Problems with time in SPECTRE

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

So the way it happened isn't accurate, but with a different spacecraft design one spacecraft could have swallowed another. Story-wise, the concept isn't impossible. It was just executed inaccurately.

Oh, it could absolutely be done---it's outlandish, to be sure, and the expense of designing, testing, launching and recovering such a craft would be mind-bending.

Elon Musk's Space X is only now getting close to vertically landing a rocket on earth, however, but hasn't managed it yet, and it's an unmanned operation as they daren't risk a human being. And, of course, if SPECTRE could vertically land a manned spacecraft ('powered descent') that had swallowed another, AND do it inside a hollowed-out volcano, there would be considerably more flame/thrust exhaust than the cute little trickle of fire in YOLT's miniature

I love James Bond! :007)

Gala Brand

No, it's physically impossible to "catch up" with an object in the same orbit. It is possible to intercept an object from below, the same as a missile intercepting a plane overhead (although it's way more complicated than that). Basically, the Soyuz gets into an orbit slightly below the space station then as the space station is it about to pass it slows slightly with an application of retro-rockets and moves higher and intercepts the space station. It never orbits at the same altitude as shown in YOLT.

Gala Brand

Chriscoop wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

Yes and bonds decision to take m to the remote, desolate skyfall as the best place to protect her, as opposed to Chelsea barracks or Hereford! Even Churchills old wartime bunker would have been a better bet.

They went to a deserted part of Scotland 1. in order to stop Silva from continuing to wreak havoc in London and continuing to kill civilians; and 2. get Silva to a place where his advanced technical skills would be useless.

I think this was pretty obvious to anybody who actually saw the movie

There was no intimation that Silva was going to wreak any more havoc in London. His plan was foiled and he'd fled the scene after his botched assassination attempt, I've watched Sf maybe 10-15 times and really enjoyed it, I'm huge DC fan but I can still discuss glaring flaws and taking m to Scotland is one. Let's also not forget how long ago yolt was made, it's easy to pick faults with films of such vintage. They didn't have the benefit of the knowledge and technology we do today! Of course we had to see the spacecraft bring swallowed up as it's a film and artistic licence runs supreme.

Really, you think Silva was going to just give up? It's explicitly discussed in the movie that he was going to continue to try to kill M and continue to put civilian lives at risk.

Loeffelholz

You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).

Gala Brand

Loeffelholz wrote:

You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).

Yes. They could have shown it properly in YOLT and it would've been just as dramatic, like a shark rising from the depths. I think when it came to YOLT Cubby didn't care about reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Loeffelholz

Gala Brand wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

You can do it from a higher orbit as well; it's all about creating an elliptical orbit that intercepts the target object at the correct time, burning to match velocity, and then maneuvering to dock (or swallow, LOL).

Yes. They could have shown it properly in YOLT and it would've been just as dramatic, like a shark rising from the depths. I think when it came to YOLT Cubby didn't care about reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

Haha, righto! {[]

Matt S

Gala Brand wrote:

No, it's physically impossible to "catch up" with an object in the same orbit. It is possible to intercept an object from below, the same as a missile intercepting a plane overhead (although it's way more complicated than that). Basically, the Soyuz gets into an orbit slightly below the space station then as the space station is it about to pass it slows slightly with an application of retro-rockets and moves higher and intercepts the space station. It never orbits at the same altitude as shown in YOLT.

As I said, it was just executed inaccurately. So you agree that it's not impossible for one spacecraft to intercept another, right? That's what matters, because without thinking of exactly how it is done, it could be possible.

Gala Brand

All I said was that it was impossible for an object in orbit to "catch up" with another object in the same orbit as we see in YOLT.

Matt S

Gala Brand wrote:

All I said was that it was impossible for an object in orbit to "catch up" with another object in the same orbit as we see in YOLT.

Then let's just disagree to agree on this.

Thunderpussy

I'd guess the average movie fan ( like myself). Wouldn't know all the details and facts
about "orbits", weightlessness due to "free falling " as opposed to no gravity, so if we
see it on screen then it's possible. Movie science is the best science.

Loeffelholz

Thunderpussy wrote:

I'd guess the average movie fan ( like myself). Wouldn't know all the details and facts
about "orbits", weightlessness due to "free falling " as opposed to no gravity, so if we
see it on screen then it's possible. Movie science is the best science.

True - YOLT's charm resides more in its audacity than in its verisimilitude ) It's just fun to bust out some orbital mechanics on a James Bond fan site

Thunderpussy

Recently watched Revenge of the Sith, ( getting ready for the new Star Wars), great film,
and the opening space fight sequence ( which I thought was amazing). A friend who is in to
science, pointed out all the mistakes

Chriscoop

Gala Brand wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

They went to a deserted part of Scotland 1. in order to stop Silva from continuing to wreak havoc in London and continuing to kill civilians; and 2. get Silva to a place where his advanced technical skills would be useless.

