On the trail of Patrice
SeanIsTheOnlyOne
Posts: 453MI6 Agent
Hi everyone,
In Skyfall, when Bond returns to MI6, he extracts some fragments of the bullet Patrice put in his chest in Istanbul. Then, he gives it to Tanner to have them analysed, to finally find out there are only three professional killers using this kind of ammunition.
Whatever M decided to do with Ronson's body (repatriation or not), an autopsy must have been done anyway, and the same fragments must have been found. Given Moneypenny saw Patrice in Istanbul, she also must have been able to identify him, just like Bond does when Tanner shows him the three faces on his screen.
So how did MI6 work during the three months between Istanbul and Bond's return ? They had a giant clue under their nose and the fact Bond is left for dead shouldn't be an excuse for not finding the killer, unless Ronson was killed with a standard bullet, something I strongly doubt. After all, why would Patrice use different kinds of ammunition while his main assignment was to steal the list ?
I guess this is a big plot issue Purvis and Wade didn't anticipate.
Comments
We have no idea how things went down with Ronson…Patrice could have turned Ronson’s own gun on him…makes no odds what we think, we just don’t know 🤷🏻♂️
However…
Can’t fault your reasoning with Moneypenny being able to identify Patrice… 🤗
But…you know…film ☺️
And I’m not sure P&W are bothered about ‘plot holes’ 🙄🫣
It is never explained how Ronson was injured. Patrice could have stabbed him, shot him with another gun (even Ronson's own gun), used an explosive etc.
I just watched the scene with Moneypenny taking "the bloody shot". She only looks at Patrice's face for a split second just before he goes into the tunnel. He is aboard a moving train and she is probably in shock from having shot Bond. Both of these factors would make it hard for her to create a visual memory of Patrice's face.
Considering that she gets somewhat "demoted" to a desk job later in the film suggests that MI6 realise that she is an unreliable field agent.
Don't forget Moneypenny gets close enough to Patrice before he jumps on the train.
Furthermore, there are only three profiles on Tanner's screen, and Moneypenny could have given a hand considering one of them doesn't match for an obvious reason I'm sure anyone can guess. It means there are only two candidates remaining. M could have sent two 00 agents on their trail during Bond's absence...
I just checked out the scene. I guess you mean when Moneypenny shoots at Patrice on the bridge. There's a distance of about 30 metres - I don't know if that would count as close enough.
There is also the possibility that MI6 had already taken out suspects who matched the profile that Moneypenny possibly gave after the incident. So while we only see 3 candidates on Tanner's screen, there may have been many more who the MI6 had already identified and had already terminated in the 3 months.
Also such a database would constantly be changing based on new evidence found. It could be that Patrice was originally confirmed mistakenly dead therefore MI6 would have not classified him as a potential target. It is possible that MI6 realised their mistake later based on new evidence that he was possibly still alive and therefore put him back on the database prior to Bond removing the bullet fragments from his chest.
If that sounds far-fetched, the CIA made that mistake in real life with a real guy named "Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti" when they were trying to locate Osama Bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ahmed_al-Kuwaiti
The CIA believed Abu Ahmed had been killed in 2001 until new evidence emerged that he was in fact still alive and by tracking his movements up to 2011, the American government was able to find Bin Laden. I learned this from the film "Zero Dark Thirty".
I'm not saying MI6 can't make mistakes, but the list on Tanner's screen is supposed to show the number of suspects using this kind of ammunition is quite restricted because of the rarity and the price. From this point, it's not incredible to think there are enough 00 agents remaining to investigate.
With this "different weapon used to kill Ronson and the other guys in station T" theory, I dislike the fact Bond is the only key of the problem. How convenient plotwise !
If Bond had died in Istanbul, Silva would have probably released another clue leading to him. After all, he deliberately aimed to be captured by some MI6 agent and I hardly believe he relied on Bond specifically to accomplish that. His main target is M, not the agent hired for the job.
Do you see my point ?
As it is implied in the film that Silva has already infiltrated MI6's security systems for some time, he could have manipulated the data in the MI6 databases so that Patrice was not an immediately obvious suspect in Istanbul.
It could be possible that he put other suspects who looked like Patrice into the database and added fake information to their bios such as using the same kind of ammunition that Patrice used in Istanbul. Moneypenny would say that some of these suspects looked like Patrice but could never be 100% sure as she only saw his face directly at two brief moments during the whole sequence of events in Istanbul.
