I though When Bond falls from the train, there is another Blood stain Below
the first ( Lower ribs). Later when Bond is shaving you can see another Exit
wound on his back On his right side above the waist, Which I took to be the
exit wound from Eve's bullet.
There is also blood stain from the exit wound on the level of his right scapula even before Eve tags Bond. Therefore Patrices shot hits Bond instead of being just shrapnel.
Oh and about the ammo Patrice uses: depleted uranium in a 9mm pistol, now that is just plain funny! ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there.
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. I believe that they should have explained how an MI6 agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of NATO undercover agents on his laptop hard drive.
And why is it that whenever someone points out plot holes in a movie that is very popular, people respond with the argument that not every aspect of the plot has to be clear? And when that particular movie is not popular, people rant over the plot holes? What is with these inconsistent responses?
I though When Bond falls from the train, there is another Blood stain Below
the first ( Lower ribs). Later when Bond is shaving you can see another Exit
wound on his back On his right side above the waist, Which I took to be the
exit wound from Eve's bullet.
There is also blood stain from the exit wound on the level of his right scapula even before Eve tags Bond. Therefore Patrices shot hits Bond instead of being just shrapnel.
Oh and about the ammo Patrice uses: depleted uranium in a 9mm pistol, now that is just plain funny! ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Bond could still have only been wounded by shrapnel from Patrices' bullet along with shrapnel from the frame of the cab. Shrapnel can be as deadly as a bullet and can penetrate deeply. Also, since bullet shrapnel is in many instances accompanied by the shrapnel of whatever it struck before hitting the body (for instance, the metal framework from the cab Bond was in), it can penetrate even deeper than the original shrapnel from the shell, since the shell's velocity is severely slowed by striking another object and so are it's fragments. The weird side effect is if the object it strikes is close to
the body, the fragments from the object can actually enter the body at a higher speed than the slower fragments of the bullet since their origin is closer. My stepfather manned an antiaircraft gun on ships during WWII and was hit several times by flying shrapnel from enemy aircraft bullets striking the turrent - and would even keep firing back after getting hit. One wound was caused by Japanese Zero bullet shards that hit the turrent then hit him. The medics took out the pepper size pieces of bullet fragments from near his shoulder and took out a few confetti sized pieces from the gun turrent that entered the same area but actually ended up on the other side of his shoulder and penetrated the skin but did not exit, so he bled from the front from the bullet and turrent fragements but bled from his rear shoulder from only the turrent fragments themselves. No matter how you slice it, getting shot at is no fun!
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there.
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. I believe that they should have explained how an MI6 agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of NATO undercover agents on his laptop hard drive.
And why is it that whenever someone points out plot holes in a movie that is very popular, people respond with the argument that not every aspect of the plot has to be clear? And when that particular movie is not popular, people rant over the plot holes? What is with these inconsistent responses?
And how is it you're breaking the norm by ranting over plot holes in a popular movie? That just throws your theory right out the window.
People have opinions.
The truth of it is that in film making you don't have to explain everything.
In Back to the future, how did Marty and the Doc originally meet?
In Star Wars, who invented the floating city and why?
In Star Trek, where did the nexus come from and how was it formed?
In the Blues Brothers, how did Jake meet his gf, and how long ago should they have got married?
In the Dukes of hazzard, where was Luke's parents?
The answers? Who cares?!
Personally I absolutely hate it when a plot is obviously laid out for the viewer. I much prefer it when a little plot and background is kept back for us to work out ourselves.
The reason why Ronson had a laptop with a list of NATO agents on it is unimportant. What matters is that the list is there (or was) and it needs to be retrieved.
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there.
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. I believe that they should have explained how an MI6 agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of NATO undercover agents on his laptop hard drive.
And why is it that whenever someone points out plot holes in a movie that is very popular, people respond with the argument that not every aspect of the plot has to be clear? And when that particular movie is not popular, people rant over the plot holes? What is with these inconsistent responses?
And how is it you're breaking the norm by ranting over plot holes in a popular movie? That just throws your theory right out the window.
People have opinions.
The truth of it is that in film making you don't have to explain everything.
In Back to the future, how did Marty and the Doc originally meet?
In Star Wars, who invented the floating city and why?
In Star Trek, where did the nexus come from and how was it formed?
In the Blues Brothers, how did Jake meet his gf, and how long ago should they have got married?
In the Dukes of hazzard, where was Luke's parents?
The answers? Who cares?!
Personally I absolutely hate it when a plot is obviously laid out for the viewer. I much prefer it when a little plot and background is kept back for us to work out ourselves.
The reason why Ronson had a laptop with a list of NATO agents on it is unimportant. What matters is that the list is there (or was) and it needs to be retrieved.
I have to agree with this. The background of the list and who had it/why they had it isn't important in the context of Skyfall. This is especially the case because the list itself wasn't really all that important. The story and Silva's plan wasn't about the list, it was only the initial domino of his actual plan which was to lure out and kill M.
