trying to double-cross somebody. And then I had to aske questions to my friend and have the situation explained to me. Is that what the writers wanted? I don't think so. Perhaps, EON can just skip using the writers altogether if they're not actualluy going to 'tell' their story.
Hey Highhopes, I've no intention really of hanging around like the wicked queen not invited to the party with this film ) , but I have to say that some of the justification of this film is really quite off the wall!
Sooooooooo many questions about how? why? what? many of which I bunged in my thread and haven't really been addressed (one thought the guy at the airport was a suicide bomber, others say he wasn't and so on)and yet with all the buzz it's like all these questions ENHANCE one's viewing rather than anything... now I realise a cool movie may have layers to it. But I can't think of many action flicks where I come out with this kind of exasperated bafflement. I mean with The Bourne Identity there was ONE hiccup for me, which was that Bourne did rather insist on carrying his red knapsack around which made his a bit too identifiable to his pursuers.
Now it may be that all my queries went over your head, fine, but can you imagine if they didn't that the film may be a bit wearisome?
I felt like this after DAD, loads of praise in the first few weeks, I only wish SiCo had it on archive, it would raise some eyebrows I can tell you. Even DAD got pretty good reviews too from the main press (though not as good as CR, I admit) and I felt a heel for dissing it.
Hey Highhopes, I've no intention really of hanging around like the wicked queen not invited to the party with this film ) , but I have to say that some of the justification of this film is really quite off the wall!
Sooooooooo many questions about how? why? what? many of which I bunged in my thread and haven't really been addressed (one thought the guy at the airport was a suicide bomber, others say he wasn't and so on)and yet with all the buzz it's like all these questions ENHANCE one's viewing rather than anything... now I realise a cool movie may have layers to it. But I can't think of many action flicks where I come out with this kind of exasperated bafflement. I mean with The Bourne Identity there was ONE hiccup for me, which was that Bourne did rather insist on carrying his red knapsack around which made his a bit too identifiable to his pursuers.
Now it may be that all my queries went over your head, fine, but can you imagine if they didn't that the film may be a bit wearisome?
I felt like this after DAD, loads of praise in the first few weeks, I only wish SiCo had it on archive, it would raise some eyebrows I can tell you. Even DAD got pretty good reviews too from the main press (though not as good as CR, I admit) and I felt a heel for dissing it.
Settle down, Nape, I only globbed onto your post because the subject of the stocks was broached earlier in the thread and to post mine without a link might have been confusing. Even so, I think if you reread my post, you'll see that I wasn't suggesting you or anyone else not join the party. But I'm grateful for your misunderstanding, because it will help to illustrate my point.
You're right: there's a difference between leaving a few loose ends to heighten interest and incomprehensible motivations, etc ... But from where I sit, that's all the filmmakers have done.
Let's talk about some of the "questions." IMO, they are not, in many, many cases, failures of the script as you suggest.
Many questions are legitimate, particularly dealing with Vesper and Mathis' role in the plot, Mr. White and the ending. But others, to tell the truth, sound pretty dumb to me and no doubt to others on this site. Of course, it's not as if I've never asked a dumb question. And of course, out of civility I'm not about to say that to the poster, but still ... If you really want, I'll look up some examples and private message you.
Others are not really loose ends or even questions at all, but are the result of the viewer's ignorance. Like the stock-shorting. Is it really the script's fault that I don't know the details of stock-shorting? Does my ignorance make the topic off-limits? If films could only talk about what I know, the subject matter would be pretty limited. And no, I don't think the film needed to spend time explaining it.
Then there are the questions that really aren't questions at all because their answer, one way or the other doesn't really matter. Case in point: You mention the "suicide bomber" question. There was never any suggestion in the film that he was or wasn't a suicide bomber. But let's say he was. So what? Let's say he wasn't. What difference does it make? You might as well ask if the guy was married as ask if he was a suicide bomber. It makes absolutely no difference to the story. Any controversy on that point stems from this site and only this site.
Then there are the things people saw or heard but weren't really there: like the overabundance of Virgin planes at Miami Airport. I counted only one, or maybe two (I think it was the same plane seen from a different angle, though). The rest, and there were several, had the markings of other, fictitious airlines.
These are just a few examples. Sure, they are questions. What they are not are problems with the script or its execution.:007)
Who would think that the airport bomber was a suicide bomber? Solange's husband (can't recall his name) recommended him to Le Chiffre as a guy who could get the job done, if given the proper payment. Why would he want to be paid if he's suiciding?
Not to mention the whole loop-the-seatbelt-through-the-steering-wheel-so-he-could-jump-to-safety thing.
Maybe the movie just moved too fast for some people...
New poster here, but there are some interesting points made in this thread.
The Miami Airport sequence has bugged me since the first time I saw the movie because of the timeline issues.
