Problems with time in SPECTRE

MilleniumForceMilleniumForce LondonPosts: 1,214MI6 Agent
I thought about this when I first saw the film, and now I've got some more timeline issues so I'd start this.

First off, all the events of SP apparently take place in around a weeks time, as Bond was told the old building was to be demolished within a week and it's still standing at the end of the film. Now, we also know that there was a couple of days gap between Bond meeting Swann and meeting Mr White, I think it was two or three days, so that means everything else takes place in half a week. Crazy, really, considering in that four/five days Bond spends at least a day and night in Rome, as well as a day and night (possibly more) in Tangier and on the train, and spends at least half a day at Blofeld's lair, and a day at the clinic and the hotel. Let's not forget all the time spent travelling.

Secondly, how long was Bond away? In the time he's been away, a new building has popped up in London, ready to start operating as well, and C has managed to get to his position. Huh? And did Bond spend so long in Mexico City? Sciarra seemed to have only arrived on the same day as he was killed, so why was Bond waiting so long in advance for his arrival?

How has Q been restoring the DB5 so quickly among doing everything else for the rest of Mi6? And how was he even allowed to have an agents personal possession in his lab?

And finally, how did Blofeld get Mi6 ready so fast? He clearly did some work to it and install a massive bullet proof glass, all in the space of a day? Because why would Bond go anywhere but London after escaping, except for changing vehicles?
1.LTK 2.AVTAK 3.OP 4.FYEO 5.TND 6.LALD 7.GE 8.GF 9.TSWLM 10.SPECTRE 11.SF 12.MR 13.YOLT 14.TLD 15.CR (06) 16.TMWTGG 17.TB 18.FRWL 19.TWINE 20.OHMSS 21.DAF 22.DAD 23.QoS 24.NSNA 25.DN 26.CR (67)
«1

Comments

  • am747am747 Posts: 720MI6 Agent
    :)) I thought SP was a movie not a documentary .... In movies, anything can happen anytime

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz4crpFaW4M
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    I thought about this when I first saw the film, and now I've got some more timeline issues so I'd start this.

    First off, all the events of SP apparently take place in around a weeks time, as Bond was told the old building was to be demolished within a week and it's still standing at the end of the film. Now, we also know that there was a couple of days gap between Bond meeting Swann and meeting Mr White, I think it was two or three days, so that means everything else takes place in half a week. Crazy, really, considering in that four/five days Bond spends at least a day and night in Rome, as well as a day and night (possibly more) in Tangier and on the train, and spends at least half a day at Blofeld's lair, and a day at the clinic and the hotel. Let's not forget all the time spent travelling.

    Secondly, how long was Bond away? In the time he's been away, a new building has popped up in London, ready to start operating as well, and C has managed to get to his position. Huh? And did Bond spend so long in Mexico City? Sciarra seemed to have only arrived on the same day as he was killed, so why was Bond waiting so long in advance for his arrival?

    How has Q been restoring the DB5 so quickly among doing everything else for the rest of Mi6? And how was he even allowed to have an agents personal possession in his lab?

    And finally, how did Blofeld get Mi6 ready so fast? He clearly did some work to it and install a massive bullet proof glass, all in the space of a day? Because why would Bond go anywhere but London after escaping, except for changing vehicles?
    As with Skyfall, Spectre falls apart the more you think about it. Skyfall distracted people with sentimentality and the illusion of intelligence, and a lot of them bought it. Spectre is even thinner in actual plot, and the people writing have a comic book mentality when it comes to the story. That's part of the problem with making movies two or three years apart that are somehow supposed to be direct sequels.

    In Spectre's case, I'm assuming the argument could be made that the new building was already under construction, even in the events of Skyfall. We just didn't see it. Perhaps it originally was going to be for Denbigh's outfit but then expanded to include the rest of the service once he wrestled control away from M. This is a fictional version of London, so it doesn't have to conform to the real thing. Of course, that's crap writing, but we're dealing with crap writing already.

