I listened out for this when I saw the film again and I think it was "Ma'am" as in 'marm' which would be something that officers/super-spies etc would use to address a senior female. Could be wrong but thats what I heard.
You are not wrong. I am sure it's "Ma'am". If by some slim chance it isn't "Ma'am" then I will need to get my ears tested as quickly as possible.
I listened out for this when I saw the film again and I think it was "Ma'am" as in 'marm' which would be something that officers/super-spies etc would use to address a senior female. Could be wrong but thats what I heard.
You are not wrong. I am sure it's "Ma'am". If by some slim chance it isn't "Ma'am" then I will need to get my ears tested as quickly as possible.
Ma'am was what I heard and that would be an entirely appropriate way to address a senior female in the service.
How come the number that the text message that Dimitrios sent to Mollaka in Madagascar (at 19.12), when dialled by Bond in Miami, calls Carlos-the-Miami terrorist's phone? The message clearly has the 19.12 time stamp and we've seen Bond take the phone that received that message in Madagascar.
Why, after a late night gambling session/last plane to Miami, is Miami airport/the Bodyworlds exhibition so busy and the launch of a new airliner is occurring? Surely it must be gone 1am?
Why, after a late night gambling session/last plane to Miami, is Miami airport/the Bodyworlds exhibition so busy and the launch of a new airliner is occurring? Surely it must be gone 1am?
Good Point emtiem; although I s'pose we can assume that it wasn't that late when they played cards lets say early evening, approx 6. Bu that would syill mean that they are unveiling a plane between 9 and 10 pm, which still is pretty late.
Plus it must have been past Branson's bedtime !
How come the number that the text message that Dimitrios sent to Mollaka in Madagascar (at 19.12), when dialled by Bond in Miami, calls Carlos-the-Miami terrorist's phone? The message clearly has the 19.12 time stamp and we've seen Bond take the phone that received that message in Madagascar.
He takes Dimitrios's phone from his pocket after he has stabbed him and is that not the phone that he uses to call the bomber?? He scrolls to the sent messages and uses the number to ring the recipient of the message which Dimitrios just sent and that was to the bomber. I think the 19.12 thing must have something to do with the 36hr expiry of Ellipsis ?:)
How come the number that the text message that Dimitrios sent to Mollaka in Madagascar (at 19.12), when dialled by Bond in Miami, calls Carlos-the-Miami terrorist's phone? The message clearly has the 19.12 time stamp and we've seen Bond take the phone that received that message in Madagascar.
He takes Dimitrios's phone from his pocket after he has stabbed him and is that not the phone that he uses to call the bomber?? He scrolls to the sent messages and uses the number to ring the recipient of the message which Dimitrios just sent and that was to the bomber. I think the 19.12 thing must have something to do with the 36hr expiry of Ellipsis ?:)
No- 19.12.22 is the time that the SMS Mollaka receives was sent (from the Ocean Club as we've seen earlier)- it's this text that Bond sees on Dimitrios' phone; and he uses the same text (with 19.12 in vision again) to call a completely different mobile phone.
Why, after a late night gambling session/last plane to Miami, is Miami airport/the Bodyworlds exhibition so busy and the launch of a new airliner is occurring? Surely it must be gone 1am?
Good Point emtiem; although I s'pose we can assume that it wasn't that late when they played cards lets say early evening, approx 6. Bu that would syill mean that they are unveiling a plane between 9 and 10 pm, which still is pretty late.
Plus it must have been past Branson's bedtime !
Haha! Indeed! People on other forums have said Bond's watch reads 11 when he's with Solange, which makes it even harder to understand!
8-) There's only one answer needed to all these questions: Martin Campbell.
It was the same with GoldenEye, a whole slew of non-sequiturs and incongruous stuff that kept this site going for years afterwards. That's Campbell for you... maybe he's doing you all a favour.... )
I've got a million questions about this film, but they can't be answered... who cares? It's only a (rubbish) movie.
Why, after a late night gambling session/last plane to Miami, is Miami airport/the Bodyworlds exhibition so busy and the launch of a new airliner is occurring? Surely it must be gone 1am?
