Totally agree - a colossal waste of time and money - theirs and mine.
Skyfall is perhaps one of the least plotted of any of the Bond films, working mostly because you've seen it before in The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. It's more a series of implausibilities and two or three major set pieces. As with hit films like Dead Poets Society and Forrest Gump, it mostly succeeds because of its sentimentality, but when you examine it closely, it's rickety construction is obvious.
The ending is rather strange. Bond's plan succeeds in flushing M out but fails in keeping her alive. Why did he even need to take her to Skyfall in the first place? If the goal was to get Silva -- and Silva hadn't already just killed M outright at her flat, as apparently Bond can just walk in any time he wants -- then why not just lead Silva to believe he has M and take him on by himself?
But that's just one of the qualities of Skyfall's script that seems dumb. Silva can hack into any computer system he wants, but he can't hack a laptop to get the list of agents? M is being hunted down by who knows who, but the review board she faces is so poorly guarded? Silva is such a genius he not only knows well in advance what the British Secret Service will do and when, but he also has the forethought to plant charges in a disused portion of the tube at precisely the location to send -- at precisely the right time -- a subway train careening at Bond? Bond has a tracker inserted into his arm in Casino Royale, but a few years later, they have no idea where his body is? And on and on.
These aren't plotholes. They're just dumb writing.
So my question is always.. how is it any plotholes would exist in any film when they go through so many drafts and revisions? Are they really that hard to eliminate? Yes, we can blame the writers, but what about the producers, directors, actors and even the DP's? They all read the script at some point or get involved in the process...and none of them go.."hey, the villain, hero, heroine, etc. can't do that because of a/b/c". I can understand a book writer overlooking some and even their editor, but not with film scripts.
In film, it's usually the editor's fault, or at least responsibility.
What normally happens is much more film is generated than can be used. An editor, under the pressure to get a film to a particular running time, must then take that footage and try to make a story out of it. By that time, the actors, producers, and directors may have fiddled with the script so much as to make it fairly incomprehensible (in some cases, writers are kept from the set so they can't see how far from the premise things are going)>
A lot of what people call "plot holes" today are simply things they don't like, such as "Why didn't the villain just shoot Bond when he had the chance," ignoring that the story sets the villain up as an egomaniac who would rather see Bond suffer some lengthy, ignominious demise instead.
Others are continuity errors -- the wine that appears and disappears in this scene or that scene or the wrong color tie when the character is wearing the same suit later that day.
None of these change the plot. The story continues uninterrupted. But they do distract from the verisimilitude of the film.
But something like the Joker's thugs magically appearing when the story does not allow for it is a plot hole, no ifs, ands, or buts. There simply is no way to reconcile it with the evidence we have onscreen.
Sometimes, I think the plot hole is intentional. It's done for effect. One genuine plot hole in SF is Silva's disfigurement. The story is that he took a cyanide pill and it didn't kill him but it did disfigure him. But that's nonsense. Cyanide can kill in the proper dose but it doesn't cause bone/tissue damage.
Mendes wanted a WTF moment and he got one.
It's like the girl being painted with gold in Goldfinger and dying of asphyxiation because a small bare patch hadn't been left at the base of her spine. Nonsense, sheer nonsense, but it made for a very memorable scene.
Plot holes are not intentional. They are errors, generally committed by people who either don't know what they are doing or simply do not care.
On the other hand, someone can purposefully decide to bend reality in a film. This is reserved for high fantasy. In the case of Silva, it's just dopey writing by someone who didn't bother to do the research.
But something like the Joker's thugs magically appearing when the story does not allow for it is a plot hole, no ifs, ands, or buts. There simply is no way to reconcile it with the evidence we have onscreen.
