) China will own Britain's nuclear power plants, so it will basically control us in a few years,
So they'll have access to all our intelligence information anyway.
Here they're setting up our 4G mobile phone Network . But it's a difference between giving access to information from being too naive on one hand, to sharing the information on purpose. Doing that with China is just not believable. I think the inclusjon of China in Nine Eyes comes from having an eye at the box office numbers, and not the state of the world.
) China will own Britain's nuclear power plants, so it will basically control us in a few years,
So they'll have access to all our intelligence information anyway.
Here they're setting up our 4G mobile phone Network . But it's a difference between giving access to information from being too naive on one hand, to sharing the information on purpose. Doing that with China is just not believable. I think the inclusjon of China in Nine Eyes comes from having an eye at the box office numbers, and not the state of the world.
So, what where the other countries?
these are the countries:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Denmark
France,
The Netherlands
Norway.
James Bond: That’s a Smith & Wesson, and you’ve had your six.
One thing to consider, though, is in this reboot version of Bond, he's not the same guy exactly we've seen before. He certainly has many of the traits, and more so in this film than before, but he's still not the same agent, and we could argue that this one is meant to be less capable in this respect than his doppelganger. However, I think it's really just the poor quality of screen writers today. They don't seem to have much depth of instinct when it comes to story, but rather learn some formula about a script structure and then overlook meaningful details. It doesn't seem to stop their success or the films from making money, so no one really cares, but quality is, in my opinion, suffering terribly.
I'm afraid I disagree. I don't think it's just due to bad scriptwriting that Bond is different from the other Bonds we've known before. I am certain it's deliberate.
He was modernized as a character to adapt to nowaday's modern ways of story telling which involve psychological character "depth" and "authenticity". Nowaday's audiences don't expect flawless, immaculate human beings without any significant past or future. It's not considered believable anymore. Freud has pushed forward into the entertainment industry, so to say.
Speaking of it, there was a psycho analysis hype during the 1960s (they even analyised "Alice in Wonderland" under the terms of Freud), but it was more of an academic trend and not so commonly known amongst regular people. Needing a shrink was still something to be ashamed of. Nobody talked about depression or anxiety and it stayed that way up until the late 1990s. The closest you'd get to common psychological knowledge were reports on famous psychological experiments such as the Milgram experiment which was supposed to shed some light on the gruel deeds of the Nazis, lots of such experiments were conducted after WW II (people just couldn't grasp that the Nazis were loving fathers in the evening while killing millions of children during the day - we still can't btw; as for social-psychological studies have shown, there isn't a higher rate of mental illness amongst terrorist groups e.g., but most people would insist on all of them being psychopaths, it's also a way to distance yourself from a life threatening monstrosity - it gets more threatening the closer it feels and admitting that regular people do these things, people without any major mental problems, hints that it could be everybody around you doing such things... and you wouldn't want to live in fear all the time - if that makes sense).
Giving Bond a traumatizing childhood, flaws, mistakes and thoughts about his future makes him more understandable to a 21st century's audience. Mental illness these days is a commonly known thing, also people suffering from it still are discriminated. But, while in the 1960s and before, ALL people suffering from mental problems would have been stigmatised as freaks, we do have some "trendy" and "cool" mental problems nowadays. Having a difficult childhood to deal with is one of them, just hardly staying within the borderline between "mental illness" and "mental issues that come with understandable situations". Some of his mistakes actually connect to his backstory. That being said, Bond wouldn't work anymore as Bond if he had a real mental illness such as depression etc. - but I'm thrilled what the future has in store for us considering that.
Societies change. And the films wouldn't be as successful if we still had the old invulnerable Bond. That's why CR worked to reintroduce Bond to the 21st century.
Oh, I'm not saying the changes in the Bond character are bad screenwriting. I'm saying giving so little attention to actually dramatizing it is bad screenwriting. The scripts mostly pay lip service, through expository dialogue rather than actual scenes, and the plots are often flimsy and illogical. It wouldn't matter if Bond was the former guy who seemed to thrive despite his baggage or the latter guy whose entire existence is predicated about his baggage, outside of CR, the scripts are unimpressive. I tend to find the Connery Bond more a role model than the Craig one, but they are still both Bonds to me.
) China will own Britain's nuclear power plants, so it will basically control us in a few years,
So they'll have access to all our intelligence information anyway.
Here they're setting up our 4G mobile phone Network . But it's a difference between giving access to information from being too naive on one hand, to sharing the information on purpose. Doing that with China is just not believable. I think the inclusjon of China in Nine Eyes comes from having an eye at the box office numbers, and not the state of the world.
So, what where the other countries?
these are the countries:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Denmark
France,
The Netherlands f
Norway.
Thanks, but I should have made myself clearer. I was asking about the Nine Eyes in SPCETRE. I'm well aware of the real Nine Eyes and its members, in fact I have posted about them earlier.
Here they're setting up our 4G mobile phone Network . But it's a difference between giving access to information from being too naive on one hand, to sharing the information on purpose. Doing that with China is just not believable. I think the inclusjon of China in Nine Eyes comes from having an eye at the box office numbers, and not the state of the world.
So, what where the other countries?
these are the countries:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Denmark
France,
The Netherlands f
Norway.
Thanks, but I should have made myself clearer. I was asking about the Nine Eyes in SPCETRE. I'm well aware of the real Nine Eyes and its members, in fact I have posted about them earlier.
Oh ok my mistake.
Sorry :007)
James Bond: That’s a Smith & Wesson, and you’ve had your six.