Good Point emtiem; although I s'pose we can assume that it wasn't that late when they played cards lets say early evening, approx 6. Bu that would syill mean that they are unveiling a plane between 9 and 10 pm, which still is pretty late.
Plus it must have been past Branson's bedtime !
Haha! Indeed! People on other forums have said Bond's watch reads 11 when he's with Solange, which makes it even harder to understand!
Would MIA even allow 747s to fly in that late?
Has it occurred to anyone that the arrival at the museum was the following day? Or maybe three days later? How do we know it wasn't? Bond was wearing different clothes. Is that so far-fetched? Do you think that just because we see Bond on the train to Montenegro after speaking to M, that both those things happened the same day?
If the movie was done in real time we'd still be in the theater. They only show what you need to see to follow the story. Besides, as NP says, it's only a movie -- it is possible to overthink these things.
Also, it possible the public "unveiling" wasn't until the next day, but doesn't mean they wouldn't have brought it out of the hangar the night before. Or maybe it was early morning by that time. Who knows?
Good Point emtiem; although I s'pose we can assume that it wasn't that late when they played cards lets say early evening, approx 6. Bu that would syill mean that they are unveiling a plane between 9 and 10 pm, which still is pretty late.
Plus it must have been past Branson's bedtime !
Haha! Indeed! People on other forums have said Bond's watch reads 11 when he's with Solange, which makes it even harder to understand!
Would MIA even allow 747s to fly in that late?
Has it occurred to anyone that the arrival at the museum was the following day? Or maybe three days later? How do we know it wasn't? Bond was wearing different clothes. Is that so far-fetched? Do you think that just because we see Bond on the train to Montenegro after speaking to M, that both those things happened the same day?
It's pretty clearly a 'race against time'; last plane out, 24 hours opening exhibition, gunning the Aston, no time to shag Solange etc. Is Dimitiros wearing different clothes? I can't remember. It's quite implicit that it's supposed to be the same night.
Also, it possible the public "unveiling" wasn't until the next day, but doesn't mean they wouldn't have brought it out of the hangar the night before. Or maybe it was early morning by that time. Who knows?
I expect they did intend it that way, although there are an awful lot of people running out of the way. Plus most international airports I've been to, especially city ones, don't have flights between around midnight and 6am.
As for overthinking it- don't worry! This isn't exactly destroying the movie for me! It's only a bit of fun!
Haha! Indeed! People on other forums have said Bond's watch reads 11 when he's with Solange, which makes it even harder to understand!
Would MIA even allow 747s to fly in that late?
Has it occurred to anyone that the arrival at the museum was the following day? Or maybe three days later? How do we know it wasn't? Bond was wearing different clothes. Is that so far-fetched? Do you think that just because we see Bond on the train to Montenegro after speaking to M, that both those things happened the same day?
It's pretty clearly a 'race against time'; last plane out, 24 hours opening exhibition, gunning the Aston, no time to shag Solange etc. Is Dimitiros wearing different clothes? I can't remember. It's quite implicit that it's supposed to be the same night.
Also, it possible the public "unveiling" wasn't until the next day, but doesn't mean they wouldn't have brought it out of the hangar the night before. Or maybe it was early morning by that time. Who knows?
I expect they did intend it that way, although there are an awful lot of people running out of the way. Plus most international airports I've been to, especially city ones, don't have flights between around midnight and 6am.
As for overthinking it- don't worry! This isn't exactly destroying the movie for me! It's only a bit of fun!
Bond and the audience may have thought it was a race against time, given what Solange told him. But maybe that just happens to be the only flight Demetrius could book.
And who wouldn't gun their Aston Martin? I'd be peeling out of my driveway just to go to the supermarket.
Maybe Bond would have taken Demetrious prisoner --except that he was angry that he missed his chance with Solange. Maybe he was thinking "I thought this a race against time, you SOB" when he stabbed him.
Maybe he forgot to set his watch to local time in the Bahamas?
My only point is that there are a whole lot of things that can happen between cuts that we don't see onscreen, but they're not necessarily non-sequiturs. There are quite a few apparent non-sequiturs in real life, too.
Bond and the audience may have thought it was a race against time, given what Solange told him. But maybe that just happens to be the only flight Demetrius could book.