Bond could still have only been wounded by shrapnel from Patrices' bullet along with shrapnel from the frame of the cab. Shrapnel can be as deadly as a bullet and can penetrate deeply. Also, since bullet shrapnel is in many instances accompanied by the shrapnel of whatever it struck before hitting the body (for instance, the metal framework from the cab Bond was in), it can penetrate even deeper than the original shrapnel from the shell, since the shell's velocity is severely slowed by striking another object and so are it's fragments. The weird side effect is if the object it strikes is close to
the body, the fragments from the object can actually enter the body at a higher speed than the slower fragments of the bullet since their origin is closer. My stepfather manned an antiaircraft gun on ships during WWII and was hit several times by flying shrapnel from enemy aircraft bullets striking the turrent - and would even keep firing back after getting hit. One wound was caused by Japanese Zero bullet shards that hit the turrent then hit him. The medics took out the pepper size pieces of bullet fragments from near his shoulder and took out a few confetti sized pieces from the gun turrent that entered the same area but actually ended up on the other side of his shoulder and penetrated the skin but did not exit, so he bled from the front from the bullet and turrent fragements but bled from his rear shoulder from only the turrent fragments themselves. No matter how you slice it, getting shot at is no fun!
Yes, it is possible, however 9mmpb rounds weight between 7 and 9 grams and travel at around 900-1200 fps and can possibly penetrate a human torso, if the ammo used is of the fmj variety. The shrapnel from a pistol shot, will not have the velocity, nor the ballistic properties to penetrate the minimum requirement of 10-12 inches of flesh to make a through and through hole in James Bond. This is especially the case of the ammo Patrice uses, if he fires in fact DU penetrators. This is because of the heavy weight and low velocity of the (imaginary) projectile.
The Japanese A6M Zero had Type 99, 20mm aircraft cannons which would fire approximately 100-130 grams projectile at the speed of 2000fps and had more than enough of kinetic energy (17267 ftlbs to be exact) to send lethal shrapnel flying where it strikes. Quite a difference to 9mmpb's 364 ftlbs, right?
"I mean, she almost kills bond...with her ass."
-Mr Arlington Beech
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there.
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. I believe that they should have explained how an MI6 agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of NATO undercover agents on his laptop hard drive.
And why is it that whenever someone points out plot holes in a movie that is very popular, people respond with the argument that not every aspect of the plot has to be clear? And when that particular movie is not popular, people rant over the plot holes? What is with these inconsistent responses?
And how is it you're breaking the norm by ranting over plot holes in a popular movie? That just throws your theory right out the window.
People have opinions.
The truth of it is that in film making you don't have to explain everything.
In Back to the future, how did Marty and the Doc originally meet?
In Star Wars, who invented the floating city and why?
In Star Trek, where did the nexus come from and how was it formed?
In the Blues Brothers, how did Jake meet his gf, and how long ago should they have got married?
In the Dukes of hazzard, where was Luke's parents?
The answers? Who cares?!
Personally I absolutely hate it when a plot is obviously laid out for the viewer. I much prefer it when a little plot and background is kept back for us to work out ourselves.
The reason why Ronson had a laptop with a list of NATO agents on it is unimportant. What matters is that the list is there (or was) and it needs to be retrieved.
I may have missed something. But do we know for sure Ronson had the laptop? Perhaps the list had already been stolen and was tracked by MI6 to Istanbul. Ronson was shot trying to retrieve it. This would explain Bond's presence at the scene, earpiece attached communicating with M.
While it is true nobody wants to be "spoon fed" every single detail of the plot, certain things should have been explained. Such as, what happened to the list? How did Bond escape death after being shot by Eve?
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
[While it is true nobody wants to be "spoon fed" every single detail of the plot, certain things should have been explained. Such as, what happened to the list?
ebay.
How did Bond escape death after being shot by Eve?
And how is it you're breaking the norm by ranting over plot holes in a popular movie? That just throws your theory right out the window.
People have opinions.
The truth of it is that in film making you don't have to explain everything.
One, I don't understand this comment. Two, if I see a plothole in a movie - regardless of whether I like it or not - I'm going to point it out. And since the list of undercover NATO agents set the plot for "SKYFALL" in motion, I think the screenwriters could have explained how it ended up in the hard drive of an MI6 agent's laptop in Istanbul.
One - I didn't think you would. Do you want me to draw a picture so you can understand?
Two - If it was pointed out where the list came from I think it'd spoil the suspense and intrigue of introducing the villain later on. You'll really need a pretty pic to understand that one.
Well not everything in a film has to be spelt out in black and white, unless that's how you prefer your films so you don't have to think about what you're watching, ya know, like them fast n furious flicks.
Bond films contain loads of untold stories which we can deduce for ourselves. Bond's and Moneypenny's relationship, M's past, Vesper's past, Leiter's rise to section chief, there's loads in there. Quantum of Solace was rammed with untold story, right from the start, where did bond get another DBS from? When did he tell M to get to Italy? Where's the new suit come from?
Sometimes a story is more interesting when you have to think about it.
I'm completely with you MG.
It's a Bond film after all and not some sort of Art House piece. I enjoy it for what it is, what it represents and how it's depicted on screen. Yes there might be some holes in it, but nothing to come remotely close to ruining the thing.