Yeah, Wikipedia, which allow users regardless of credentials to create the definitions, including the popular ones. Those aren't the traditional definitions. An impossibility is exactly right, and that would include contradictions that can't be reconciled within the logic of the story. But there is no requirement that James Bond be perfect, and certainly we've seen him make poor judgments through Craig's run. In fact, as some people have pointed out, his Bond is quite possibly the most incompetent when you stop to think about how many times he fails or causes something bad to happen to someone else because of his decisions.
On the other hand, Bond's dumb decisions are the result of crappy writing. It's not so much that Bond lacks competence or intelligence as the screenwriters do. So, I wouldn't say that Bond's decision to return to his familial home with no plan, army, or reason to believe he could realistically fight Silva in Skyfall a plothole so much as just stupid writing. It lacks common sense, let alone professional sense, but Bond was free to make that choice, stupid as it was. There is nothing illogical about the fact that he is imperfect. And he was free to do equally stupid things in Spectre.
Now, if Bond suddenly said he didn't know how to shoot a pistol, that would contradict established skill. That wouldn't be logical. Unless he had amnesia, we wouldn't be able to reconcile that within the story. But nothing has been established that he always erases video and this time, for some reason, chose not to.
What we have is lazy writing. Rather than develop the story around the character, they manipulate the character to fit the story. Bond is supposed to be the best of the best, but making him that way makes it tough to find ways for him to make plausible mistakes. So, how does a lazy writer deal with this? Just have him make the mistake and don't deal with it. And if audiences are distracted enough, they won't care. In Casino Royale, Bond makes mistakes, but the combination of being headstrong but unseasoned and being blinded by ego and love makes those mistakes make sense. We can sympathize. Arguably, that's also true in Quantum of Solace. But by the time Skyfall and Spectre roll around, Bond is no longer unseasoned. And the writers who aren't very swift to begin with can't figure out how to structure the story so it's plausible. So, what they do instead is invest in spectacle and sentimentality, and many audiences won't notice because they're caught up in the emotional of it all. The casual viewer isn't even following who Mr. White is and why so much as he's just a bad guy, and Bond is off on his next adventure.
But are these plotholes? No. The story can still forge ahead, creaikly as it does.
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
Yeah, Wikipedia, which allow users regardless of credentials to create the definitions, including the popular ones. Those aren't the traditional definitions. An impossibility is exactly right, and that would include contradictions that can't be reconciled within the logic of the story. But there is no requirement that James Bond be perfect, and certainly we've seen him make poor judgments through Craig's run. In fact, as some people have pointed out, his Bond is quite possibly the most incompetent when you stop to think about how many times he fails or causes something bad to happen to someone else because of his decisions.
On the other hand, Bond's dumb decisions are the result of crappy writing. It's not so much that Bond lacks competence or intelligence as the screenwriters do. So, I wouldn't say that Bond's decision to return to his familial home with no plan, army, or reason to believe he could realistically fight Silva in Skyfall a plothole so much as just stupid writing. It lacks common sense, let alone professional sense, but Bond was free to make that choice, stupid as it was. There is nothing illogical about the fact that he is imperfect. And he was free to do equally stupid things in Spectre.
Now, if Bond suddenly said he didn't know how to shoot a pistol, that would contradict established skill. That wouldn't be logical. Unless he had amnesia, we wouldn't be able to reconcile that within the story. But nothing has been established that he always erases video and this time, for some reason, chose not to.
What we have is lazy writing. Rather than develop the story around the character, they manipulate the character to fit the story. Bond is supposed to be the best of the best, but making him that way makes it tough to find ways for him to make plausible mistakes. So, how does a lazy writer deal with this? Just have him make the mistake and don't deal with it. And if audiences are distracted enough, they won't care. In Casino Royale, Bond makes mistakes, but the combination of being headstrong but unseasoned and being blinded by ego and love makes those mistakes make sense. We can sympathize. Arguably, that's also true in Quantum of Solace. But by the time Skyfall and Spectre roll around, Bond is no longer unseasoned. And the writers who aren't very swift to begin with can't figure out how to structure the story so it's plausible. So, what they do instead is invest in spectacle and sentimentality, and many audiences won't notice because they're caught up in the emotional of it all. The casual viewer isn't even following who Mr. White is and why so much as he's just a bad guy, and Bond is off on his next adventure.
But are these plotholes? No. The story can still forge ahead, creaikly as it does.
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
I have James Bond books that are inaccurate. I have one book from before the internet that has many fallacies, like it says that Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce is a a "Phantom 337" rather than a 1937 Phantom III.
Yeah, Wikipedia, which allow users regardless of credentials to create the definitions, including the popular ones. Those aren't the traditional definitions. An impossibility is exactly right, and that would include contradictions that can't be reconciled within the logic of the story. But there is no requirement that James Bond be perfect, and certainly we've seen him make poor judgments through Craig's run. In fact, as some people have pointed out, his Bond is quite possibly the most incompetent when you stop to think about how many times he fails or causes something bad to happen to someone else because of his decisions.
On the other hand, Bond's dumb decisions are the result of crappy writing. It's not so much that Bond lacks competence or intelligence as the screenwriters do. So, I wouldn't say that Bond's decision to return to his familial home with no plan, army, or reason to believe he could realistically fight Silva in Skyfall a plothole so much as just stupid writing. It lacks common sense, let alone professional sense, but Bond was free to make that choice, stupid as it was. There is nothing illogical about the fact that he is imperfect. And he was free to do equally stupid things in Spectre.
Now, if Bond suddenly said he didn't know how to shoot a pistol, that would contradict established skill. That wouldn't be logical. Unless he had amnesia, we wouldn't be able to reconcile that within the story. But nothing has been established that he always erases video and this time, for some reason, chose not to.