    Unless there is some onscreen contradiction, this could be many months later. Bond may not have met Sciarra only on that day but had been tracking him for a while and just waiting until the right moment. We don't know exactly how long Bond has been on "vacation," for instance.

    The rest of it was just compressed time -- possible, if unlikely. One could also make the argument that for some bizarre reason, the demolition was temporarily halted, but we have no onscreen confirmation of this.

    But this is the modern conceit -- rush, rush, rush. If they took their time with the plotting and actually created a meaningful story, and didn't try to tie it all together in some clumsy way, then a lot of these issues would work themselves out. Instead, the writers in trying to be clever end up creating something with too many flaws. It's the result of crap writing. And it isn't even necessary. The story could have been written to take place two years later. The old headquarters being used as the climax was just another way for two dopey writers to try to shoehorn in some cheesy sentimentality in a story that didn't need it.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • Silhouette ManSilhouette Man The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,644MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.

    Only the writers are to blame for this. The buck stops with them.
    "The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.

    Only the writers are to blame for this. The buck stops with them.

    Whom was I blaming?
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent
    Timelines rarely run true in films other than ones based over a day or two like Bullit, I think this partly down to what we don't see as opposed to what we do.
    We have no idea really how long has passed between SP and Sf
    ?? At the end of Sf m tells bond there's "lots to be done" whilst handing bond a dossier so it's probable bond fulfilled whatever mission was in the dossier before heading to Mexico. Of course the writers are complicit with the studios in trying to cram in as much action as possible into a film at the cost of quality and accurate storytelling. Young audiences probably prefer the more bang for your buck approach. I prefer a decent mix of action. Witty dialogue and a good story. A lot of films dont hold up to close scrutiny.
    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • JagJag Posts: 1,167MI6 Agent
    All good points, and it makes me wonder why so many people put SP as their no. 1, but I guess it's the novelty factor, and it will wear off over time.
  • Harry PalmerHarry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    I thought about this when I first saw the film, and now I've got some more timeline issues so I'd start this.

    First off, all the events of SP apparently take place in around a weeks time, as Bond was told the old building was to be demolished within a week and it's still standing at the end of the film. Now, we also know that there was a couple of days gap between Bond meeting Swann and meeting Mr White, I think it was two or three days, so that means everything else takes place in half a week. Crazy, really, considering in that four/five days Bond spends at least a day and night in Rome, as well as a day and night (possibly more) in Tangier and on the train, and spends at least half a day at Blofeld's lair, and a day at the clinic and the hotel. Let's not forget all the time spent travelling.

    Secondly, how long was Bond away? In the time he's been away, a new building has popped up in London, ready to start operating as well, and C has managed to get to his position. Huh? And did Bond spend so long in Mexico City? Sciarra seemed to have only arrived on the same day as he was killed, so why was Bond waiting so long in advance for his arrival?

    How has Q been restoring the DB5 so quickly among doing everything else for the rest of Mi6? And how was he even allowed to have an agents personal possession in his lab?

    And finally, how did Blofeld get Mi6 ready so fast? He clearly did some work to it and install a massive bullet proof glass, all in the space of a day? Because why would Bond go anywhere but London after escaping, except for changing vehicles?
    As with Skyfall, Spectre falls apart the more you think about it. Skyfall distracted people with sentimentality and the illusion of intelligence, and a lot of them bought it. Spectre is even thinner in actual plot, and the people writing have a comic book mentality when it comes to the story. That's part of the problem with making movies two or three years apart that are somehow supposed to be direct sequels.

    In Spectre's case, I'm assuming the argument could be made that the new building was already under construction, even in the events of Skyfall. We just didn't see it. Perhaps it originally was going to be for Denbigh's outfit but then expanded to include the rest of the service once he wrestled control away from M. This is a fictional version of London, so it doesn't have to conform to the real thing. Of course, that's crap writing, but we're dealing with crap writing already.

    Unless there is some onscreen contradiction, this could be many months later. Bond may not have met Sciarra only on that day but had been tracking him for a while and just waiting until the right moment. We don't know exactly how long Bond has been on "vacation," for instance.