And who wouldn't gun their Aston Martin? I'd be peeling out of my driveway just to go to the supermarket.
Maybe Bond would have taken Demetrious prisoner --except that he was angry that he missed his chance with Solange. Maybe he was thinking "I thought this a race against time, you SOB" when he stabbed him.
Maybe he forgot to set his watch to local time in the Bahamas?
My only point is that there are a whole lot of things that can happen between cuts that we don't see onscreen, but they're not necessarily non-sequiturs. There are quite a few apparent non-sequiturs in real life, too.
No- sorry; films are much more clear cut by their nature. You can't just say that something else is happening that we aren't seeing. Perhaps M is really Bond's mum? After all- it's not said he isn't onscreen.
It's clear what's supposed to be going on- the music is exciting, the cuts are quick. This is no slow, paceless event taking place over a week. Otherwise the director, editor, composer and actors are lying to us; if so- how can you believe in anything you see?
Has it occurred to anyone that the arrival at the museum was the following day? Or maybe three days later? How do we know it wasn't? Bond was wearing different clothes. Is that so far-fetched?
Wwll the fact that Demeterius rang Solange that night to say he couldn't make it, as he was catching the last flight to Miami, and considering Bond ordered room service Champagne and caviar for one (ie for Solange) - would indicate that it was on the same night or within 4 -5 hours.
Hey come, on we are still in 2006 asking questions about why JB or other did this or that in Goldfinger or Dr No. So I don't think we'll be wrapping up CR by the end of the year, but will still be asking q's in 44 years time !!!
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Even after three viewings this still has got me confused:
After the stairwell fight, Bond cleans up and plays poker for another couple of hours. Vesper is not in attendance. Bond then returns to their suite to find a broken wine glass and Vesper in the shower traumatized after the killings. But why is the glass broken? I can't remember if it was wine or blood on the glass either. But I understand that Vesper was in the shower trying to wash "the blood of her hands." Am I missing something?
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
I get the distinct impression that this was the result of poor editing. I understand that the poker sequence was fairly difficult to cut around, but I felt that there were simply too many things going on at this particular moment. After a bit of action in the stairwell to help Bond get out of his chair, they cut back to the poker game. Just as I was looking forward to Bond actually going against the main villian - whoops! - we have to squeeze Vesper back in and try to pretend there's a budding romance going on, too. It was almost like we were watching the Bond twins inside the hotel alaThe Parent Trap.
I suspect there was much more to that scene which never made the final cut. The scene would have played better IMO had they never shown Bond sit down at the poker table, but rather Bond returning to his room to clean up and hear Vesper in her shock drop the wine glass and he runs to comfort her.
...oh yeah, and drop the vampire-like finger licking.
Oddly, that worked for me just fine, a standout scene in the film IMO.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
It may be because I'm American, but I simply cannot find the humor in the "chocolates" line. Is Swizerland renown for its chocolate? Could it be that simple?
As a side note, we could have done without that dreadful laugh Mendel lets out following that wise crack.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
It may be because I'm American, but I simply cannot find the humor in the "chocolates" line. Is Swizerland renown for its chocolate? Could it be that simple?
As a side note, we could have done without that dreadful laugh Mendel lets out following that wise crack.
From a typical tourist's point of view, Switzerland is known for it's Chocolate and Time pieces (watches and clocks - including the famous cuckoo clock!) - and that's pretty much the majority of the stuff available in most of the shops in Geneva
It may be because I'm American, but I simply cannot find the humor in the "chocolates" line. Is Swizerland renown for its chocolate? Could it be that simple?
As a side note, we could have done without that dreadful laugh Mendel lets out following that wise crack.
I don't know if it's still the case, but "Swiss Chocolate" was used as a selling point in a lot of ads for American candy bars. It's sort of synonymous with "milk chocolate," I think. Chocolate is associated with the Swiss just like Spaghetti is associated with Italians.
It's renowned for "Toblerone" but I wouldn't say it is synonymous with chocolate in general.