Besides, it's not like David "Headmash" Lynch had anything to do with it!
Comments
There is also blood stain from the exit wound on the level of his right scapula even before Eve tags Bond. Therefore Patrices shot hits Bond instead of being just shrapnel.
Oh and about the ammo Patrice uses: depleted uranium in a 9mm pistol, now that is just plain funny!
-Mr Arlington Beech
I'm sorry, but this argument doesn't work for me. It just doesn't. I believe that they should have explained how an MI6 agent in Istanbul ended up with a list of NATO undercover agents on his laptop hard drive.
And why is it that whenever someone points out plot holes in a movie that is very popular, people respond with the argument that not every aspect of the plot has to be clear? And when that particular movie is not popular, people rant over the plot holes? What is with these inconsistent responses?
Bond could still have only been wounded by shrapnel from Patrices' bullet along with shrapnel from the frame of the cab. Shrapnel can be as deadly as a bullet and can penetrate deeply. Also, since bullet shrapnel is in many instances accompanied by the shrapnel of whatever it struck before hitting the body (for instance, the metal framework from the cab Bond was in), it can penetrate even deeper than the original shrapnel from the shell, since the shell's velocity is severely slowed by striking another object and so are it's fragments. The weird side effect is if the object it strikes is close to
the body, the fragments from the object can actually enter the body at a higher speed than the slower fragments of the bullet since their origin is closer. My stepfather manned an antiaircraft gun on ships during WWII and was hit several times by flying shrapnel from enemy aircraft bullets striking the turrent - and would even keep firing back after getting hit. One wound was caused by Japanese Zero bullet shards that hit the turrent then hit him. The medics took out the pepper size pieces of bullet fragments from near his shoulder and took out a few confetti sized pieces from the gun turrent that entered the same area but actually ended up on the other side of his shoulder and penetrated the skin but did not exit, so he bled from the front from the bullet and turrent fragements but bled from his rear shoulder from only the turrent fragments themselves. No matter how you slice it, getting shot at is no fun!
And how is it you're breaking the norm by ranting over plot holes in a popular movie? That just throws your theory right out the window.
People have opinions.
The truth of it is that in film making you don't have to explain everything.
In Back to the future, how did Marty and the Doc originally meet?
In Star Wars, who invented the floating city and why?
In Star Trek, where did the nexus come from and how was it formed?
In the Blues Brothers, how did Jake meet his gf, and how long ago should they have got married?
In the Dukes of hazzard, where was Luke's parents?
The answers? Who cares?!
Personally I absolutely hate it when a plot is obviously laid out for the viewer. I much prefer it when a little plot and background is kept back for us to work out ourselves.
The reason why Ronson had a laptop with a list of NATO agents on it is unimportant. What matters is that the list is there (or was) and it needs to be retrieved.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I have to agree with this. The background of the list and who had it/why they had it isn't important in the context of Skyfall. This is especially the case because the list itself wasn't really all that important. The story and Silva's plan wasn't about the list, it was only the initial domino of his actual plan which was to lure out and kill M.
Yes, it is possible, however 9mmpb rounds weight between 7 and 9 grams and travel at around 900-1200 fps and can possibly penetrate a human torso, if the ammo used is of the fmj variety. The shrapnel from a pistol shot, will not have the velocity, nor the ballistic properties to penetrate the minimum requirement of 10-12 inches of flesh to make a through and through hole in James Bond. This is especially the case of the ammo Patrice uses, if he fires in fact DU penetrators. This is because of the heavy weight and low velocity of the (imaginary) projectile.
The Japanese A6M Zero had Type 99, 20mm aircraft cannons which would fire approximately 100-130 grams projectile at the speed of 2000fps and had more than enough of kinetic energy (17267 ftlbs to be exact) to send lethal shrapnel flying where it strikes. Quite a difference to 9mmpb's 364 ftlbs, right?
-Mr Arlington Beech
I may have missed something. But do we know for sure Ronson had the laptop? Perhaps the list had already been stolen and was tracked by MI6 to Istanbul. Ronson was shot trying to retrieve it. This would explain Bond's presence at the scene, earpiece attached communicating with M.
While it is true nobody wants to be "spoon fed" every single detail of the plot, certain things should have been explained. Such as, what happened to the list? How did Bond escape death after being shot by Eve?
ebay.
'es 'ard B-)
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
One, I don't understand this comment. Two, if I see a plothole in a movie - regardless of whether I like it or not - I'm going to point it out. And since the list of undercover NATO agents set the plot for "SKYFALL" in motion, I think the screenwriters could have explained how it ended up in the hard drive of an MI6 agent's laptop in Istanbul.
Two - If it was pointed out where the list came from I think it'd spoil the suspense and intrigue of introducing the villain later on. You'll really need a pretty pic to understand that one.
I'll get me crayons out....
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I'm completely with you MG.
It's a Bond film after all and not some sort of Art House piece. I enjoy it for what it is, what it represents and how it's depicted on screen. Yes there might be some holes in it, but nothing to come remotely close to ruining the thing.
Besides, it's not like David "Headmash" Lynch had anything to do with it!