GM, my take on Batman is that the whole world & reality they created for the film was one of fantastic nonsense (It's WHY I like the Burton ones better than the Nolan ones: Batman is in our reality ridiculous and cannot reasonably be presented in a completely serious manner IMO). Bond movies have to be consistent with the tone each movie sets for itself. Bond swimming in zero degree water in DAD doesn't bother me because the whole film is a comic book- Bond falling from such a height unconscious in SF & surviving DOES because we are supposed to be taking all this so very seriously... -{
I'm with you, Chris. Any film... let me rephrase: ANY film sets its own parameters within which we the audience will observe for the next two hours or so. This may be absolute reality or total fantasy or any stage in between- it doesn't matter, as long as it's consistent (or as reasonably consistent as can be expected- being pedantic defeats the purpose and takes the fun out of it). Therefore, a man can fly in the Superman movies but not in a Dirty Harry film, and Gandalf can do magic but Jason Bourne can't. And James Bond can fall into a plane in GE and survive a fall from a bridge in SF!
Storyline?!?! SF's plot twists are as absurdly stupid as the most absurd Moore era Bond films. Every time I watch SF, the movie gets worse in my eyes because once you get past the cinematography and Bardem's portrayal of Silva you start to realize that nothing in this movie makes any sense.
Totally agree - a colossal waste of time and money - theirs and mine.
Skyfall is perhaps one of the least plotted of any of the Bond films, working mostly because you've seen it before in The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. It's more a series of implausibilities and two or three major set pieces. As with hit films like Dead Poets Society and Forrest Gump, it mostly succeeds because of its sentimentality, but when you examine it closely, it's rickety construction is obvious.
The ending is rather strange. Bond's plan succeeds in flushing M out but fails in keeping her alive. Why did he even need to take her to Skyfall in the first place? If the goal was to get Silva -- and Silva hadn't already just killed M outright at her flat, as apparently Bond can just walk in any time he wants -- then why not just lead Silva to believe he has M and take him on by himself?
But that's just one of the qualities of Skyfall's script that seems dumb. Silva can hack into any computer system he wants, but he can't hack a laptop to get the list of agents? M is being hunted down by who knows who, but the review board she faces is so poorly guarded? Silva is such a genius he not only knows well in advance what the British Secret Service will do and when, but he also has the forethought to plant charges in a disused portion of the tube at precisely the location to send -- at precisely the right time -- a subway train careening at Bond? Bond has a tracker inserted into his arm in Casino Royale, but a few years later, they have no idea where his body is? And on and on.
These aren't plotholes. They're just dumb writing.
I agree with everything you say.
And as I've said before I didn't give a toss about stolen hard drive in SF. It wasn't a worthy plot for a Bond film. Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum in my book. Having said that, CR's plot was not of this calibre but its such a good film in other respects I let that pass. QoS's plot was pathetic and SF even worse. if they wanted to make Silva a real threat then he should have been using his hacker skills to break into NATO's defence grid, or taking control of the internet or disrupting the world's stock markets, etc etc.
But something like the Joker's thugs magically appearing when the story does not allow for it is a plot hole, no ifs, ands, or buts. There simply is no way to reconcile it with the evidence we have onscreen.
GM, my take on Batman is that the whole world & reality they created for the film was one of fantastic nonsense (It's WHY I like the Burton ones better than the Nolan ones: Batman is in our reality ridiculous and cannot reasonably be presented in a completely serious manner IMO). Bond movies have to be consistent with the tone each movie sets for itself. Bond swimming in zero degree water in DAD doesn't bother me because the whole film is a comic book- Bond falling from such a height unconscious in SF & surviving DOES because we are supposed to be taking all this so very seriously... -{
But there is no internal or external logic to the Joker's henchmen being there. To dismiss it in this manner is simply to rationalize an obvious mistake, or plot hole.
And James Bond can fall into a plane in GE and survive a fall from a bridge in SF!
Did you mean to say "and NOT survive a fall from a bridge in SF"-? ?:)
No...
Anyway, that's just a technicality. Exaggeration for film IMO. There are far worse transgressions in SF than cartoon physics. :007) QOS (which I LOVE) did the low chute opening thing, and I can live with that as well.
Totally agree - a colossal waste of time and money - theirs and mine.
Skyfall is perhaps one of the least plotted of any of the Bond films, working mostly because you've seen it before in The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. It's more a series of implausibilities and two or three major set pieces. As with hit films like Dead Poets Society and Forrest Gump, it mostly succeeds because of its sentimentality, but when you examine it closely, it's rickety construction is obvious.