What we have is lazy writing. Rather than develop the story around the character, they manipulate the character to fit the story. Bond is supposed to be the best of the best, but making him that way makes it tough to find ways for him to make plausible mistakes. So, how does a lazy writer deal with this? Just have him make the mistake and don't deal with it. And if audiences are distracted enough, they won't care. In Casino Royale, Bond makes mistakes, but the combination of being headstrong but unseasoned and being blinded by ego and love makes those mistakes make sense. We can sympathize. Arguably, that's also true in Quantum of Solace. But by the time Skyfall and Spectre roll around, Bond is no longer unseasoned. And the writers who aren't very swift to begin with can't figure out how to structure the story so it's plausible. So, what they do instead is invest in spectacle and sentimentality, and many audiences won't notice because they're caught up in the emotional of it all. The casual viewer isn't even following who Mr. White is and why so much as he's just a bad guy, and Bond is off on his next adventure.
But are these plotholes? No. The story can still forge ahead, creaikly as it does.
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
Actually, only some scholarly research in the States suggest its error rate is no worse than that of other references, but the types of errors can be quite different. I know because I did a paper for a doctoral class on it. For instance, it's harder to account for bias in the entries since anyone is free to chime in (is this an error or is it a distortion of fact?), and we simply do not know who the author is; it's also true that sources listed for many Wikipedia entries are Web-based, even though not all the best research is on the Web.
Is that a prescriptive or descriptive dictionary?
And I don't see anything that potentially contradicts what I said except the word "unlikely." You would seem to interpret that, for instance, as you just think Bond must by definition be smarter and, therefore, it's a plot hole; I'd suggest that that is not true, as he has not been presented as flawless, and especially since this Bond has made many errors, and there's no reason to believe he won't make one now.
Have we ever seen him erase video before as a matter of course? Did he do so when he shot Mollaka, for instance? Wasn't that a key point in his embarrassing the Secret Service? Did he think about disabling the cameras ahead of time so he wasn't filmed? For that matter, does he ever even stop to wipe his fingerprints from any number of locations? Does he not continue to do reckless things that put both he and the service in jeopardy?
His Bond has been far more reckless than Bonds of the past, especially in an age of digital surveillance. This is the same Bond who kidnaps his boss and takes her to the family home for some unknown reason only to get her killed.
So, I simply don't see it as a plot hole, nor have any colleagues I've discussed it with. In this case, as with Casino Royale, Bond's mistake to not erase the video actually advances the plot because it becomes meaningful later to the story. That may be weak writing in many ways, but it doesn't seem predicated on a plothole.
In terms of unlikely character behavior, though, that's more akin to established traits that seem immutable. It would be like being told the character Data in Star Trek cannot use contractions -- but then the actor uses a contraction in one scene. But even that is miniscule if it has no actual bearing on the plot. That's why it's called a "plot hole" -- a hole in the plot, or a significant error that destroys the internal logic of the actual story. A flaw, a mistake, or an interpretation the audience doesn't agree with is not a plothole. At worst, it's hyperbole, and at best, it is a difference of opinion.
Yeah, Wikipedia, which allow users .... as it does.
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
I have James Bond books that are inaccurate. I have one book from before the internet that has many fallacies, like it says that Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce is a a "Phantom 337" rather than a 1937 Phantom III.
Actually, that probably better supports why amateurs shouldn't be writing references -- was this a text assembled by a team of scholars or simply a lay writer or two who may have gone to university?
Interestingly, this is what the IMBD (another user driven resource) says about the 337 error: (Note: When Bond refers to the Rolls-Royce as a 'Phantom Three-Thirty-Seven' he was probably referring to it by its type and year, a Phantom 3, '37 (1937). There is no Phantom '337' model, so this type/year reference can be safely assumed, and hence is not a goof.).
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
I have James Bond books that are inaccurate. I have one book from before the internet that has many fallacies, like it says that Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce is a a "Phantom 337" rather than a 1937 Phantom III.
Actually, that probably better supports why amateurs shouldn't be writing references -- was this a text assembled by a team of scholars or simply a lay writer or two who may have gone to university?
Interestingly, this is what the IMBD (another user driven resource) says about the 337 error: (Note: When Bond refers to the Rolls-Royce as a 'Phantom Three-Thirty-Seven' he was probably referring to it by its type and year, a Phantom 3, '37 (1937). There is no Phantom '337' model, so this type/year reference can be safely assumed, and hence is not a goof.).
This is by an author who has written a few Bond books. But to anyone who knows anything about Rolls-Royce, what Bond says makes complete sense. The thing that bothers me the most about the book is the heavy emphasis on NSNA.
I have James Bond books that are inaccurate. I have one book from before the internet that has many fallacies, like it says that Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce is a a "Phantom 337" rather than a 1937 Phantom III.
Actually, that probably better supports why amateurs shouldn't be writing references -- was this a text assembled by a team of scholars or simply a lay writer or two who may have gone to university?
Interestingly, this is what the IMBD (another user driven resource) says about the 337 error: (Note: When Bond refers to the Rolls-Royce as a 'Phantom Three-Thirty-Seven' he was probably referring to it by its type and year, a Phantom 3, '37 (1937). There is no Phantom '337' model, so this type/year reference can be safely assumed, and hence is not a goof.).
This is by an author who has written a few Bond books. But to anyone who knows anything about Rolls-Royce, what Bond says makes complete sense. The thing that bothers me the most about the book is the heavy emphasis on NSNA.
