The World Is Not Enough - Plot Questions
DavidJones
BermondseyPosts: 266MI6 Agent
A few questions I have about the nineteenth Bond film, which I hope some of you nice people will be able to help.
The World Is Not Enough has one of the more complex plots of the series, in my view, from the refund for the Russian Atomic Energy Department report to a hijacked nuclear bomb and the attempted destruction of oil pipelines.
When Bond tells M that the refunded money was the same sum as the ransom payment, he said, "Your terrorist is back." But this was the first time Renard was even mentioned. Who should we think he is referring to at this point?
I am unable to pinpoint just how MI6 were so quickly convinced that Renard was behind Electra's kidnapping. Was it that she simply identified him as such after her escape? Would she have been shown photographs of all active terrorists?
I was also interested that Robert King had seen his enemies try to destroy his pipeline even while he was alive. He bought the report to discover who was responsible, but is this ever revealed? As the report was Russian, and their pipeline was in competition with his, King seemed to believe it was their doing.
Bond is later attacked by Russian agents. In the novelization, they're named as the Russian Atomic Energy Department, though in the film they're the Russian Special Service Atomic Energy Anti-Terrorist Unit. I wonder why this connection between them and the report was obscured by this name change. Perhaps because the writers didn't intend for there to be a link?
The World Is Not Enough has one of the more complex plots of the series, in my view, from the refund for the Russian Atomic Energy Department report to a hijacked nuclear bomb and the attempted destruction of oil pipelines.
When Bond tells M that the refunded money was the same sum as the ransom payment, he said, "Your terrorist is back." But this was the first time Renard was even mentioned. Who should we think he is referring to at this point?
I am unable to pinpoint just how MI6 were so quickly convinced that Renard was behind Electra's kidnapping. Was it that she simply identified him as such after her escape? Would she have been shown photographs of all active terrorists?
I was also interested that Robert King had seen his enemies try to destroy his pipeline even while he was alive. He bought the report to discover who was responsible, but is this ever revealed? As the report was Russian, and their pipeline was in competition with his, King seemed to believe it was their doing.
Bond is later attacked by Russian agents. In the novelization, they're named as the Russian Atomic Energy Department, though in the film they're the Russian Special Service Atomic Energy Anti-Terrorist Unit. I wonder why this connection between them and the report was obscured by this name change. Perhaps because the writers didn't intend for there to be a link?
Comments
Maybe I should throw it open to encompass the whole plot and people's opinions of it.
I’m not being unkind or sarcastic here but being utterly honest. The answers to most, if not all of those questions are in the film. Sometimes we miss bits of dialogue or prompts as we get distracted by other things. Or even get bored watching certain scenes and miss dialogue and plot points. This, for you, seems to have been one of those times
Well, thank you for replying, anyway. I appreciate that. And I understand if my questions seemed quite boring or pedantic.
Following your comment, I've seen the film again today (I saw it the other day too, and there have been several other instances in the last twenty years since I saw it's release at the cinema - as a 10 year old seeing 12 cert film!). I've also read the novelization.
I'm thinking maybe Bond's comment to M - "Your terrorist is back" - is a reference to their earlier meeting in London when she told him that terrorists had tried to attack the King pipeline. Alternatively, Bond could be using the term as a synonym for 'kidnapper'. Either way, though, it's pretty vague.
There's a big leap in believing Renard is responsible, and I can't see the joins there at all. In the novelization, Electra's police interview video, which Bond accesses via the Research Department's Visual Library, has her describing Renard as "bald, dark eyes", but though this was a heavy clue, it wasn't seen in the film itself.
There are three competitors to the King pipeline and they all belonged to the Russians, which was why King was so sure it was them behind the attacks. To be honest, that was my mistake as I thought three different pipelines meant three different owners.
I suppose the Russian Atomic Energy Department and Russian Special Service thing is neither he nor there. The fact they're both Russian is all that's important.
One other thing: At the 1:17 mark, as far as MI6 are concerned, the plutonium has blown up a piece of the King pipeline. So what are they supposed to think later when the Bosporus is (as per Electra's plan) contaminated in a nuclear explosion? Perhaps they would rightly assume that they've been tricked and that Renard had kept some of it back?
Anyway, sorry if I've wasted everyone's time. I enjoy espionage fiction and try to understand the geopolitical plots, though I'm not quite clever enough to understand them all easily.