So MI6 hunt down these suspects believing they may have already killed the correct individual. But as I said sometimes mistakes are made and MI6 are never completely sure that they really got the right man.
Once Bond returns to MI6, he plays into Silva's hands since Silva can lay the trap to lead Bond to him. Once Bond hands in the bullet fragments to MI6, Silva probably manipulates the database so Bond can easily identify Patrice. This would also entice M since she also wanted to find the killer responsible for Ronson's death.
I don't think Silva planned every single detail like your comment seems to imply, otherwise he would have chosen the proper moment to have Patrice stealing the hard drive, without Bond and Moneypenny around.
I appreciate your effort to explain things (also on other topics I created), but I deeply think you overestimate the ability of the screenwriters to build very strong stories without any plot hole. There are very disturbing elements in some of them, and I'm sorry not to buy your theories. I'd like, but I'm just not convinced.
I definitely think I try to solve plot holes much more than what is necessary and definitely go beyond the scope of what the screenwriters intended. But i don't see anything wrong with that. We are here to have an open discussion about aspects of the films and I feel exploring some ideas and discussing these can lead to people viewing the films in different ways (both positively and negatively).
I personally think discussing possible explanations and ideas is a more productive way to having a forum as opposed to saying something like "There was a plothole in this film. Aren't the screenwriters stupid for doing that?". I find threads that go along those lines don't really lead to anything productive and useful.
Just to go back to Silva and Patrice of this thread:
Maybe the harddrive was something that went unnoticed by Silva and he only discovered that it was in Istanbul a short time before the events of the film. So he sends Patrice to recover the harddrive so he can use it later to toy with M.
Also if Patrice did in fact use his own ammunition to wound Ronson, Silva could have manipulated the ballistic evidence recovered from Ronson's body and the train to rule out that it was ammunition used by Patrice. He could have changed depleted "urnanium" shell to depleted "plutonium" shell.
Once Silva knows Bond has returned to MI6, he possibly starts planning a way to lead him to find Patrice and therefore to Silva himself. Bond just so happens to hand in the bullet fragments and so Silva uses this as a way to set up the trail.
Ok but in your theory, everything seems justified by the fact Silva can do everything just because he's a hacker, something I find very convenient plotwise. But that's just me and the way I see things. And yes, I truly believe writing is a very difficult task, and that's why I think someone like Anthony Horowitz, who wrote three wonderful continuation novels, would do an extraordinary job if he was hired to write a Bond film.
And don't be mistaken. I really appreciate your effort. It's very nice to read comments with original and personal theories.
Because movie.
sinum said:
I definitely think I try to solve plot holes much more than what is necessary and definitely go beyond the scope of what the screenwriters intended. But i don't see anything wrong with that. We are here to have an open discussion about aspects of the films and I feel exploring some ideas and discussing these can lead to people viewing the films in different ways (both positively and negatively).
I personally think discussing possible explanations and ideas is a more productive way to having a forum as opposed to saying something like "There was a plothole in this film. Aren't the screenwriters stupid for doing that?". I find threads that go along those lines don't really lead to anything productive and useful.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
this is all beyond me as I never thought so much about the movie in the first place. But I applaud you efforts to make the onscreen evidence add up to a story that works for you
moviemaking is an illusion where a large number of small scenes featuring actors in makeup running round stagesets is intended to be perceived by the audience as a seamless narrative with a beginning middle and end. Quite a lot of that narrative is the result of what the viewer constructs in their minds from the sequence of images presented, and we make a lot of assumptions.
modern filmmaking is so overcomplicated with multiple rewrites, flashy edits, multiple simultaneous timelines, experiments in chronology, and the prioritization of CGI over acting and dialog, most recent films are incoherent when examined too closely. it is left up to us to create the narrative that explains what we think we saw, and each of us will have perceived that slightly different.
and someone who can come up with a good explanation for seeming errors should be rewarded, not least by the artists themselves (as you are doing their work for them). In the 1960s, when a Marvel comics reader not only spotted a continuity error but also proposed a good explanation, Stan Lee would send that reader a genuine NoPrize!
It's super easy - barely an inconvenience!