    The rest of it was just compressed time -- possible, if unlikely. One could also make the argument that for some bizarre reason, the demolition was temporarily halted, but we have no onscreen confirmation of this.

    But this is the modern conceit -- rush, rush, rush. If they took their time with the plotting and actually created a meaningful story, and didn't try to tie it all together in some clumsy way, then a lot of these issues would work themselves out. Instead, the writers in trying to be clever end up creating something with too many flaws. It's the result of crap writing. And it isn't even necessary. The story could have been written to take place two years later. The old headquarters being used as the climax was just another way for two dopey writers to try to shoehorn in some cheesy sentimentality in a story that didn't need it.


    Couldn't agree more.
    1. Cr, 2. Ltk, 3. Tld, 4. Qs, 5. Ohmss, 6. Twine, 7. Tnd, 8. Tswlm, 9. Frwl, 10. Tb, 11. Ge, 12. Gf, 13. Dn, 14. Mr, 15. Op, 16. Yolt, 17. Sf, 18. Daf, 19. Avtak, 20. Sp, 21. Fyeo, 22. Dad, 23. Lald, 24. Tmwtgg
  • HalfMonk HalfHitmanHalfMonk HalfHitman USAPosts: 2,324MI6 Agent
    edited December 2015
    No one says "within a week." Tanner, with Bond on the way to see Q, says "listed for demolition." No timetable. In LITERALLY the exact same shot that Tanner says that, they pan up to the new building (the CNS) and make mention of it.

    SPECTRE wasn't good and it's got loads of problems but no need to create plot holes for it.
    I thought about this when I first saw the film, and now I've got some more timeline issues so I'd start this.

    First off, all the events of SP apparently take place in around a weeks time, as Bond was told the old building was to be demolished within a week and it's still standing at the end of the film. Now, we also know that there was a couple of days gap between Bond meeting Swann and meeting Mr White, I think it was two or three days, so that means everything else takes place in half a week. Crazy, really, considering in that four/five days Bond spends at least a day and night in Rome, as well as a day and night (possibly more) in Tangier and on the train, and spends at least half a day at Blofeld's lair, and a day at the clinic and the hotel. Let's not forget all the time spent travelling.

    Secondly, how long was Bond away? In the time he's been away, a new building has popped up in London, ready to start operating as well, and C has managed to get to his position. Huh? And did Bond spend so long in Mexico City? Sciarra seemed to have only arrived on the same day as he was killed, so why was Bond waiting so long in advance for his arrival?

    How has Q been restoring the DB5 so quickly among doing everything else for the rest of Mi6? And how was he even allowed to have an agents personal possession in his lab?

    And finally, how did Blofeld get Mi6 ready so fast? He clearly did some work to it and install a massive bullet proof glass, all in the space of a day? Because why would Bond go anywhere but London after escaping, except for changing vehicles?
  • The Debonair BondThe Debonair Bond Posts: 48MI6 Agent
    What most people think are plot holes, are not really plot holes.

    Are we really going to nitpick for things like these? Quite honestly it seems to me like it's a bit ridiculous.

    So Q couldn't get other people to help him out with the car? I don't see what the big issue is quite honestly. In the real world, secret agents don't get to drive supercars, but this folks is a fantasy.

    Previous films made far less sense when they decided to take Q overseas with his entire crew, yet we accept these films for what they are (and they take up at least half of the existing Bond canon) Why can't we accept this in this movie? Is it because it's new and it doesn't have the nostaglia of your childhood memories behind it?

    And has it occurred that the glass room which Blofeld uses perhaps existed in the first place when it was still MI6?

    Really, if you where to nitpick films with the same scrutiny you are doing, pretty much all of Hollywood's films would fall apart, for things that aren't even plot holes.

    And do we really need someone to tell us, "Oh the building is not getting demolished this week, but the next"? Construction issues get delayed all time and quite honestly distracting the story to such a mundane thing takes us away from what is actually happening.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent
    What most people think are plot holes, are not really plot holes.

    Are we really going to nitpick for things like these? Quite honestly it seems to me like it's a bit ridiculous.