-- From Solange's conversation with Demetrios, we learn that he is catching the last plane to Miami and that he will be back in the morning, so that sets up all the action to take place that night. Clearly, there's some time allowed for Bond to also catch that flight and to track Demetrios from the airport to the BodyWorlds exhibit.
-- I also caught that Bond's watch said 11 p.m., but I'm choosing to ignore that. Maybe he never reset it from London time.
-- Even in a big city like Miami, I can't imagine a major museum exhibit being open past midnight even for a special event. And you've got to account for flight time from the Bahamas, travel time from the airport to the exhibit, etc. So that bothers me.
-- The airport is incredibly crowded for being so late at night. I live near San Francisco Airport and it has flights coming in and leaving all night, and I imagine an international airport like Miami would have a similar set-up. But it's still pretty crowded and all the shops seem to be open.
-- Unveiling the plane in the middle of the night also doesn't make sense, but I can buy that they were moving the plane out of the hangar for a presentation the following day. The stands are set up but there aren't that many people there, so I don't think the unveiling was going to happen that night.
-- You can swallow all this if you assume an earlier timeline. Let's say it gets dark particularly early in the Bahamas during the summer and Bond leaves for Miami closer to 8 or 9 p.m. putting all the action at the airport around 11 p.m.
But this falls apart when Bond is in contact with MI6 in London. While I figure that MI6 is a 24-hour operation, M is in her office at her desk. With the time difference of about five hours, that means it would be around 4 a.m. in London, but the scenes of M in her office suggest it is early morning and not the middle of the night.
I chalk it up to trying to jam too much into one scene to create more suspense. It would have been a little easier to swallow by having the poker scene and Solange's seduction taking place in the early evening but from a visual standpoint, it all looks better at night. Same with the airport scene: It would have made more sense to have that take place during the day, but the action all looks cool at night (and it was probably easier to film at an airport at night instead of during the day because of air traffic reasons).
.
-- Even in a big city like Miami, I can't imagine a major museum exhibit being open past midnight even for a special event.
This one little part was covered in the movie. I caught on one of the banners that the exhibit was open 24x7. That was the reason I caught it, thinking "no museum would keep their exhibit open 24x7".
Comments
The reason why the money was lost was what confused me initially. For people who know little about the stock market (like me ?:) ) then at first glance it doesn't make sense that Le Chiffre was planning to make money by investing in a stock and then forcing that stock to plummet.
It seemed like an overly elaborate plan...after all, there is the classic joke:
"How do you make five million dollars by investing in the stock market?...invest ten million dollars in an airline!" >insert rimshot here<
Basically, buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a fixed price on or before a certain date.
So Le Chiffre would buy a put to sell the stock at $20, then when the stock plummets to $1 he would still be able to sell for $20 and make $19 profit.
I hope that explanation is clear!
But guys -- (and although I'm linking to NP's post, I'm talking here to all of us, myself included, who don't fully understand selling short) We shouldn't ask Eon to give us silly or simple plots: we're liable to get them (i.e. madman threatens the world with wonder weapon ... mmmmm ... where have I seen that before?). I'd rather they didn't dumb things down for me, and you guys shouldn't either. I'll figure it out sooner or later. I may be a little slow but I'm not thick
It's not so much as asking for a simple plot, but simply stage the plot so the audience can understand and follow clearly the action and motivation on the screen. This can be done, with a only the addition of a few lines, or a cleverly inserted scene. If the person watching the screen doesn't know exactly what it is he or she is watching, the scene is simply a lot of 'sound and fury'...eye candy. If you engage the mind of the audience, it heightens the involvement in the film. Otherwise, you might as well just watch a music video. No one here said the plot had to go...simply that the film lost a lot of audience members by not giving them insight into what was going on.
When telling a story, you typically have two options: You can tell the story from the protaganist point of view, and things are revealed as the hero discovers them...or you can tell if from an omniscient point of view where the the story is enjoyed from all aspects. Bond didn't know about the 'stock-shorting', and we could have enjoyed the Miami airport scene as Bond tried to stop a terrible incident...simple enough. But when the writers give a prologue about 'investing money' but with no clear idea of how it relates to the scene, it muddies the film. A simple scene of Le Chiffre saying a few words to Mr. White like "When the plane is destroyed, our stock options will be worth millions...you have my word." For a moment, I was left wondering if destroying the plane was Le Chiffre trying to double-cross somebody. And then I had to aske questions to my friend and have the situation explained to me. Is that what the writers wanted? I don't think so. Perhaps, EON can just skip using the writers altogether if they're not actualluy going to 'tell' their story.
Sooooooooo many questions about how? why? what? many of which I bunged in my thread and haven't really been addressed (one thought the guy at the airport was a suicide bomber, others say he wasn't and so on)and yet with all the buzz it's like all these questions ENHANCE one's viewing rather than anything... now I realise a cool movie may have layers to it. But I can't think of many action flicks where I come out with this kind of exasperated bafflement. I mean with The Bourne Identity there was ONE hiccup for me, which was that Bourne did rather insist on carrying his red knapsack around which made his a bit too identifiable to his pursuers.
