26

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:

We simply don't have all the information. I expect that information will be forthcoming in Bond 22. If not, then it would certainly be fair to call them holes, but only then. I kind of like the fact there there's all this mystery to the ending. The people who want easy explanations are missing the point, I think. It's supposed to be obscure. I'm willing to go with it.

I certainly hope you are right. I would love to watch Bond 22 and have everything clarified. I simply don't have a lot of faith in P&W, since I have always felt that the motivation of their characters tends to be based on what looks best in the scene and not necessarily what is going on in the undercurrents of the story.

I suppose I'm old-school, but I tend to think that a story should be a revelation of the different events, predicated by the convergence of the motivations of the different characters, and that the beauty of the story is in seeing the resolution of the conflicts within that convergence in a unique and well-crafted manner.

What I refer to as 'plot holes' are, to me, unexplained events which are key to the story. For you, they are 'mysteries' to be uncovered in the following 'chapter.'

My greatest fear is the CR (and subsequent films) will be much like the Star Wars prequels, in which, after I watched Attack of the Clones was waiting for some strong answers to explain the divergent character motivations, but it never happened.

27

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

I suppose I'm old-school, but I tend to think that a story should be a revelation of the different events, predicated by the convergence of the motivations of the different characters, and that the beauty of the story is in seeing the resolution of the conflicts within that convergence in a unique and well-crafted manner.

Actually, I think that's a pretty standard expectation, DH. But I'm not sure what school this scenario would fall under (sorry -- I didn't pay close attention the first time):

darenhat wrote:

After all and pay close attention to this: If Le Chiffre and Vesper were in cahoots, then Le Chiffre could easily have been content with letting Bond win the poker game, since he would have known that Vesper would most likely get his money back, Killing Bond at the game would be limiting Le Chiffre's chances of ultimately recouping the pot ... .

That's a motivation that would make no sense to me. Being OK with losing the game now on the chance you'll recoup your losses later isn't a sensible plan for a gambler or anyone else. Taking his chief rival out of the game made perfect sense. Remember, he's not just after Bond's money but the the money of other folks at the table as well. Bond's presence puts that at risk.

And to touch on your earlier response as to what LeChiffre would have done if he thought Vesper had double-crossed him, if I thought Vesper had given Bond the money to get back in the game after I had beaten him, I would be extremely ****ed. Yes, I would certainly need to figure a way of getting the money back, but I would definitely want a word with Vesper at the earliest. It makes perfect sense that after kidnapping Vesper and finding out what happened, he decided "fine, let's have a word with Bond," and put her out in the road to get him to stop. Everyone seems to assume the that the crash was pre-ordained and therefore foreseeable. But it wasn't: it was an accident. They happen all the time in the real world. The chase culminating in Bond's capture wasn't pre-ordained either. It only happened that way because Bond had a realization about Mathis and went after Vesper. Had he not, I presume LeChiffre would have tried something else to get the money back. But that's not the way the movie had it happen.

Your idea of motivation seems more like predestination to me, where A necessarily leads to B to C to D. But a character in a piece of fiction, like a person in real life, can have several logical ways to go that make sense.

28

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:
darenhat wrote:

I suppose I'm old-school, but I tend to think that a story should be a revelation of the different events, predicated by the convergence of the motivations of the different characters, and that the beauty of the story is in seeing the resolution of the conflicts within that convergence in a unique and well-crafted manner.

Actually, I think that's a pretty standard expectation, DH. But I'm not sure what school this scenario would fall under (sorry -- I didn't pay close attention the first time):

highhopes wrote:

That's a motivation that would make no sense to me. Being OK with losing the game now on the chance you'll recoup your losses later isn't a sensible plan for a gambler or anyone else. Taking his chief rival out of the game made perfect sense. Remember, he's not just after Bond's money but the the money of other folks at the table as well. Bond's presence puts that at risk.

I'm more interested in how this would play if there was a connection between Le Chiffre and Vesper. If Vesper, as you suggest, had something to do with LC and thus LC was upset at the possibility that Vesper had backed Bond at the table a second time, then it would be a safe assumption that the account number which she had given the bank was not the MI6 account but LC's because the two are in cahoots.

If that were the case, Le Chiffre would not be upset that Bond won, becuase he still had a hidden ace up his sleeve in the form of Vesper's treachery. He wasn't playing to lose. But if LC was the strongest player, and Bond was the second strongest (or vice-versa) than the chances that they would be the last two sitting at the table are high. In that scenario, LC would be in a win-win situation IF Vesper was on his side.