Was it Mr. Benson? I may have some of those. But even if he'd written a few, that wouldn't necessarily make him scholarly.
The other issue is, of course, the editing process. I've published textbooks and can tell you things can get changed without your knowledge, sometimes by graphic designers trying to fit type onto a page, for example, or proofreaders and editors who either miss something or interpret it incorrectly. And the authors themselves are not perfect. Perfection is not the goal. But the difference is there's a process, usually multi-layered, and defined by philosophical understanding. Wikipedia and other user-driven sites often do not have these methods.
I knew you would keep arguing against Wikipedia, which is also why I provided the MacMillan Dictionary as backup!
Should not all reference resources be descriptive and tell you what is? It's 21st century already... It's manuals and instructions' role to be proscriptive and tell you what should be, not the dictionaries'.
Of course, we are not talking about a strictly defined scientific term, even as a literary device the definition of plot hole can be stretched depending on the point of view. So we may both be right, depending on the definition applied. There is a good website dedicated to movie plot holes - http://www.movieplotholes.com/. They don't seem to have Spectre listed yet, but I had a look at what they list as Skyfall's plot holes - and most of them do not even look like plot holes to me!
We may have not seen Bond disable security systems before, but there was no particular reason for him to do so, or he may have done it, but it was not relevant to the plot, so it was not shown. He did not have to protect himself, others, and secret information - until this time. Previously he may have not been aware of security system - this time he was - the camera ensured that the viewers were aware of that. So I'm afraid your examples miss a very important point. And don't forget it was not only Bond acting illogically - so did Mr White, he failed to do the first thing to ensure his daughter's safety, despite apparently it being his no. 1 concern. Can it get any more illogical than that? Not in Spectre, and not in the whole Bond movie universe. That's not being reckless, but criminally irresponsible. I can ignore Mr White - he was dying, depressed, and suicidal - but Bond would have to be a total idiot to do what he did. Back to spy school would be the minimum punishment.
I agree that this mistake advances the story, but I could write it better myself, and the story would advance just as well. And it would be without sacrificing basic common sense for the sake of showing a few gadgets and explosions.
Actually, that probably better supports why amateurs shouldn't be writing references -- was this a text assembled by a team of scholars or simply a lay writer or two who may have gone to university?
Interestingly, this is what the IMBD (another user driven resource) says about the 337 error: (Note: When Bond refers to the Rolls-Royce as a 'Phantom Three-Thirty-Seven' he was probably referring to it by its type and year, a Phantom 3, '37 (1937). There is no Phantom '337' model, so this type/year reference can be safely assumed, and hence is not a goof.).
This is by an author who has written a few Bond books. But to anyone who knows anything about Rolls-Royce, what Bond says makes complete sense. The thing that bothers me the most about the book is the heavy emphasis on NSNA.
Was it Mr. Benson? I may have some of those. But even if he'd written a few, that wouldn't necessarily make him scholarly.
The other issue is, of course, the editing process. I've published textbooks and can tell you things can get changed without your knowledge, sometimes by graphic designers trying to fit type onto a page, for example, or proofreaders and editors who either miss something or interpret it incorrectly. And the authors themselves are not perfect. Perfection is not the goal. But the difference is there's a process, usually multi-layered, and defined by philosophical understanding. Wikipedia and other user-driven sites often do not have these methods.
I'm talking about Steven Jay Rubin. I have the early 90s edition of his encyclopaedia (not his first), which must be half about Never Say Never Again. He just loves it, and there are two still from it on the cover and none from Connery's proper Bond films. There's so little of Moore in the book. Then I saw his 1995 edition, with a photo of Brosnan in character as Remington Steele (not Bond) on the cover. It's by far the most biased Bond book I have.
It's not so much that I argue against Wikipedia as merely state the stance by most people whose primary job is to create the repository of knowledge in the first place -- the scholars. While the computer programmers may create whatever they want to fill with "content," it doesn't make them either the experts or the gatekeepers. It merely makes them the peddlers of more wares.
I'm not faulting you for this, but it does illustrate my point: A descriptive dictionary defines terms as they may be used. A prescriptive dictionary defines things as they are supposed to be used. Knowing the difference is critical to understanding what you will get.
The difference is the former can include permutations on a definition -- informal slang that is not universally accepted yet, for instance -- while the latter sticks to how language is formally defined. Someone not knowing the difference could and often will use them interchangeably, as though there is no difference, which can lead to errors. An example would be using a regional dialectical definition found in the descriptive dictionary that would not work for an audience outside of that region. A prescriptive dictionary would not include that definition.
The same goes for people who don't realize that some thesauruses are organized so that the words offered as synonyms decrease in order of similarity. I have plenty of students who arbitrarily pick the word that "sounds the best" from the end of the list, not realizing that while it is similar to the original word, it may not be an exact match. Then they create fuzzy meanings with their sentences that don't mean what they intend because of the subtle but meaningful shades of difference in definition.
In the same way, people who cherry pick what to use for Wikipedia can misunderstand the nature of the research, misinterpret what they've read, distort the original meaning, or choose research that is biased. For instance, there is something called "advocacy research," which is to say the researcher does the opposite of what is generally considered ethical: enter with a bias they seek to prove through research rather than merely posit a hypothesis to test objectively. But people who don't have a strong background in the field may have no idea and simply use the advocacy research as though it is objective.
I would say my examples don't miss the point -- look at how you need to keep drilling down to try to rationalize why Bond did or did not do something. We don't know that Bond is any more or less aware of security systems in an embassy than in a private cabin. That's another reason why they're not plotholes. A plothole is obvious and immediate. It can't be resolved in any way within the story. We could play the game of rationalizing reasons why someone did or did not do something for eternity, but a plothole simply has no resolution within the logic of the story.