    So Q couldn't get other people to help him out with the car? I don't see what the big issue is quite honestly. In the real world, secret agents don't get to drive supercars, but this folks is a fantasy.

    Previous films made far less sense when they decided to take Q overseas with his entire crew, yet we accept these films for what they are (and they take up at least half of the existing Bond canon) Why can't we accept this in this movie? Is it because it's new and it doesn't have the nostaglia of your childhood memories behind it?

    And has it occurred that the glass room which Blofeld uses perhaps existed in the first place when it was still MI6?

    Really, if you where to nitpick films with the same scrutiny you are doing, pretty much all of Hollywood's films would fall apart, for things that aren't even plot holes.

    And do we really need someone to tell us, "Oh the building is not getting demolished this week, but the next"? Construction issues get delayed all time and quite honestly distracting the story to such a mundane thing takes us away from what is actually happening.
    Totally agree. -{
    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.

    What were the SF plot holes?

    Maybe just give me your best one.

    Now GF is just one plot hole after another but that doesn't prevent it from being one of the best Bond films.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.

    What were the SF plot holes?

    Maybe just give me your best one.

    Silva's meticulous escape plan, all based on his drive being plugged into the MI6 network. Everything is so perfectly timed for him, as if he knew without a doubt he would escape and knew the exact moment he would escape.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent
    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.
    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Time like Family, is all Relative. :D
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:
    SF and SP seem to have the greatest number of plot holes of the series.

    What were the SF plot holes?

    Maybe just give me your best one.

    Silva's meticulous escape plan, all based on his drive being plugged into the MI6 network. Everything is so perfectly timed for him, as if he knew without a doubt he would escape and knew the exact moment he would escape.

    1. He planned to get caught because he wanted to confront M face to face.

    2. He planned his escape well in advance, including planting bombs, having henchmen planted around the city to help in his escape, etc.

    3. He knew Q would open the drive because mi6 had to know what had been compromised.

    4. He knew his tech skills were superior to Q's and that his virus would breach the mi6 firewall. Since he was an mi6 agent and specialized in computers this isn't unreasonable.

    The hearing involving M had probably been scheduled weeks in advance, so he had plenty of time to implement his plans which, had probably been planned months or even years in advance.

    I know you don't like Craig or his films but you're going to have to do better. This doesn't even approach the level of the televising of the missile captures in YOLT. Where did those cameras come from, anyway?
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    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
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:

    What were the SF plot holes?

    Maybe just give me your best one.

    Silva's meticulous escape plan, all based on his drive being plugged into the MI6 network. Everything is so perfectly timed for him, as if he knew without a doubt he would escape and knew the exact moment he would escape.

    1. He planned to get caught because he wanted to confront M face to face.

    2. He planned his escape well in advance, including planting bombs, having henchmen planted around the city to help in his escape, etc.

    3. He knew Q would open the drive because mi6 had to know what had been compromised.

    4. He knew his tech skills were superior to Q's and that his virus would breach the mi6 firewall. Since he was an mi6 agent and specialized in computers this isn't unreasonable.

    The hearing involving M had probably been scheduled weeks in advance, so he had plenty of time to implement his plans which, had probably been planned months or even years in advance.

    I know you don't like Craig or his films but you're going to have to do better. This doesn't even approach the level of the televising of the missile captures in YOLT. Where did those cameras come from, anyway?

    The cameras in YOLT are not a plot hole since have nothing to do with the plot. Silva's plans are far too specific to make sense. He's relying too much on the actions of other people.

    Bond drawing Silva to Skyfall without proper preparation is another big problem.

    These problems with SF are commonly brought up. It's not just from me.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:

    Silva's meticulous escape plan, all based on his drive being plugged into the MI6 network. Everything is so perfectly timed for him, as if he knew without a doubt he would escape and knew the exact moment he would escape.

    1. He planned to get caught because he wanted to confront M face to face.

    2. He planned his escape well in advance, including planting bombs, having henchmen planted around the city to help in his escape, etc.