Remember: these are all questions we have to keep in mind if LC and Vesper are involved in the same treachery. I'm not saying they are. In fact, I think they weren't. That is why I'm saying that LC's abduction had nothing to do with Bond's ability to buy back into the game, but rather a desperate ploy to use her against Bond.

Last edited by darenhat (20th Dec 2006 22:31)

29

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

Killing Bond at the game would be limiting Le Chiffre's chances of ultimately recouping the pot.

I don't think this is strictly true TBH. He's obviously seen Bond as a threat to his winning the money so sees fit to poison him. One less player shortens the odds of LC going home with the money, especially if that one player appears to be the best player and biggest rival.

With regards to the rebuy I think you can look at it one of two ways. In one respect it made no difference to LC whether or not Bond bought back in. He had just beaten him clean out of the tournament and had the upper hand (so he thinks) both in poker skills and mentally. Looking at it from a gambling perspective a lot of casino players go on 'tilt' after such a bad beat - making rash decisions and blowing cash as if there is no tomorrow to compensate for a previous loss. LC might have seen it as another easy 5m in the pot.

He only poisons Bond when its looking like he isn't going to be out of the game after all -remember the fold that LC is made to make after Bond (in poker terms) 'comes over the top of him' in the abbreviated hand shown when we see Bond's massive chip stack compared to the plaques he had at the rebuy - by the time Bond returns after being defibrillated only FL is left so this indicates that LC was the best player at the table bar Bond anyway.

The second is regarding Vesper. Did she not allow Bond to rebuy because of LC/Mr White as once Bond was out it would be easy for LC to win the game?? Was it because she was genuinely beginning to care for Bond and wanted to keep him away from the danger she was all too aware was present? Was she actually protecting the investment of the treasury as she knew that LC was already going to get enough in terms of funds by just winning what was out on the table???

You can spin all this in a number of ways I suppose and thats just the way I see it. I think that its something that people will continue to debate until hopefully Bond 22 answers some of these questions ajb007/insane

30

Re: Question regarding Plot

And furthermore, I think the biggest plot hole (if you consider it to be one) is how Mr White managed to get hold of the money (or at least the case he has which is implied to be the money).

He either had a team of frogmen on standby or is very good at hook-a-duck ajb007/wink

31

Re: Question regarding Plot

lavabubble wrote:

And furthermore, I think the biggest plot hole (if you consider it to be one) is how Mr White managed to get hold of the money (or at least the case he has which is implied to be the money).

He either had a team of frogmen on standby or is very good at hook-a-duck ajb007/wink

Yeah, it looked like it was pretty much lost in the sinking house. Assuming of course that it is indeed the money, a quick shot of someone escaping with the case would be nice. Again, as highhopes says, we have to wait until Bond 22 for the answers. ajb007/confused

32

Re: Question regarding Plot

blueman wrote:

I liked that scene in OP, where Moore tells the tiger to "Sit!"

However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP! :'(

Last edited by darenhat (20th Dec 2006 23:21)

33

Re: Question regarding Plot

s96024 wrote:

M's aide, secretary, advisor, "Moneypenny". Whatever you want to call him.

I prefer calling him Tanner, it makes sense.

34

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:
lavabubble wrote:

And furthermore, I think the biggest plot hole (if you consider it to be one) is how Mr White managed to get hold of the money (or at least the case he has which is implied to be the money).

He either had a team of frogmen on standby or is very good at hook-a-duck ajb007/wink

Yeah, it looked like it was pretty much lost in the sinking house. Assuming of course that it is indeed the money, a quick shot of someone escaping with the case would be nice. Again, as highhopes says, we have to wait until Bond 22 for the answers. ajb007/confused

My bet is that there were two suitcases, and the one she gave to Gettler was empty. Mr. White got the real suitcase, for which he agreed not to kill Bond.

But we won't know for sure until Bond 22 -- or at least we better. I know I'll be very disappointed if the Vesper-LeChiffre-Mr White-Gettler relationship isn't explained. But I'm pretty sure that's why Eva is slated to be back for Bond 22.
And frankly, the final scene in CR is basically Bond on his way to getting answers. I think it's pretty exciting to have a Bond film like that.

35

Re: Question regarding Plot

Fish1941 wrote:

When he saw what was going on, all he had to do was wait to see what would happened.  It's easy to assume that he must have spotted the case of money in the water and took it, while Bond was being distracted by Vesper.