Now it may be that all my queries went over your head, fine, but can you imagine if they didn't that the film may be a bit wearisome?
I felt like this after DAD, loads of praise in the first few weeks, I only wish SiCo had it on archive, it would raise some eyebrows I can tell you. Even DAD got pretty good reviews too from the main press (though not as good as CR, I admit) and I felt a heel for dissing it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Settle down, Nape, I only globbed onto your post because the subject of the stocks was broached earlier in the thread and to post mine without a link might have been confusing. Even so, I think if you reread my post, you'll see that I wasn't suggesting you or anyone else not join the party. But I'm grateful for your misunderstanding, because it will help to illustrate my point.
You're right: there's a difference between leaving a few loose ends to heighten interest and incomprehensible motivations, etc ... But from where I sit, that's all the filmmakers have done.
Let's talk about some of the "questions." IMO, they are not, in many, many cases, failures of the script as you suggest.
Many questions are legitimate, particularly dealing with Vesper and Mathis' role in the plot, Mr. White and the ending. But others, to tell the truth, sound pretty dumb to me and no doubt to others on this site. Of course, it's not as if I've never asked a dumb question. And of course, out of civility I'm not about to say that to the poster, but still ... If you really want, I'll look up some examples and private message you.
Others are not really loose ends or even questions at all, but are the result of the viewer's ignorance. Like the stock-shorting. Is it really the script's fault that I don't know the details of stock-shorting? Does my ignorance make the topic off-limits? If films could only talk about what I know, the subject matter would be pretty limited. And no, I don't think the film needed to spend time explaining it.
Then there are the questions that really aren't questions at all because their answer, one way or the other doesn't really matter. Case in point: You mention the "suicide bomber" question. There was never any suggestion in the film that he was or wasn't a suicide bomber. But let's say he was. So what? Let's say he wasn't. What difference does it make? You might as well ask if the guy was married as ask if he was a suicide bomber. It makes absolutely no difference to the story. Any controversy on that point stems from this site and only this site.
Then there are the things people saw or heard but weren't really there: like the overabundance of Virgin planes at Miami Airport. I counted only one, or maybe two (I think it was the same plane seen from a different angle, though). The rest, and there were several, had the markings of other, fictitious airlines.
These are just a few examples. Sure, they are questions. What they are not are problems with the script or its execution.:007)
Not to mention the whole loop-the-seatbelt-through-the-steering-wheel-so-he-could-jump-to-safety thing.
Maybe the movie just moved too fast for some people...
The Miami Airport sequence has bugged me since the first time I saw the movie because of the timeline issues.
-- From Solange's conversation with Demetrios, we learn that he is catching the last plane to Miami and that he will be back in the morning, so that sets up all the action to take place that night. Clearly, there's some time allowed for Bond to also catch that flight and to track Demetrios from the airport to the BodyWorlds exhibit.
-- I also caught that Bond's watch said 11 p.m., but I'm choosing to ignore that. Maybe he never reset it from London time.
-- Even in a big city like Miami, I can't imagine a major museum exhibit being open past midnight even for a special event. And you've got to account for flight time from the Bahamas, travel time from the airport to the exhibit, etc. So that bothers me.
-- The airport is incredibly crowded for being so late at night. I live near San Francisco Airport and it has flights coming in and leaving all night, and I imagine an international airport like Miami would have a similar set-up. But it's still pretty crowded and all the shops seem to be open.
-- Unveiling the plane in the middle of the night also doesn't make sense, but I can buy that they were moving the plane out of the hangar for a presentation the following day. The stands are set up but there aren't that many people there, so I don't think the unveiling was going to happen that night.
-- You can swallow all this if you assume an earlier timeline. Let's say it gets dark particularly early in the Bahamas during the summer and Bond leaves for Miami closer to 8 or 9 p.m. putting all the action at the airport around 11 p.m.
But this falls apart when Bond is in contact with MI6 in London. While I figure that MI6 is a 24-hour operation, M is in her office at her desk. With the time difference of about five hours, that means it would be around 4 a.m. in London, but the scenes of M in her office suggest it is early morning and not the middle of the night.
I chalk it up to trying to jam too much into one scene to create more suspense. It would have been a little easier to swallow by having the poker scene and Solange's seduction taking place in the early evening but from a visual standpoint, it all looks better at night. Same with the airport scene: It would have made more sense to have that take place during the day, but the action all looks cool at night (and it was probably easier to film at an airport at night instead of during the day because of air traffic reasons).
This one little part was covered in the movie. I caught on one of the banners that the exhibit was open 24x7. That was the reason I caught it, thinking "no museum would keep their exhibit open 24x7".