    3. He knew Q would open the drive because mi6 had to know what had been compromised.

    4. He knew his tech skills were superior to Q's and that his virus would breach the mi6 firewall. Since he was an mi6 agent and specialized in computers this isn't unreasonable.

    The hearing involving M had probably been scheduled weeks in advance, so he had plenty of time to implement his plans which, had probably been planned months or even years in advance.

    I know you don't like Craig or his films but you're going to have to do better. This doesn't even approach the level of the televising of the missile captures in YOLT. Where did those cameras come from, anyway?

    The cameras in YOLT are not a plot hole since have nothing to do with the plot. Silva's plans are far too specific to make sense. He's relying too much on the actions of other people.

    Bond drawing Silva to Skyfall without proper preparation is another big problem.

    These problems with SF are commonly brought up. It's not just from me.

    I know they're commonly brought up, but they're wrong. They're not plot holes. You can argue that Bond engages in reckless decision making by going to Scotland but Bond has been engaging in reckless decision making since he ignored Quarrel's advice and went to Crab Key (and getting poor old Quarrel killed). It's part of his character, which makes it the opposite of a plot hole.

    And these "plot holes" are brought up by so-called Bond fans who try to slag SF even though it ranks #1 among Bond films on both Rotten Tomatoes and, I think, IMDB.

    That's a strange kind of "fan."

    And explain again how Blofeld had a view of the spacecrafts in space?

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.
    I'd like to hear that one because I wasn't aware there was fixed, mandatory speed that could not be exceeded in order to be in orbit... or that moving from one orbit into another was against the law?:)
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:

    1. He planned to get caught because he wanted to confront M face to face.

    2. He planned his escape well in advance, including planting bombs, having henchmen planted around the city to help in his escape, etc.

    3. He knew Q would open the drive because mi6 had to know what had been compromised.

    4. He knew his tech skills were superior to Q's and that his virus would breach the mi6 firewall. Since he was an mi6 agent and specialized in computers this isn't unreasonable.

    The hearing involving M had probably been scheduled weeks in advance, so he had plenty of time to implement his plans which, had probably been planned months or even years in advance.

    I know you don't like Craig or his films but you're going to have to do better. This doesn't even approach the level of the televising of the missile captures in YOLT. Where did those cameras come from, anyway?

    The cameras in YOLT are not a plot hole since have nothing to do with the plot. Silva's plans are far too specific to make sense. He's relying too much on the actions of other people.

    Bond drawing Silva to Skyfall without proper preparation is another big problem.

    These problems with SF are commonly brought up. It's not just from me.

    I know they're commonly brought up, but they're wrong. They're not plot holes. You can argue that Bond engages in reckless decision making by going to Scotland but Bond has been engaging in reckless decision making since he ignored Quarrel's advice and went to Crab Key (and getting poor old Quarrel killed). It's part of his character, which makes it the opposite of a plot hole.

    And these "plot holes" are brought up by so-called Bond fans who try to slag SF even though it ranks #1 among Bond films on both Rotten Tomatoes and, I think, IMDB.

    That's a strange kind of "fan."

    And explain again how Blofeld had a view of the spacecrafts in space?

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.

    I agree that the camera of the spacecrafts in space doesn't make sense, but that doesn't have a bearing on the plot. And if spacecrafts can't meet up, how do spacecrafts rendezvous with the ISS?
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    Low orbits are higher speed; higher-altitude orbits are slower speed. Orbital rendezvous requires a prograde or retrograde translational burn (depending upon your starting position) to match the velocity and position of the target object.
    Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
    "I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
    "Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    chrisisall wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.
    I'd like to hear that one because I wasn't aware there was fixed, mandatory speed that could not be exceeded in order to be in orbit... or that moving from one orbit into another was against the law?:)

    The term orbital velocity ring a bell?

    To be in a certain orbit you have to be going a certain speed. If you're "catching up" with another object in the same orbit you must be going faster than that object, but if you're going faster that will put you in another, higher, orbit. Eventually, if you go fast enough you reach escape velocity (about 25,000 mph) and you're free of the Earth's gravity.
  • Gala BrandGala Brand Posts: 1,172MI6 Agent
    edited December 2015
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:

    The cameras in YOLT are not a plot hole since have nothing to do with the plot. Silva's plans are far too specific to make sense. He's relying too much on the actions of other people.