The ending is rather strange. Bond's plan succeeds in flushing M out but fails in keeping her alive. Why did he even need to take her to Skyfall in the first place? If the goal was to get Silva -- and Silva hadn't already just killed M outright at her flat, as apparently Bond can just walk in any time he wants -- then why not just lead Silva to believe he has M and take him on by himself?
But that's just one of the qualities of Skyfall's script that seems dumb. Silva can hack into any computer system he wants, but he can't hack a laptop to get the list of agents? M is being hunted down by who knows who, but the review board she faces is so poorly guarded? Silva is such a genius he not only knows well in advance what the British Secret Service will do and when, but he also has the forethought to plant charges in a disused portion of the tube at precisely the location to send -- at precisely the right time -- a subway train careening at Bond? Bond has a tracker inserted into his arm in Casino Royale, but a few years later, they have no idea where his body is? And on and on.
These aren't plotholes. They're just dumb writing.
I agree with everything you say.
And as I've said before I didn't give a toss about stolen hard drive in SF. It wasn't a worthy plot for a Bond film. Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum in my book. Having said that, CR's plot was not of this calibre but its such a good film in other respects I let that pass. QoS's plot was pathetic and SF even worse. if they wanted to make Silva a real threat then he should have been using his hacker skills to break into NATO's defence grid, or taking control of the internet or disrupting the world's stock markets, etc etc.
Casino Royale is a Dostoevsky novel by comparison to Skyfall in terms of plotting. It's not a perfect film, but the plot certainly hangs together much better. The plot works in part because it is character driven, whereas Skyfall's plot shoehorns in personal issues as an excuse to move things along.
To dismiss it in this manner is simply to rationalize an obvious mistake, or plot hole.
I don't dismiss it and I don't rationalize it- I simply don't care in the context of wondrous and fantastical entertainment I'm witnessing. )
Almost NOTHING in Burton's Batman films makes any real sense, and I like it that way!
I'm just more demanding when it comes to Bond...
Most sci-fi movies wouldn't pass these stringent tests. Space travel ( especially, faster than light speeds)
can cause all sorts of problems. Which the script writers ignore ( along with the audience), as sci-fi movies
are such fun.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
To dismiss it in this manner is simply to rationalize an obvious mistake, or plot hole.
I don't dismiss it and I don't rationalize it- I simply don't care in the context of wondrous and fantastical entertainment I'm witnessing. )
Almost NOTHING in Burton's Batman films makes any real sense, and I like it that way!
I'm just more demanding when it comes to Bond...
Oh, well not caring definitely doesn't change anything. Definitely a plot hole whether one cares or not.
Only a little over a month left for SP, the time is coming soon.
I'd like to know how SF ends up in Calvin Dyson's update of his Bond film ranking, he had it at #3, but who knows, maybe he ends up placing it outside his Top 5. He does lean more for campy than serious Bond, and Moore and Broz are his faves, so who knows?
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Skyfall is perhaps one of the least plotted of any of the Bond films, working mostly because you've seen it before in The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. It's more a series of implausibilities and two or three major set pieces. As with hit films like Dead Poets Society and Forrest Gump, it mostly succeeds because of its sentimentality, but when you examine it closely, it's rickety construction is obvious.
The ending is rather strange. Bond's plan succeeds in flushing M out but fails in keeping her alive. Why did he even need to take her to Skyfall in the first place? If the goal was to get Silva -- and Silva hadn't already just killed M outright at her flat, as apparently Bond can just walk in any time he wants -- then why not just lead Silva to believe he has M and take him on by himself?
But that's just one of the qualities of Skyfall's script that seems dumb. Silva can hack into any computer system he wants, but he can't hack a laptop to get the list of agents? M is being hunted down by who knows who, but the review board she faces is so poorly guarded? Silva is such a genius he not only knows well in advance what the British Secret Service will do and when, but he also has the forethought to plant charges in a disused portion of the tube at precisely the location to send -- at precisely the right time -- a subway train careening at Bond? Bond has a tracker inserted into his arm in Casino Royale, but a few years later, they have no idea where his body is? And on and on.