Bond makes a poor choice not to erase the video. People do. This Bond has a track record for such. The writing may be poor, and I would not argue with that, and it may make choices that others would not. But there's nothing within the logic of the story to stop Bond from making those poor choices. Otherwise, in this sense, every villain who never just dispatched Bond outright has created a plothole. Every time Bond identifies himself by name would be a plothole (after all, Tiffany Case recognizes his name from a Playboy Club card). Every time Bond does not use a technology he used in a previous film would be a plothole. Every time M is surprised at this Bond's brashness would be a plothole. And we could continue with decisions characters make that lack "common sense" or perfection.
What we have is weak writing, poor choices, silly contrivances, and, perhaps, an expectation to suspend disbelief beyond what is normally expected. None of which is a true plothole.
This is by an author who has written a few Bond books. But to anyone who knows anything about Rolls-Royce, what Bond says makes complete sense. The thing that bothers me the most about the book is the heavy emphasis on NSNA.
Was it Mr. Benson? I may have some of those. But even if he'd written a few, that wouldn't necessarily make him scholarly.
The other issue is, of course, the editing process. I've published textbooks and can tell you things can get changed without your knowledge, sometimes by graphic designers trying to fit type onto a page, for example, or proofreaders and editors who either miss something or interpret it incorrectly. And the authors themselves are not perfect. Perfection is not the goal. But the difference is there's a process, usually multi-layered, and defined by philosophical understanding. Wikipedia and other user-driven sites often do not have these methods.
I'm talking about Steven Jay Rubin. I have the early 90s edition of his encyclopaedia (not his first), which must be half about Never Say Never Again. He just loves it, and there are two still from it on the cover and none from Connery's proper Bond films. There's so little of Moore in the book. Then I saw his 1995 edition, with a photo of Brosnan in character as Remington Steele (not Bond) on the cover. It's by far the most biased Bond book I have.
I wonder why they included Norway ? )
( only a joke to annoy Number24)
I know
But to answer you anyway, Norway is a major player in Signals Inteligence (SigInt). The largest ship in our navy is actualy a "spyship" (SigInt gathering ship. There is a cordon of listening stations in the country (one of them can be seen in a brief scene in YOLT). The information from Norwegian SigInt was involved even in the sinking of "General Belgrano" in the Falklands war and the search for Bin Laden.
I'm not sure that Bond's "failure" to delete any video recordings of Mr. White was a plot hole or even a mistake.
First, Bond knew that Hinx would be coming, possibly very soon. Bond had to assume that he had very little time to work with.
Second, there was no way to tell how or where Mr. White recorded the video. It could be on a server at a remote location. Bond had no way of knowing how long it would take to find the video or even if he would be successful.
Third, Hinx's assignment was to terminate "The Pale King." After he saw that Mr. White was dead, his assignment was over. There was no reason to spend time viewing video (this may be the actual plot hole) and it would've been reasonable of Bond to assume that he wouldn't.
All in all getting the hell out seems like the best course of action for Bond.
Compared to some of the plot hole whoppers in the last third, I don't see any problem here.
Care to point out the plot holes in the last third? I have to admit that the Mr White hole bothered me so much right from the start that I had trouble concentrating on the rest of the movie!
Care to point out the plot hoes in the last third? I have to admit that the Mr White hole bothered me so much right from the start that I had trouble concentrating on the rest of the movie!
1. Madeline decides to go into the desert with Bond on a suicide mission. Why? What possible motive could she have? Remember, she doesn’t even like Bond at this point.
2. Blofeld was the cause of all of Bond’s other missions in the previous three films. How can that be? Bond was either given the assignment (Casino Royale, SF) or stumbled on it (QOS). And are we supposed to believe that Blofeld engineered everything (including the outcomes) just to get back at Bond? That’s nuts. For example, I thought Silva was going after M because of what she did to him (which makes sense), but it turns out it was really a plot to kill M so as to make Bond unhappy. That’s insane (in a bad way, unlike, say, Goldfinger, which is insane in a good way).
3. Blofeld, the world’s most evil and powerful criminal is mad at James Bond because of Daddy. That’s just pathetic. Blofeld shouldn’t be pathetic.
4. Madeline suddenly a. decides to have sex with Bond and then b. tells him she loves him even though a few hours earlier she seemed to despise him. Plus she’s only known him for about 24-36 hours.
5. What was Blofeld’s plan at the end? Did he assume that Bond would overpower/kill all his henchmen so that he could play out the cat and mouse game? If all he wanted was the cat and mouse game he could’ve just had a henchmen tell Bond that they had his girlfriend in the old MI6 building and James would've come running.
Those are the ones that come to mind. There are probably others.
Overall, there was a lot to like in SP. The acting was great, the movie looked fine. The idea of James Bond turning his back on being an assassin for Queen and Country was an interesting premise and his slow realization that he didn't want to do it anymore was well done. A lot of the set pieces were very good (if a little too long).
I just got the feeling that this was a script that had been reworked too many times. What made sense in version 1.1 no longer made sense by the time you got to the shooting script, version 8.16.
I was hoping for another Casino Royale and I was disappointed when I didn't get it, especailly since this may be Craig's last Bond film.
It's not so much that I argue against Wikipedia as merely state the stance by most people whose primary job is to create the repository of knowledge in the first place -- the scholars. While the computer programmers may create whatever they want to fill with "content," it doesn't make them either the experts or the gatekeepers. It merely makes them the peddlers of more wares.