Bill Tanner"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
What was going on between Le Chiffre, Mr. White and the Ugandans near the start of the film? There was some sort of dodgy deal, the Ugandans handed over the cash ($150,000,000?) and Le Chiffre or White (can't remember now) made a call to his broker, presumably liquidating his stock in the airline.
But if Le Chiffre or White never invested the money, they didn't lose it. What was the money for, and how was it lost?
And was the money given in exchange for anything? I've only seen the film once.
What was going on between Le Chiffre, Mr. White and the Ugandans near the start of the film? There was some sort of dodgy deal, the Ugandans handed over the cash ($150,000,000?) and Le Chiffre or White (can't remember now) made a call to his broker, presumably liquidating his stock in the airline.
But if Le Chiffre or White never invested the money, they didn't lose it. What was the money for, and how was it lost?
And was the money given in exchange for anything? I've only seen the film once.
I didn't fully understand the Ugandan connection, other than they were 'investors' in White and Le Chiffre's villianous scheme.
The money, as far as I can tell, was invested against the SkyFleet stock...a common practice where investors make money when the stock falls. When the money was invested, the broker says something to the effect..."Are you sure you want to do this? Signs say the stock is going nowhere but up..." They are investing the money, but risk losing it if the stock did indeed go up. Of course, Le Chiffre and Demetrius had plans that that wouldnt happen.
Surprisingly, the whole investment scenario wasn't very clear for me. If my friend (a finance director for a international corporation, and absolute financial wiz) wasn't there to explain it to me, I would have been completely lost. This, to me, is one flaw in the film. Gone, apparently, are the days of Bond and M sitting at a dinner table and explaining to the audience the details of gold, diamonds, priceless art, or in this case, investing against stocks.
Gone, apparently, are the days of Bond and M sitting at a dinner table and explaining to the audience the details of gold, diamonds, priceless art
LOL , Ah, I learnt so much in those days, about wine, caviar, gold ... and when in the field, Liquid Oxygen, Sulphur, etc. They'd always have a character who didn't understand what a certain term was (very cleverly disguised by the fact the person didn't have a good command of English or it was a very technical term) and when explained to them, it was explained to us !
What was going on between Le Chiffre, Mr. White and the Ugandans near the start of the film? There was some sort of dodgy deal, the Ugandans handed over the cash ($150,000,000?) and Le Chiffre or White (can't remember now) made a call to his broker, presumably liquidating his stock in the airline.
But if Le Chiffre or White never invested the money, they didn't lose it. What was the money for, and how was it lost?
And was the money given in exchange for anything? I've only seen the film once.
I didn't fully understand the Ugandan connection, other than they were 'investors' in White and Le Chiffre's villianous scheme.
The money, as far as I can tell, was invested against the SkyFleet stock...a common practice where investors make money when the stock falls. When the money was invested, the broker says something to the effect..."Are you sure you want to do this? Signs say the stock is going nowhere but up..." They are investing the money, but risk losing it if the stock did indeed go up. Of course, Le Chiffre and Demetrius had plans that that wouldnt happen.
Surprisingly, the whole investment scenario wasn't very clear for me. If my friend (a finance director for a international corporation, and absolute financial wiz) wasn't there to explain it to me, I would have been completely lost. This, to me, is one flaw in the film. Gone, apparently, are the days of Bond and M sitting at a dinner table and explaining to the audience the details of gold, diamonds, priceless art, or in this case, investing against stocks.
Le Chiffre was attempting to make money off the "short stock" of the airline. Prototype blows up, airline stocks go down, he makes money. Basically a bet against a stock going up.
I'm no stock wiz, so I leave it to Motley Fool to explain:
An investor who sells stock short borrows shares from a brokerage house and sells them to another buyer. Proceeds from the sale go into the shorter's account. He must buy those shares back (cover) at some point in time and return them to the lender.
Thus, if you sell short 1000 shares of Gardner's Gondolas at $20 a share, your account gets credited with $20,000. If the boats start sinking---since David Gardner, founder and CEO of VENI, knows nothing about their design---and the stock follows suit, tumbling to new lows, then you will start thinking about "covering" your short there for a very nice profit. Here's the record of transactions if the stock falls to $8.