These aren't plotholes. They're just dumb writing.
I agree with everything you say.
And as I've said before I didn't give a toss about stolen hard drive in SF. It wasn't a worthy plot for a Bond film. Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum in my book. Having said that, CR's plot was not of this calibre but its such a good film in other respects I let that pass. QoS's plot was pathetic and SF even worse. if they wanted to make Silva a real threat then he should have been using his hacker skills to break into NATO's defence grid, or taking control of the internet or disrupting the world's stock markets, etc etc.
Casino Royale is a Dostoevsky novel by comparison to Skyfall in terms of plotting. It's not a perfect film, but the plot certainly hangs together much better. The plot works in part because it is character driven, whereas Skyfall's plot shoehorns in personal issues as an excuse to move things along.
Well put. All plot should be character-driven but it should never be overly contrived for the sake of plot. I like Alex Trevelyan in GE because he was in a way partly created by Bond though he is also inherently bad because of his Liens Cossack heritage. SFs Silva is similar in some respects because his abandonment by M and the damage done by the cyanide turn him into a bitter monster. But the similarity ends there - Trevelyan's plot is Bond-worthy, Silva's is not. Its like the franchise has started chewing on itself - first Bond and now M as well. It's time to focus on the villains and their plans and stop all the brooding analysis, self-doubt and psycho-torture.
And as I've said before I didn't give a toss about stolen hard drive in SF.
It was pushing the plot forward. Those people were real people when they were taken out and shot. It affected everybody. But it was a mcguffin for pushing the plot forward
It wasn't a worthy plot for a Bond film. Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum in my book.
X-( X-( X-( So you want the cliches back. What was it? - shopping for cliches. A Bond film is only a Bond film when it has a load explosian at the end. Thank god we've moved beyond it.
Having said that, CR's plot was not of this calibre but its such a good film in other respects I let that pass.
CR's plot was Bond against Le Chiffre. He was financier to Quantum. If he'd have won he'd have carried on financing terrorism. He lost....so we saw what happened to him. It was very nearly the plot of the book.
QoS's plot was pathetic and SF even worse. if they wanted to make Silva a real threat then he should have been using his hacker skills to break into NATO's defence grid, or taking control of the internet or disrupting the world's stock markets, etc etc.
Quantums plot was very realistic. Water in a desert country. And we saw what happens when you are denied water, Skyfalls tale was M's demise. Silva was a very realistic villain. A man so twisted with hate for his boss he used his hacker skills to bring her down. James Bond loses in Skyfall. Very realistic plot
What gets me is that Bonds is the platitude "Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum" Does FRWL have a world destroying plot? Does FYEO? Does TLD? No, they are grounded. The smallest plots work well in these situations. A Bond plot doesn't have to be worldshaking to be exciting
And as for GE? Watching it now its so geographically impossible it kicks you out of the story...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
Well put. All plot should be character-driven but it should never be overly contrived for the sake of plot. I like Alex Trevelyan in GE because he was in a way partly created by Bond though he is also inherently bad because of his Liens Cossack heritage. SFs Silva is similar in some respects because his abandonment by M and the damage done by the cyanide turn him into a bitter monster. But the similarity ends there - Trevelyan's plot is Bond-worthy, Silva's is not.
What? So we're not allowed to see what happens to the villains?We're not allowed to find out what made them this way? Part of the best bits of the books were the villains background, finding out what sent them to the bad. Trevelyans plot is Bond worthy? Wanting to destroy London from outer space? Its Bond contrivance after Bond contrivance? Didn't Blofeld want to do that in diamonds? How comes he can afford a satellite dish under Cuba? Bond at its most ridiculous?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
How comes he can afford a satellite dish under Cuba? Bond at its most ridiculous?
how can one man have steel teeth, how can a car swim underwater, how can you hollow out a volcano? It's not all logical and mustn't be
but the answer to your question of how he financed it: I think that Orumov because of his high position was able to set quite some money aside for his/their plan
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
Governments often hide fact from ministers. just watch the
Video on ten conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true.