I'm not faulting you for this, but it does illustrate my point: A descriptive dictionary defines terms as they may be used. A prescriptive dictionary defines things as they are supposed to be used. Knowing the difference is critical to understanding what you will get.
The difference is the former can include permutations on a definition -- informal slang that is not universally accepted yet, for instance -- while the latter sticks to how language is formally defined. Someone not knowing the difference could and often will use them interchangeably, as though there is no difference, which can lead to errors. An example would be using a regional dialectical definition found in the descriptive dictionary that would not work for an audience outside of that region. A prescriptive dictionary would not include that definition.
The same goes for people who don't realize that some thesauruses are organized so that the words offered as synonyms decrease in order of similarity. I have plenty of students who arbitrarily pick the word that "sounds the best" from the end of the list, not realizing that while it is similar to the original word, it may not be an exact match. Then they create fuzzy meanings with their sentences that don't mean what they intend because of the subtle but meaningful shades of difference in definition.
In the same way, people who cherry pick what to use for Wikipedia can misunderstand the nature of the research, misinterpret what they've read, distort the original meaning, or choose research that is biased. For instance, there is something called "advocacy research," which is to say the researcher does the opposite of what is generally considered ethical: enter with a bias they seek to prove through research rather than merely posit a hypothesis to test objectively. But people who don't have a strong background in the field may have no idea and simply use the advocacy research as though it is objective.
I would say my examples don't miss the point -- look at how you need to keep drilling down to try to rationalize why Bond did or did not do something. We don't know that Bond is any more or less aware of security systems in an embassy than in a private cabin. That's another reason why they're not plotholes. A plothole is obvious and immediate. It can't be resolved in any way within the story. We could play the game of rationalizing reasons why someone did or did not do something for eternity, but a plothole simply has no resolution within the logic of the story.
Bond makes a poor choice not to erase the video. People do. This Bond has a track record for such. The writing may be poor, and I would not argue with that, and it may make choices that others would not. But there's nothing within the logic of the story to stop Bond from making those poor choices. Otherwise, in this sense, every villain who never just dispatched Bond outright has created a plothole. Every time Bond identifies himself by name would be a plothole (after all, Tiffany Case recognizes his name from a Playboy Club card). Every time Bond does not use a technology he used in a previous film would be a plothole. Every time M is surprised at this Bond's brashness would be a plothole. And we could continue with decisions characters make that lack "common sense" or perfection.
What we have is weak writing, poor choices, silly contrivances, and, perhaps, an expectation to suspend disbelief beyond what is normally expected. None of which is a true plothole.
We have actually move on from "proscriptive" dictionaries. Language is made by people, and is always changing. You cannot state that X means ABC and expect that this will never change. Whatever definition of plot hole we may adopt, we will then have to define all the words used in the definition... and so on.
Let me ask you something: Bond in Tangiers wears a jacked during the daytime walk - and he doesn't look very warm in it. Then, at night, undressed with windows open, he is sweating. Is that a plot hole in your universe?
It's not so much that I argue against Wikipedia .... a true plothole.
We have actually move on from "proscriptive" dictionaries. Language is made by people, and is always changing. You cannot state that X means ABC and expect that this will never change. Whatever definition of plot hole we may adopt, we will then have to define all the words used in the definition... and so on.
Let me ask you something: Bond in Tangiers wears a jacked during the daytime walk - and he doesn't look very warm in it. Then, at night, undressed with windows open, he is sweating. Is that a plot hole in your universe?
Of course you can. That's why we have scholars and such to make decisions, and why we have tools like descriptive and prescriptive dictionaries. They have been around for decades and decades for precisely that reason. We may live in the age of the amateur because the Internet has given that person a voice, but that is neither a stamp of approval nor a credential. That just means the amateur has a bigger outlet than just their circle of friends for their amateurism. Put another way, anyone may gather up scalpels and such and declare themselves a surgeon. They may even get someone to allow surgery to be performed on them. But this neither authenticates nor certifies them as a surgeon. They're still just an amateur who cuts people and until caught, gets away with it.
In terms of your example, no, i wouldn't consider that a plothole. First off, it has no bearing whatsoever on the plot -- the plot continues unabated. Second, we have no idea why Bond wears a jacket or is later sweating. But, see, that's the beauty of a clear definition on a plothole. The first part doesn't even make the second part necessary. The discussion ends. The only reason to continue is because someone else will now argue minutiae because of their inaccurate definition of the term.
Comments
Here they're setting up our 4G mobile phone Network
So, what where the other countries?
From Wikipedia, there seems to be an actual 9 eyes
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
Although I thought it might have the same countries listed, to
Help answer Number24's question.
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
these are the countries:
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States
Denmark
France,
The Netherlands
Norway.
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
( only a joke to annoy Number24)
Thanks, but I should have made myself clearer. I was asking about the Nine Eyes in SPCETRE. I'm well aware of the real Nine Eyes and its members, in fact I have posted about them earlier.
Oh ok my mistake.
Sorry :007)
http://www.james-bondco.yolasite.com/
First, as a matter of record: many people use Wikipedia, because it's free, it's easily accessible and - it's actually pretty accurate. It's a myth that anyone can write and edit it. The process is actually much more complex than that. and it has been confirmed to be as accurate (more or less) as other encyclopaedias (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm).
But, just in case you don't trust me, is the MacMillan Dictionary good enough? "A plothole is some kind of inconsistency in the plot of a film, book, play or TV show. Plotholes have various manifestations but can include such things as unlikely behaviour of characters, actions or events which contradict earlier elements of the storyline, and events which are impossible, illogical, or happen for no apparent reason." (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/buzzword/entries/plothole.html).