Borrowed and Sold Short 1000 shares at $20: +$20,000
Bought back and returned 1000 shares at $8: -$8,000
Profit: + $12,000
But what happens if as the stock is falling, Tom Gardner, boatsmen extraordinaire, takes over the company at his brother's behest, and the holes and leaks are covered. As the stock begins to takes off, from $14 to $19 to $26 to $37, you finally decide that you'd better swallow hard and close out the transaction. You do so, buying back shares of TOMY (new ticker symbol) at $37.
Here's the record of transaction:
Borrowed and sold short 1000 shares at $20: +$20,000
Bought back and returned 1000 shares at $37: -$37,000
Loss: -$17,000
Ouch. So you see, in the second scenario, when I, your nemesis, took over the company, you lost $17,000...which you'll have to come up with. There's the danger....you have to be able to buy back the shares that you initially borrowed and sold. Whether the price is higher or lower, you're going to need to buy back the shares at some point in time.
----
There's more in the article if you're interested in how the whole thing works.
It may be because I'm American, but I simply cannot find the humor in the "chocolates" line. Is Swizerland renown for its chocolate? Could it be that simple?
As a side note, we could have done without that dreadful laugh Mendel lets out following that wise crack.
I love the look that DC gives at this point, *almost* like an aside to the camera/audience with a little smile - not sure it was quite directed that way but I'm glad it made the final cut!!
Bill Tanner"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
Le Chiffre was attempting to make money off the "short stock" of the airline. Prototype blows up, airline stocks go down, he makes money. Basically a bet against a stock going up.
----
There's more in the article if you're interested in how the whole thing works.
My brain hurts reading all this. Did it really need to be so complicated?
Gone, apparently, are the days of Bond and M sitting at a dinner table and explaining to the audience the details of gold, diamonds, priceless art, or in this case, investing against stocks.
this is very true, its a flaw in the film and not just in regards to the airline stock speculation
the film assumes we all know how stock markets work going in, maybe because playing the market became so trendy over the last decade (remember in the late 90s, when people in suits would supposedly get hot stock tips off the wellconnected bike courier sharing the elevator with them?)
the film also assumes we all know the rules of poker, again presumably because its a trendy game and what kind of loser isnt hip to Poker?
same with the Lords Resistance Army, which I note many viewers assumed to be a fictitious organization
all the oldfashioned exposition was left out of the script, requiring us to put the plot together ourselves and assuming we bring in the necesarry background information ourselves
all the detective work Bond did with celphones and GPS also was left unexplained
I also thought the freerunning and bodyworlds sequences were plotelements ripped from the headlines, possibly the result of some committee scanning the papers to see what was hep this year, and that these sequences may not make any sense to viewers 20 years from now
I guess somebody thought that dating the film which such instantly forgotton trendiosities was preferable to confusing modern viewers with longforgotton 1950s history
Here's my simple way of thinking of it: Le Chiffre was supposed to bank the Ugandan's money in a no-risk portfolio, so dude could earn some interest on all his loot. Le Chiffre instead used the money in a stock scam that backfired (due to Bond's intervention ).
I'm no math wizz/stock market player, but if somebody lost $100 mil of MY money, I might go after them with a machete...:o
Comments
You are not wrong. I am sure it's "Ma'am". If by some slim chance it isn't "Ma'am" then I will need to get my ears tested as quickly as possible.
Ma'am was what I heard and that would be an entirely appropriate way to address a senior female in the service.
Why, after a late night gambling session/last plane to Miami, is Miami airport/the Bodyworlds exhibition so busy and the launch of a new airliner is occurring? Surely it must be gone 1am?
Good Point emtiem; although I s'pose we can assume that it wasn't that late when they played cards lets say early evening, approx 6. Bu that would syill mean that they are unveiling a plane between 9 and 10 pm, which still is pretty late.
Plus it must have been past Branson's bedtime !
He takes Dimitrios's phone from his pocket after he has stabbed him and is that not the phone that he uses to call the bomber?? He scrolls to the sent messages and uses the number to ring the recipient of the message which Dimitrios just sent and that was to the bomber. I think the 19.12 thing must have something to do with the 36hr expiry of Ellipsis ?:)
No- 19.12.22 is the time that the SMS Mollaka receives was sent (from the Ocean Club as we've seen earlier)- it's this text that Bond sees on Dimitrios' phone; and he uses the same text (with 19.12 in vision again) to call a completely different mobile phone.