My point is that Mr White is stood in the other building, bone dry and seemingly with the money. It just doesn't tie up as the case was dropped inside the house as it was crumbling and there would be far from any guarantee that the case would have floated outside and conveniently to somewhere near the baddie of the piece. But I suppose these things happen in films with little or no explanation!!

36

Re: Question regarding Plot

They purposely showed us a shot of the suitcase falling in the water and floating away. My first impression was that they were just trying to show that nobody got the money...tying up a small loose end kinda. It wasn't until later that I realized that people were talking about the case 're-surfacing' (no pun intended) in Mr. White's hands. Were the filmmakers trying to raise a question mark for Bond 22? Or are we supposed to tell ourselves the money is simply lost? I dunno.

37

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:
blueman wrote:

I liked that scene in OP, where Moore tells the tiger to "Sit!"

However I don't understand at all WHY the tiger sat? I mean, what was it's motivatation? Wasn't it working for Kahn? It should have tore Bond to pieces. Was the tiger betraying Kahn? Was it's mate being held against it's will by Octopussy's circus, and was scheming for his release? Was there a relation between the tiger and the trophy rug that Bond used as a diversion in the Monsoon Palace. This whole bit really lessens my viewing enjoyment of OP! :'(

Just think it's funny is all, you going on about character motivation and good story-telling when three of your top five Bond films are Glen Bonds, all of which I can hardly consider films much less Bond films they're so across-the-board bad IMO--writing, acting, directing, the whole deal...:s  But to each his or her own. ajb007/cheers

I'm pretty sure the whole point of there being questions at the end of CR is that they'll get answered in the next one...and there certainly seem to be enough variations to choose from that members of this board can think of, simple thru complex.  Can't imagine Bond 22 won't tie those loose ends up in a nice neat package--for Bond to burst through! ajb007/wink  In other words, we're SUPPOSED to be left wondering...and if that doesn't work for you then it doesn't work for you.  For me, I understood that:

Vesper betrayed Bond and stole the money, and;

Mathis may or may not have also betrayed Bond, separately or in cahoots with Vesper.

Doesn't seem like rocket science, just spy film stuff.  For the rest, Vesper in the road, etc., well it is a movie, guess those points don't register with or bother me, the filmmakers had me and I zipped right along with them.  Nothing stuck out and shattered the verisimilitude like, oh, Bond asking a wild tiger to sit, and the tiger sits.  That kinda stuff makes me check out from the film for the next 20 or 30 minutes, as obviously nothing happening in the film really matters, the filmmakers just told me so by inserting abject sillyness. ajb007/frown  Oh yeah, the Tarzan yell...classic Bond.  Those moments don't bother you, okay.  We have different standards and expectations regarding good story-telling I guess.

38

Re: Question regarding Plot

I know exactly what you mean. For me it's about expectations. The Glen films I enjoy very much, particularly the Moore outings but for different reasons. These are films that I can watch with my tongue in my cheek...something that is not the intent with the 'grittier' CR. I can watch the films over and over, and simply enjoy myself. The films have an outlandish nature to them which allows for the more silly moments. OHMSS, which also ranks high on my list, isn't laced with these kind of sentiments, and I think the film is better for it. It's a much more dramatic story that focuses on characters, not whiz-bang action.

The tone of CR is built around a much more darker and stronger tone, and to the films credit, it is not cumbered down with these farcical elements.

Nowhere in my questions about CR have you seen me post that I wished Le Chiffre had a laser beam that shot from his eye, or see Bond's Aston Martin sprout wings to leap over Vesper. I'm merely saying that in order for me to 'accept' Bond in a much more realistic world, it helps to have much more realistic behaviour in the script's characters.

So often I hear others say that CR is the best Bond film ever, but whenever I ask a question or pose a viewpoint, others tend to reply "So what, all the Bond films are like that?" If that's the case, what makes this film any different? Nothing, really.

Again, it boils down to expectations. I was hoping for something really hard hitting, something 'gritty' that knocks my socks off...but I didn't get it.

I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.

39

Re: Question regarding Plot

Fair enough, dh.  And you're very right, it is really about expectations.  CR met mine (yes, even as a stand-alone Bond film).  If they never made another Bond film, the whos and whats in CR left dangling still wouldn't bother me.  Different strokes. ajb007/cheers

40

Re: Question regarding Plot

But frankly most of what we're talking about here isn't loose ends or part of the cliffhanger approach - it's just shoddy writing! Waiting for Bond 22 is a variation on the 'better luck next time' theme...