I have James Bond books that are inaccurate. I have one book from before the internet that has many fallacies, like it says that Goldfinger's Rolls-Royce is a a "Phantom 337" rather than a 1937 Phantom III.
Is that a prescriptive or descriptive dictionary?
And I don't see anything that potentially contradicts what I said except the word "unlikely." You would seem to interpret that, for instance, as you just think Bond must by definition be smarter and, therefore, it's a plot hole; I'd suggest that that is not true, as he has not been presented as flawless, and especially since this Bond has made many errors, and there's no reason to believe he won't make one now.
Have we ever seen him erase video before as a matter of course? Did he do so when he shot Mollaka, for instance? Wasn't that a key point in his embarrassing the Secret Service? Did he think about disabling the cameras ahead of time so he wasn't filmed? For that matter, does he ever even stop to wipe his fingerprints from any number of locations? Does he not continue to do reckless things that put both he and the service in jeopardy?
His Bond has been far more reckless than Bonds of the past, especially in an age of digital surveillance. This is the same Bond who kidnaps his boss and takes her to the family home for some unknown reason only to get her killed.
So, I simply don't see it as a plot hole, nor have any colleagues I've discussed it with. In this case, as with Casino Royale, Bond's mistake to not erase the video actually advances the plot because it becomes meaningful later to the story. That may be weak writing in many ways, but it doesn't seem predicated on a plothole.
In terms of unlikely character behavior, though, that's more akin to established traits that seem immutable. It would be like being told the character Data in Star Trek cannot use contractions -- but then the actor uses a contraction in one scene. But even that is miniscule if it has no actual bearing on the plot. That's why it's called a "plot hole" -- a hole in the plot, or a significant error that destroys the internal logic of the actual story. A flaw, a mistake, or an interpretation the audience doesn't agree with is not a plothole. At worst, it's hyperbole, and at best, it is a difference of opinion.
Interestingly, this is what the IMBD (another user driven resource) says about the 337 error: (Note: When Bond refers to the Rolls-Royce as a 'Phantom Three-Thirty-Seven' he was probably referring to it by its type and year, a Phantom 3, '37 (1937). There is no Phantom '337' model, so this type/year reference can be safely assumed, and hence is not a goof.).
This is by an author who has written a few Bond books. But to anyone who knows anything about Rolls-Royce, what Bond says makes complete sense. The thing that bothers me the most about the book is the heavy emphasis on NSNA.
The other issue is, of course, the editing process. I've published textbooks and can tell you things can get changed without your knowledge, sometimes by graphic designers trying to fit type onto a page, for example, or proofreaders and editors who either miss something or interpret it incorrectly. And the authors themselves are not perfect. Perfection is not the goal. But the difference is there's a process, usually multi-layered, and defined by philosophical understanding. Wikipedia and other user-driven sites often do not have these methods.
Should not all reference resources be descriptive and tell you what is? It's 21st century already... It's manuals and instructions' role to be proscriptive and tell you what should be, not the dictionaries'.
Of course, we are not talking about a strictly defined scientific term, even as a literary device the definition of plot hole can be stretched depending on the point of view. So we may both be right, depending on the definition applied. There is a good website dedicated to movie plot holes - http://www.movieplotholes.com/. They don't seem to have Spectre listed yet, but I had a look at what they list as Skyfall's plot holes - and most of them do not even look like plot holes to me!
We may have not seen Bond disable security systems before, but there was no particular reason for him to do so, or he may have done it, but it was not relevant to the plot, so it was not shown. He did not have to protect himself, others, and secret information - until this time. Previously he may have not been aware of security system - this time he was - the camera ensured that the viewers were aware of that. So I'm afraid your examples miss a very important point. And don't forget it was not only Bond acting illogically - so did Mr White, he failed to do the first thing to ensure his daughter's safety, despite apparently it being his no. 1 concern. Can it get any more illogical than that? Not in Spectre, and not in the whole Bond movie universe. That's not being reckless, but criminally irresponsible. I can ignore Mr White - he was dying, depressed, and suicidal - but Bond would have to be a total idiot to do what he did. Back to spy school would be the minimum punishment.
I agree that this mistake advances the story, but I could write it better myself, and the story would advance just as well. And it would be without sacrificing basic common sense for the sake of showing a few gadgets and explosions.
I'm talking about Steven Jay Rubin. I have the early 90s edition of his encyclopaedia (not his first), which must be half about Never Say Never Again. He just loves it, and there are two still from it on the cover and none from Connery's proper Bond films. There's so little of Moore in the book. Then I saw his 1995 edition, with a photo of Brosnan in character as Remington Steele (not Bond) on the cover. It's by far the most biased Bond book I have.
I'm not faulting you for this, but it does illustrate my point: A descriptive dictionary defines terms as they may be used. A prescriptive dictionary defines things as they are supposed to be used. Knowing the difference is critical to understanding what you will get.
The difference is the former can include permutations on a definition -- informal slang that is not universally accepted yet, for instance -- while the latter sticks to how language is formally defined. Someone not knowing the difference could and often will use them interchangeably, as though there is no difference, which can lead to errors. An example would be using a regional dialectical definition found in the descriptive dictionary that would not work for an audience outside of that region. A prescriptive dictionary would not include that definition.
The same goes for people who don't realize that some thesauruses are organized so that the words offered as synonyms decrease in order of similarity. I have plenty of students who arbitrarily pick the word that "sounds the best" from the end of the list, not realizing that while it is similar to the original word, it may not be an exact match. Then they create fuzzy meanings with their sentences that don't mean what they intend because of the subtle but meaningful shades of difference in definition.