Haha! Indeed! People on other forums have said Bond's watch reads 11 when he's with Solange, which makes it even harder to understand!
Would MIA even allow 747s to fly in that late?
It was the same with GoldenEye, a whole slew of non-sequiturs and incongruous stuff that kept this site going for years afterwards. That's Campbell for you... maybe he's doing you all a favour....
I've got a million questions about this film, but they can't be answered... who cares? It's only a (rubbish) movie.
imo, of course....
I wonder what The Cat makes of it? Come in, Cat!!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Has it occurred to anyone that the arrival at the museum was the following day? Or maybe three days later? How do we know it wasn't? Bond was wearing different clothes. Is that so far-fetched? Do you think that just because we see Bond on the train to Montenegro after speaking to M, that both those things happened the same day?
If the movie was done in real time we'd still be in the theater. They only show what you need to see to follow the story. Besides, as NP says, it's only a movie -- it is possible to overthink these things.
Also, it possible the public "unveiling" wasn't until the next day, but doesn't mean they wouldn't have brought it out of the hangar the night before. Or maybe it was early morning by that time. Who knows?
It's pretty clearly a 'race against time'; last plane out, 24 hours opening exhibition, gunning the Aston, no time to shag Solange etc. Is Dimitiros wearing different clothes? I can't remember. It's quite implicit that it's supposed to be the same night.
I expect they did intend it that way, although there are an awful lot of people running out of the way. Plus most international airports I've been to, especially city ones, don't have flights between around midnight and 6am.
As for overthinking it- don't worry! This isn't exactly destroying the movie for me! It's only a bit of fun!
Bond and the audience may have thought it was a race against time, given what Solange told him. But maybe that just happens to be the only flight Demetrius could book.
And who wouldn't gun their Aston Martin? I'd be peeling out of my driveway just to go to the supermarket.
Maybe Bond would have taken Demetrious prisoner --except that he was angry that he missed his chance with Solange. Maybe he was thinking "I thought this a race against time, you SOB" when he stabbed him.
Maybe he forgot to set his watch to local time in the Bahamas?
My only point is that there are a whole lot of things that can happen between cuts that we don't see onscreen, but they're not necessarily non-sequiturs. There are quite a few apparent non-sequiturs in real life, too.
No- sorry; films are much more clear cut by their nature. You can't just say that something else is happening that we aren't seeing. Perhaps M is really Bond's mum? After all- it's not said he isn't onscreen.
It's clear what's supposed to be going on- the music is exciting, the cuts are quick. This is no slow, paceless event taking place over a week. Otherwise the director, editor, composer and actors are lying to us; if so- how can you believe in anything you see?
After the stairwell fight, Bond cleans up and plays poker for another couple of hours. Vesper is not in attendance. Bond then returns to their suite to find a broken wine glass and Vesper in the shower traumatized after the killings. But why is the glass broken? I can't remember if it was wine or blood on the glass either. But I understand that Vesper was in the shower trying to wash "the blood of her hands." Am I missing something?
-Roger Moore
I suspect there was much more to that scene which never made the final cut. The scene would have played better IMO had they never shown Bond sit down at the poker table, but rather Bond returning to his room to clean up and hear Vesper in her shock drop the wine glass and he runs to comfort her.
...oh yeah, and drop the vampire-like finger licking.
As a side note, we could have done without that dreadful laugh Mendel lets out following that wise crack.
-Roger Moore
From a typical tourist's point of view, Switzerland is known for it's Chocolate and Time pieces (watches and clocks - including the famous cuckoo clock!) - and that's pretty much the majority of the stuff available in most of the shops in Geneva
I don't know if it's still the case, but "Swiss Chocolate" was used as a selling point in a lot of ads for American candy bars. It's sort of synonymous with "milk chocolate," I think. Chocolate is associated with the Swiss just like Spaghetti is associated with Italians.
But if Le Chiffre or White never invested the money, they didn't lose it. What was the money for, and how was it lost?