I agree with darenhat about all this, the plotholes on film are unrivalled except perhaps by DAD. It's partly Campbell's tone that's to blame - he has this gritty, take it or leave it stark quality but it's never backed up by verisimilute or realism. GE was like that imo, but I thought that new writers on CR and a new brief would work with his style...

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

41

Re: Question regarding Plot

Shoddy... ajb007/insane  Just don't get it.  CR is as well-written as any of Connery's best (DN thru TB), or OHMSS, and arguably ups the ante in the character development department.  It fits very well in with those five films mentioned IMHO, and I don't think of any of them as shoddy.  Just good films and good Bond films.

Last edited by blueman (21st Dec 2006 10:56)

42

Re: Question regarding Plot

blueman wrote:

Shoddy... ajb007/insane  Just don't get it.  CR is as well-written as any of Connery's best (DN thru TB), or OHMSS, and arguably ups the ante in the character development department.  It fits very well in with those five films mentioned IMHO, and I don't think of any of them as shoddy.  Just good films and good Bond films.

Well maybe if there had been the 'net back then, there would be lots of plot holes talked about on Dr No and questions needing 'clarification' regards various things. To me, however, it's shoddy and only DAD and CR are getting this treatment, it's just on the latter it's like people are thinking it's their fault for being slow, rather than anything with the film...

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

43

Re: Question regarding Plot

darenhat wrote:

I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.

An excellent piece there, darenhat - if only more people took that view !

I love CR and I like the fact that I'm not spoonfed the actions and motives of the various characters. I also like the idea that the film isn't all tied up with a nice bow at the end - it's great to read other peoples comments on what they thought happened. It will be good to see Bond go after the real villians of CR in Bond22. I do hope they manage to explain some of the elements left open from CR, but I don't need to know why LeChiffre left Vesper tied up in the road - he did, and thats that !

I'm not really bothered if you enjoyed CR or not - it's a shame, but I'm not bothered. I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.

Heres to differences ajb007/martini  ajb007/biggrin

YNWA: Justice For The 96

The Joy Of 6

44

Re: Question regarding Plot

Sir Miles wrote:

I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.

Well, that's cheering! 'Tis the season of good swill...  ajb007/lol

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

45

Re: Question regarding Plot

Sir Miles wrote:
darenhat wrote:

I'm not saying that the film is bad, I just didn't enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong to like it. Quite the opposite actually...I'm glad others can enjoy it. But I simply can't say a story is brilliant on the merits that others say so. My opinions are formed from my own experiences. If I can ascertain through our discussions the merits of what I see on the screen, than that would be great. To often, however, people simply say "Well, maybe Bond 22 will explain it all". All that signifies to me is that CR is incomplete, so as a stand alone film, CR is a grave disappointment for me.

An excellent piece there, darenhat - if only more people took that view !

I love CR and I like the fact that I'm not spoonfed the actions and motives of the various characters. I also like the idea that the film isn't all tied up with a nice bow at the end - it's great to read other peoples comments on what they thought happened. It will be good to see Bond go after the real villians of CR in Bond22. I do hope they manage to explain some of the elements left open from CR, but I don't need to know why LeChiffre left Vesper tied up in the road - he did, and thats that !

I'm not really bothered if you enjoyed CR or not - it's a shame, but I'm not bothered. I hope you like the next one, but if Eon stay true to form at the minute, odds are you won't.

Heres to differences ajb007/martini  ajb007/biggrin

Right on, Sir Miles. I've got to say that some of the so-called "questions" have pretty obvious answers IMO. For example, is it so difficult to divine that there were two suitcases(Vesper giving the suitcase with the money to Mr. White --which she agreed to do to save Bond -- and an empty one to Gettler, which is what M meant by going to her death)? Or that Vesper was put in the road to make Bond stop and that LC had no reason to believe Bond would crash? It's like going to the movies with one of those friends (we all have one) who from the moment the titles begin elbows you and starts asking "why is he doing this ... I don't get that ... why is this? What did she say?" At some point you feel like saying, "why don't you just watch the freaking movie. The characters are doing what they are doing because that's what they did." Actually, I think in some cases it's nit-picking by hypercritical people or people who are used to having their movies spoonfed to them, as you say. No amount of explaining is ever going to make sense to them.