In the same way, people who cherry pick what to use for Wikipedia can misunderstand the nature of the research, misinterpret what they've read, distort the original meaning, or choose research that is biased. For instance, there is something called "advocacy research," which is to say the researcher does the opposite of what is generally considered ethical: enter with a bias they seek to prove through research rather than merely posit a hypothesis to test objectively. But people who don't have a strong background in the field may have no idea and simply use the advocacy research as though it is objective.
I would say my examples don't miss the point -- look at how you need to keep drilling down to try to rationalize why Bond did or did not do something. We don't know that Bond is any more or less aware of security systems in an embassy than in a private cabin. That's another reason why they're not plotholes. A plothole is obvious and immediate. It can't be resolved in any way within the story. We could play the game of rationalizing reasons why someone did or did not do something for eternity, but a plothole simply has no resolution within the logic of the story.
Bond makes a poor choice not to erase the video. People do. This Bond has a track record for such. The writing may be poor, and I would not argue with that, and it may make choices that others would not. But there's nothing within the logic of the story to stop Bond from making those poor choices. Otherwise, in this sense, every villain who never just dispatched Bond outright has created a plothole. Every time Bond identifies himself by name would be a plothole (after all, Tiffany Case recognizes his name from a Playboy Club card). Every time Bond does not use a technology he used in a previous film would be a plothole. Every time M is surprised at this Bond's brashness would be a plothole. And we could continue with decisions characters make that lack "common sense" or perfection.
What we have is weak writing, poor choices, silly contrivances, and, perhaps, an expectation to suspend disbelief beyond what is normally expected. None of which is a true plothole.
I know
But to answer you anyway, Norway is a major player in Signals Inteligence (SigInt). The largest ship in our navy is actualy a "spyship" (SigInt gathering ship. There is a cordon of listening stations in the country (one of them can be seen in a brief scene in YOLT). The information from Norwegian SigInt was involved even in the sinking of "General Belgrano" in the Falklands war and the search for Bin Laden.
First, Bond knew that Hinx would be coming, possibly very soon. Bond had to assume that he had very little time to work with.
Second, there was no way to tell how or where Mr. White recorded the video. It could be on a server at a remote location. Bond had no way of knowing how long it would take to find the video or even if he would be successful.
Third, Hinx's assignment was to terminate "The Pale King." After he saw that Mr. White was dead, his assignment was over. There was no reason to spend time viewing video (this may be the actual plot hole) and it would've been reasonable of Bond to assume that he wouldn't.
All in all getting the hell out seems like the best course of action for Bond.
Compared to some of the plot hole whoppers in the last third, I don't see any problem here.
1. Madeline decides to go into the desert with Bond on a suicide mission. Why? What possible motive could she have? Remember, she doesn’t even like Bond at this point.
2. Blofeld was the cause of all of Bond’s other missions in the previous three films. How can that be? Bond was either given the assignment (Casino Royale, SF) or stumbled on it (QOS). And are we supposed to believe that Blofeld engineered everything (including the outcomes) just to get back at Bond? That’s nuts. For example, I thought Silva was going after M because of what she did to him (which makes sense), but it turns out it was really a plot to kill M so as to make Bond unhappy. That’s insane (in a bad way, unlike, say, Goldfinger, which is insane in a good way).
3. Blofeld, the world’s most evil and powerful criminal is mad at James Bond because of Daddy. That’s just pathetic. Blofeld shouldn’t be pathetic.
4. Madeline suddenly a. decides to have sex with Bond and then b. tells him she loves him even though a few hours earlier she seemed to despise him. Plus she’s only known him for about 24-36 hours.
5. What was Blofeld’s plan at the end? Did he assume that Bond would overpower/kill all his henchmen so that he could play out the cat and mouse game? If all he wanted was the cat and mouse game he could’ve just had a henchmen tell Bond that they had his girlfriend in the old MI6 building and James would've come running.
Those are the ones that come to mind. There are probably others.
Overall, there was a lot to like in SP. The acting was great, the movie looked fine. The idea of James Bond turning his back on being an assassin for Queen and Country was an interesting premise and his slow realization that he didn't want to do it anymore was well done. A lot of the set pieces were very good (if a little too long).
I just got the feeling that this was a script that had been reworked too many times. What made sense in version 1.1 no longer made sense by the time you got to the shooting script, version 8.16.
I was hoping for another Casino Royale and I was disappointed when I didn't get it, especailly since this may be Craig's last Bond film.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
To each his own (I am a graduate of the TP course of peace, love and understanding, afterall).
Some people don't like CR, which totally mystifies me, but there you are.
Some people don't like TND, which totally mystifies ME, but there you are.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
We have actually move on from "proscriptive" dictionaries. Language is made by people, and is always changing. You cannot state that X means ABC and expect that this will never change. Whatever definition of plot hole we may adopt, we will then have to define all the words used in the definition... and so on.
Let me ask you something: Bond in Tangiers wears a jacked during the daytime walk - and he doesn't look very warm in it. Then, at night, undressed with windows open, he is sweating. Is that a plot hole in your universe?
In terms of your example, no, i wouldn't consider that a plothole. First off, it has no bearing whatsoever on the plot -- the plot continues unabated. Second, we have no idea why Bond wears a jacket or is later sweating. But, see, that's the beauty of a clear definition on a plothole. The first part doesn't even make the second part necessary. The discussion ends. The only reason to continue is because someone else will now argue minutiae because of their inaccurate definition of the term.