I think this was pretty obvious to anybody who actually saw the movie

There was no intimation that Silva was going to wreak any more havoc in London. His plan was foiled and he'd fled the scene after his botched assassination attempt, I've watched Sf maybe 10-15 times and really enjoyed it, I'm huge DC fan but I can still discuss glaring flaws and taking m to Scotland is one. Let's also not forget how long ago yolt was made, it's easy to pick faults with films of such vintage. They didn't have the benefit of the knowledge and technology we do today! Of course we had to see the spacecraft bring swallowed up as it's a film and artistic licence runs supreme.

Really, you think Silva was going to just give up? It's explicitly discussed in the movie that he was going to continue to try to kill M and continue to put civilian lives at risk.

I didn't say he was going to give up! I'm simply saying that even thinking m could be defended by one man in a house in the middle of no where is a leap. And as unrealistic as your space ship swallowing in yolt....thats all. But I find it a hugely enjoyable film and to be honest tend to forgive bond his foibles despite how unrealistic/scientifically improbable, I can't believe we've entered an astrodynamics conversation on a bond forum?? There must be a new star films out or something.

Loeffelholz

Chriscoop wrote:

I can't believe we've entered an astrodynamics conversation on a bond forum?? There must be a new star films out or something.

) My point that the space capsule swallowing is exponentially more probable than the dainty powered descent back into the volcano...but either works better for me than Bond's assault on the villain's lair in a hot air balloon in OP ) It just all boils down to taste in OTT escapism.

Chriscoop

I agree wholeheartedly, there are varying degrees of realism and implausibility across the bond films, I enjoy them all but dobprefer the more realistic tone of Craig and Daltons films but still enjoy them all as a movie experience in the spirit they've been made (plotholes and laws of orbit included)

Matt S

I have an easier time accepting implausibilities in Connery's and Moore's Bond films because the films have a campy tone. Craig's films, on the other hand, have a realistic tone, and to me that makes implausibilities more of a problem. The tone of Craig's first three films is telling me to take the films seriously. Starting with GF, Connery's films aren't telling me I should take them seriously.

Loeffelholz

Matt S wrote:

I have an easier time accepting implausibilities in Connery's and Moore's Bond films because the films have a campy tone. Craig's films, on the other hand, have a realistic tone, and to me that makes implausibilities more of a problem. The tone of Craig's first three films is telling me to take the films seriously. Starting with GF, Connery's films aren't telling me I should take them seriously.

I can understand that POV...but I tend to go picture by picture. Connery's Bonds shifted tone with GF, and it was apparent with the fake duck on Bond's head in the PTS. Similarly, Craig's Bond shifted tone with SP, and it was apparent with the sofa bit in the PTS. It's the shift in tone in the 3rd act of SP back to more serious, whilst retaining the implausibilities, that causes some to not like it as much, which is totally fair.

chrisisall

Loeffelholz wrote:

It's the shift in tone in the 3rd act of SP back to more serious, whilst retaining the implausibilities, that causes some to not like it as much, which is totally fair.

This I cannot argue against, even if it doesn't bother me at all.

Jag

If we can have such shifts between movies, even with the same actor, then I do not see why not allow them within a single movie too. The less serious elements are there for a reason - they break up the serious tone from time to time, and viewers love them. They're also what typically distinguished 007 from other action films.

Loeffelholz

There is generally a nicely delicate balance in the best and most successful Bonds, of course. No Bond film is 100% grim and gritty, or 100% dinner theatre farce. I do prefer a thematic/tonal cohesion within a film, but concede that others do not. OP, for example, leaps from deadly serious to absurd comedy from scene to scene, and that's fine for many, but not my taste. SP's writing does not manage this especially well, which I think hurt it overall.

Jag

You can't do everything well all the time. It's a credit to SP that it finally attempted humour, which has been almost absent for over a decade. After such a long time it will take the producers some time (and a few movies) to re-learn the skill. Either that, or they will have to employ comedy script writers and directors, but I'm not sure we'd like to see that... Where SP lets me down is not that it tries to be funny, but that it clashes with previous movies with the same Bond actor, which established him as serious and non-funny - while at the same time trying to link all those movies together.

chrisisall

Which makes Craig's tenure consistent with other tenures in its inconsistency. -{

Matt S

chrisisall wrote:

Wich makes Craig's tenure consistent with other tenures in its inconsistency. -{

True. It goes along with Dalton and Brosnan. At least with Moore and Connery you could group their films by director, and I feel like the directors were more consistent with their output. Though I'd put GF and YOLT together and then group DAF with Moore's first two.

Jag

I think Moore's movies were the most consistent in this regard, though of course the ratio of humour varied depending on the script and the director.