But for the rest of us, be assured that CR is going to have a sequel. That means everything in CR shouldn't be explained. Mr. White's organization is supposed to be mysterious and shadowy -- Finally, some real continuity between Bond films. I would think some people on the site would be doing cartwheels. We don't have the whole story in CR because the story ain't over. But we do have enough for a satisfying resolution, I think. ajb007/lol

But while we're talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, I have an idea: since the very character of James Bond makes no sense in the real world (he doesn't), let's end the series, burn the movies, shut down AJB and move on with our lives. ajb007/lol

46

Re: Question regarding Plot

highhopes wrote:

Right on, Sir Miles. I've got to say that some of the so-called "questions" have pretty obvious answers IMO. For example, is it so difficult to divine that there were two suitcases(Vesper giving the suitcase with the money to Mr. White --which she agreed to do to save Bond -- and an empty one to Gettler, which is what M meant by going to her death)? Or that Vesper was put in the road to make Bond stop and that LC had no reason to believe Bond would crash? It's like going to the movies with one of those friends (we all have one) who from the moment the titles begin elbows you and starts asking "why is he doing this ... I don't get that ... why is this? What did she say?" At some point you feel like saying, "why don't you just watch the freaking movie. The characters are doing what they are doing because that's what they did." Actually, I think in some cases it's nit-picking by hypercritical people or people who are used to having their movies spoonfed to them, as you say. No amount of explaining is ever going to make sense to them.

But for the rest of us, be assured that CR is going to have a sequel. That means everything in CR shouldn't be explained. Mr. White's organization is supposed to be mysterious and shadowy -- Finally, some real continuity between Bond films. I would think some people on the site would be doing cartwheels. We don't have the whole story in CR because the story ain't over. But we do have enough for a satisfying resolution, I think. ajb007/lol

But while we're talking about what makes sense and what doesn't, I have an idea: since the very character of James Bond makes no sense in the real world (he doesn't), let's end the series, burn the movies, shut down AJB and move on with our lives. ajb007/lol

HH, I have two objections to what you just said:

1)Many of the questions that people are asking are not obvious; at least they are not to the people who are asking them. Is it possible to ask 'obvious' questions on a fan site without being made to feel like one is stupid? Also, it's not nick-picking. Nit-picking would be criticising Craig for wearing a red tie when a blue tie is much more realistic; or something like that.

2)Although I am yet to see CR again (which will clarify my feelings), I do agree with DH and NP that the script is quite flawed. I think the film leaves too many unanswered questions. One could say, "wait until you see Bond 22" which might be fine if Bond 22 truly answered all the questions and if all of the unasnwered questions were deliberate. However IMO, some of them are just sloppy and as a stand-alone film, I don't think it fully works. Also, CR is no Citizen Kane or The Godfather. The fact that some of us might have problems with it is not because we want to be spoonfed; perhaps we just think it is a very flawed film.

HH, I know that you love the film. That's great. But please don't imply that those who don't think it's a masterpiece are stupid or prefer to be spoon-fed. We might just instead think it is a pretty flawed film.

Last edited by Dan Same (21st Dec 2006 15:20)

"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman

47

Re: Question regarding Plot

No hh, it' s difficult to divine that, so to speak, just a lot of trouble for no real benefit at the end. Like I say, I can't be sure, as I'm not on absolutely Bourne or the equivalent, but I don't come out of other films scratching my head etc - and a lot of these questions actually HAVEN'T been answered, besides, many of your responses have this mysterious clairvoyancy talent: LC knew Bond would figure out the message to Vesper would trigger Bond into action as he'd then realise Mathis is a fraud, V had two briefcases blah blah blah, and how did V get recruited as a double agent when Bond only ran into LC in the last fornight, that's pretty fast work...

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

48

Re: Question regarding Plot

The reason I see things like the 'suitcase' as signs of flawed writing is that they don't add anything to the story, like suspense or intrigue. They really only tend to distract and muddy what really should be the point of the film - i.e. the characters. These kind of elements are best to have answers supplied easily and simply so that there not dangling loose ends. If the point was that the audience is supposed to wonder about these things, than the story should be more clear about it IMO.

49

Re: Question regarding Plot

i am with darenhat all the way here and have exactly the same feelings...carried away with euphoria i quite enjoyed my first viewing of cr but after seeing it several times...it is far from a masterpiece and the muddied storyline and over written sequences such as the train meeting are the main reason...with all the loose ends leaving me very unsatisfied

50

Re: Question regarding Plot

Well of course, fish...

GF has one flaw often cited, about the villain explaining his plan to the gangsters, then killing them... but that's about it, and could be explained away as an eccentricity on his part, obv it's necessary for exposition...

Other stuff in later films is just as 'flawed' but as they occupy a more cartoony world, the films obey their internal logic.

CR doesn't, imo.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017