I think it's called " Deniability "
Although it is only a film, so whatever works for the viewer.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Governments often hide fact from ministers. just watch the
Video on ten conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true.
I think it's called " Deniability "
Although it is only a film, so whatever works for the viewer.
agreed {[]
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
And who says he wasn't injured in the fall? He was shot twice and he seems to have recovered from those by the time we see him again. Maybe he broke a few bones. I think there are about three months there that are unaccounted for where he could have recovered.
You'll notice that in pretty much all those falls the victims were conscious during the events. Experts will tell you that this has a great determination into how this effects the outcome of the falls. Also, most of the victims either impacted something that helped break the fall or had something connected to them that helped slow the impact. As terrible as these accidents were, the physics still don't match an unconscious 300 ft drop straight down into water. Even had Bond survived the fall, being unconscious either during the fall (which he was for he never tries to reposition himself during the drop) or after impact would have meant that he would have drowned.
A three month absence would have given him enough time to recover from his gunshot wounds. The one from Patrice was actually a minor one as it was mostly a couple of small fragments from the shell ricocheting off the digger cab he was in. The one he got from Moneypenny was the more disabilitating one. It would also have been enough time to recover from bone fractures. However, I still feel in reality he would not have survived the fall given my previous information.
Chris Saggers - landed on car roof (cushioned fall).
Josh Hanson - first floor ledge broke fall.
Juliane Diller - encased in plane fuselage and fall broken by rain forest canopy.
Shayna Richardson - reserve chute slowed fall even though not totally open.
Michael Holmes - blackberry bush and ground it grew from broke fall.
Danny Yamashiro - his initial plummet most likely slowed by intermittent strikes against
the mountain slope.
Roger Woodward - had life jacket and large waves help cushion effects of impacts.
Felix Baumgartner - not really within category as he had a parachute.
Steve Fossett - basket slowed and cushioned fall - as well as the large storm waves.
James Boole - chute deployment though at last moment helped break fall incrementally
along with impact into snow.
Comments
What normally happens is much more film is generated than can be used. An editor, under the pressure to get a film to a particular running time, must then take that footage and try to make a story out of it. By that time, the actors, producers, and directors may have fiddled with the script so much as to make it fairly incomprehensible (in some cases, writers are kept from the set so they can't see how far from the premise things are going)>
A lot of what people call "plot holes" today are simply things they don't like, such as "Why didn't the villain just shoot Bond when he had the chance," ignoring that the story sets the villain up as an egomaniac who would rather see Bond suffer some lengthy, ignominious demise instead.
Others are continuity errors -- the wine that appears and disappears in this scene or that scene or the wrong color tie when the character is wearing the same suit later that day.
None of these change the plot. The story continues uninterrupted. But they do distract from the verisimilitude of the film.
But something like the Joker's thugs magically appearing when the story does not allow for it is a plot hole, no ifs, ands, or buts. There simply is no way to reconcile it with the evidence we have onscreen.
On the other hand, someone can purposefully decide to bend reality in a film. This is reserved for high fantasy. In the case of Silva, it's just dopey writing by someone who didn't bother to do the research.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree with everything you say.
And as I've said before I didn't give a toss about stolen hard drive in SF. It wasn't a worthy plot for a Bond film. Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum in my book. Having said that, CR's plot was not of this calibre but its such a good film in other respects I let that pass. QoS's plot was pathetic and SF even worse. if they wanted to make Silva a real threat then he should have been using his hacker skills to break into NATO's defence grid, or taking control of the internet or disrupting the world's stock markets, etc etc.
No...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
" It's Bond, just go with it !"
Almost NOTHING in Burton's Batman films makes any real sense, and I like it that way!
I'm just more demanding when it comes to Bond...
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
can cause all sorts of problems. Which the script writers ignore ( along with the audience), as sci-fi movies
are such fun.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I'd like to know how SF ends up in Calvin Dyson's update of his Bond film ranking, he had it at #3, but who knows, maybe he ends up placing it outside his Top 5. He does lean more for campy than serious Bond, and Moore and Broz are his faves, so who knows?