And was the money given in exchange for anything? I've only seen the film once.
I didn't fully understand the Ugandan connection, other than they were 'investors' in White and Le Chiffre's villianous scheme.
The money, as far as I can tell, was invested against the SkyFleet stock...a common practice where investors make money when the stock falls. When the money was invested, the broker says something to the effect..."Are you sure you want to do this? Signs say the stock is going nowhere but up..." They are investing the money, but risk losing it if the stock did indeed go up. Of course, Le Chiffre and Demetrius had plans that that wouldnt happen.
Surprisingly, the whole investment scenario wasn't very clear for me. If my friend (a finance director for a international corporation, and absolute financial wiz) wasn't there to explain it to me, I would have been completely lost. This, to me, is one flaw in the film. Gone, apparently, are the days of Bond and M sitting at a dinner table and explaining to the audience the details of gold, diamonds, priceless art, or in this case, investing against stocks.
Le Chiffre was attempting to make money off the "short stock" of the airline. Prototype blows up, airline stocks go down, he makes money. Basically a bet against a stock going up.
I'm no stock wiz, so I leave it to Motley Fool to explain:
http://www.fool.com/FoolFAQ/FoolFAQ0033.htm
An investor who sells stock short borrows shares from a brokerage house and sells them to another buyer. Proceeds from the sale go into the shorter's account. He must buy those shares back (cover) at some point in time and return them to the lender.
Thus, if you sell short 1000 shares of Gardner's Gondolas at $20 a share, your account gets credited with $20,000. If the boats start sinking---since David Gardner, founder and CEO of VENI, knows nothing about their design---and the stock follows suit, tumbling to new lows, then you will start thinking about "covering" your short there for a very nice profit. Here's the record of transactions if the stock falls to $8.
Borrowed and Sold Short 1000 shares at $20: +$20,000
Bought back and returned 1000 shares at $8: -$8,000
Profit: + $12,000
But what happens if as the stock is falling, Tom Gardner, boatsmen extraordinaire, takes over the company at his brother's behest, and the holes and leaks are covered. As the stock begins to takes off, from $14 to $19 to $26 to $37, you finally decide that you'd better swallow hard and close out the transaction. You do so, buying back shares of TOMY (new ticker symbol) at $37.
Here's the record of transaction:
Borrowed and sold short 1000 shares at $20: +$20,000
Bought back and returned 1000 shares at $37: -$37,000
Loss: -$17,000
Ouch. So you see, in the second scenario, when I, your nemesis, took over the company, you lost $17,000...which you'll have to come up with. There's the danger....you have to be able to buy back the shares that you initially borrowed and sold. Whether the price is higher or lower, you're going to need to buy back the shares at some point in time.
----
There's more in the article if you're interested in how the whole thing works.
I love the look that DC gives at this point, *almost* like an aside to the camera/audience with a little smile - not sure it was quite directed that way but I'm glad it made the final cut!!
My brain hurts reading all this. Did it really need to be so complicated?
Yes. It's a common trick since OP. Confuse or baffle the audience and they'll go along with it pretty much unquestioningly.
See also conflict diamonds in DAD.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
the film assumes we all know how stock markets work going in, maybe because playing the market became so trendy over the last decade (remember in the late 90s, when people in suits would supposedly get hot stock tips off the wellconnected bike courier sharing the elevator with them?)
the film also assumes we all know the rules of poker, again presumably because its a trendy game and what kind of loser isnt hip to Poker?
same with the Lords Resistance Army, which I note many viewers assumed to be a fictitious organization
all the oldfashioned exposition was left out of the script, requiring us to put the plot together ourselves and assuming we bring in the necesarry background information ourselves
all the detective work Bond did with celphones and GPS also was left unexplained
I also thought the freerunning and bodyworlds sequences were plotelements ripped from the headlines, possibly the result of some committee scanning the papers to see what was hep this year, and that these sequences may not make any sense to viewers 20 years from now
I guess somebody thought that dating the film which such instantly forgotton trendiosities was preferable to confusing modern viewers with longforgotton 1950s history
I'm no math wizz/stock market player, but if somebody lost $100 mil of MY money, I might go after them with a machete...:o