    Bond drawing Silva to Skyfall without proper preparation is another big problem.

    These problems with SF are commonly brought up. It's not just from me.

    I know they're commonly brought up, but they're wrong. They're not plot holes. You can argue that Bond engages in reckless decision making by going to Scotland but Bond has been engaging in reckless decision making since he ignored Quarrel's advice and went to Crab Key (and getting poor old Quarrel killed). It's part of his character, which makes it the opposite of a plot hole.

    And these "plot holes" are brought up by so-called Bond fans who try to slag SF even though it ranks #1 among Bond films on both Rotten Tomatoes and, I think, IMDB.

    That's a strange kind of "fan."

    And explain again how Blofeld had a view of the spacecrafts in space?

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.

    I agree that the camera of the spacecrafts in space doesn't make sense, but that doesn't have a bearing on the plot. And if spacecrafts can't meet up, how do spacecrafts rendezvous with the ISS?

    They come up from below, not from behind as in YOLT.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:
    To be in a certain orbit you have to be going a certain speed. If you're "catching up" with another object in the same orbit you must be going faster than that object, but if you're going faster that will put you in another, higher, orbit.
    Dude, how do you catch up to & dock with the ISS? :))
    Please man, we're going to Mars pretty soon, let's not make the simple stuff difficult.
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    chrisisall wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:
    To be in a certain orbit you have to be going a certain speed. If you're "catching up" with another object in the same orbit you must be going faster than that object, but if you're going faster that will put you in another, higher, orbit.
    Dude, how do you catch up to & dock with the ISS? :))
    Please man, we're going to Mars pretty soon, let's not make the simple stuff difficult.

    See post 23 :)
    Check out my Amazon author page! Mark Loeffelholz
    "I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
    "Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    chrisisall wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:
    To be in a certain orbit you have to be going a certain speed. If you're "catching up" with another object in the same orbit you must be going faster than that object, but if you're going faster that will put you in another, higher, orbit.
    Dude, how do you catch up to & dock with the ISS? :))
    Please man, we're going to Mars pretty soon, let's not make the simple stuff difficult.

    See post 23 :)
    Yeah. Change orbit, sometimes just slightly. Thank you! {[]
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent
    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.
    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • HatThrowingHenchmanHatThrowingHenchman Russia With LovePosts: 1,834MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:

    And these "plot holes" are brought up by so-called Bond fans who try to slag SF even though it ranks #1 among Bond films on both Rotten Tomatoes and, I think, IMDB.

    That's a strange kind of "fan"

    1) that's not really a point to say how some online databases have ranked a movie. RT ranks almost every movie I check on very low (the only high-ranked ones are these bigger-than-life blockbusters by Nolan or Cameron e.g.)

    2) but you are right, I too think when prople "slag" something Bond related, it's hard to say that they're fans
    "You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Gala Brand wrote:
    Matt S wrote:
    Gala Brand wrote:

    I know they're commonly brought up, but they're wrong. They're not plot holes. You can argue that Bond engages in reckless decision making by going to Scotland but Bond has been engaging in reckless decision making since he ignored Quarrel's advice and went to Crab Key (and getting poor old Quarrel killed). It's part of his character, which makes it the opposite of a plot hole.

    And these "plot holes" are brought up by so-called Bond fans who try to slag SF even though it ranks #1 among Bond films on both Rotten Tomatoes and, I think, IMDB.

    That's a strange kind of "fan."

    And explain again how Blofeld had a view of the spacecrafts in space?

    And I won't even go into how it is physically impossible for a space craft in orbit to "catch up" with another space craft in the same orbit.

    I agree that the camera of the spacecrafts in space doesn't make sense, but that doesn't have a bearing on the plot. And if spacecrafts can't meet up, how do spacecrafts rendezvous with the ISS?

    They come up from below, not from behind as in YOLT.

    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.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
Sign In or Register to comment.