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Well put. All plot should be character-driven but it should never be overly contrived for the sake of plot. I like Alex Trevelyan in GE because he was in a way partly created by Bond though he is also inherently bad because of his Liens Cossack heritage. SFs Silva is similar in some respects because his abandonment by M and the damage done by the cyanide turn him into a bitter monster. But the similarity ends there - Trevelyan's plot is Bond-worthy, Silva's is not. Its like the franchise has started chewing on itself - first Bond and now M as well. It's time to focus on the villains and their plans and stop all the brooding analysis, self-doubt and psycho-torture.
It was pushing the plot forward. Those people were real people when they were taken out and shot. It affected everybody. But it was a mcguffin for pushing the plot forward
X-( X-( X-( So you want the cliches back. What was it? - shopping for cliches. A Bond film is only a Bond film when it has a load explosian at the end. Thank god we've moved beyond it.
CR's plot was Bond against Le Chiffre. He was financier to Quantum. If he'd have won he'd have carried on financing terrorism. He lost....so we saw what happened to him. It was very nearly the plot of the book.
Quantums plot was very realistic. Water in a desert country. And we saw what happens when you are denied water, Skyfalls tale was M's demise. Silva was a very realistic villain. A man so twisted with hate for his boss he used his hacker skills to bring her down. James Bond loses in Skyfall. Very realistic plot
What gets me is that Bonds is the platitude "Threatening to destroy the world is the absolute minimum" Does FRWL have a world destroying plot? Does FYEO? Does TLD? No, they are grounded. The smallest plots work well in these situations. A Bond plot doesn't have to be worldshaking to be exciting
And as for GE? Watching it now its so geographically impossible it kicks you out of the story...
What? So we're not allowed to see what happens to the villains?We're not allowed to find out what made them this way? Part of the best bits of the books were the villains background, finding out what sent them to the bad. Trevelyans plot is Bond worthy? Wanting to destroy London from outer space? Its Bond contrivance after Bond contrivance? Didn't Blofeld want to do that in diamonds? How comes he can afford a satellite dish under Cuba? Bond at its most ridiculous?
how can one man have steel teeth, how can a car swim underwater, how can you hollow out a volcano? It's not all logical and mustn't be
but the answer to your question of how he financed it: I think that Orumov because of his high position was able to set quite some money aside for his/their plan
( not saying I'm right, but it makes sense to me )
but defense minister Mishkin didn't know about the 2nd satelitte so I think the russian goverment didn't have anything to do with it ?:)
Video on ten conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true.
I think it's called " Deniability "
Although it is only a film, so whatever works for the viewer.
agreed {[]
tanks. Right next to the control room !
You'll notice that in pretty much all those falls the victims were conscious during the events. Experts will tell you that this has a great determination into how this effects the outcome of the falls. Also, most of the victims either impacted something that helped break the fall or had something connected to them that helped slow the impact. As terrible as these accidents were, the physics still don't match an unconscious 300 ft drop straight down into water. Even had Bond survived the fall, being unconscious either during the fall (which he was for he never tries to reposition himself during the drop) or after impact would have meant that he would have drowned.
A three month absence would have given him enough time to recover from his gunshot wounds. The one from Patrice was actually a minor one as it was mostly a couple of small fragments from the shell ricocheting off the digger cab he was in. The one he got from Moneypenny was the more disabilitating one. It would also have been enough time to recover from bone fractures. However, I still feel in reality he would not have survived the fall given my previous information.
Chris Saggers - landed on car roof (cushioned fall).
Josh Hanson - first floor ledge broke fall.
Juliane Diller - encased in plane fuselage and fall broken by rain forest canopy.
Shayna Richardson - reserve chute slowed fall even though not totally open.
Michael Holmes - blackberry bush and ground it grew from broke fall.
Danny Yamashiro - his initial plummet most likely slowed by intermittent strikes against
the mountain slope.
Roger Woodward - had life jacket and large waves help cushion effects of impacts.
Felix Baumgartner - not really within category as he had a parachute.
Steve Fossett - basket slowed and cushioned fall - as well as the large storm waves.
James Boole - chute deployment though at last moment helped break fall incrementally
along with impact into snow.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS