[Matt_13]

Towards the end of the PTS in Goldeneye, we see Alec Trevelyan get shot in the head by Ourmouve. How the hell did he live? Was the shot a blank? This has been bothering me for a while so please someone enlighten me on the situation, thanks.

Matt

[Tarl_Cabot]

Matt_13, on 5 June 2006 - 16:00, said:

Towards the end of the PTS in Goldeneye, we see Alec Trevelyan get shot in the head by Ourmouve. How the hell did he live? Was the shot a blank? This has been bothering me for a while so please someone enlighten me on the situation, thanks.

Matt

To this day it makes absolutely no sense to me and that's why I can't rate Goldeneye too high because of it's ilogical and incoherent script.And I don't get why Alec would be 'mad' at Bond for doing what he did after presumably seeing his friend shot dead.

[Matt_13]

Good to see I'm not alone when it comes to confusion in this movie.

[Agent 76]

I think even after they went to that mission, Alec was working for another country because he was angry to what England did to his parents in the past, so he never forgot that, and that's the reason for the double-cross. It was all a blank shot, from the beginning He was working with Ourumov and not agains't him.

[The Richmond Spy]

Agent 76, on 5 June 2006 - 17:31, said:

I think even after they went to that mission, Alec was working for another country because he was angry to what England did to his parents in the past, so he never forgot that, and that's the reason for the double-cross. It was all a blank shot, from the beginning He was working with Ourumov and not agains't him.

I agree and I've always thought Alec was only angry at Bond for switching the time because it messed up what became to be Alec's escape plan (leaving the scar on his face). Even though Bond had no idea he was being betrayed and therefore no idea he was disrupting any plan. I know it doesn't make much sense for Alec to be ticked at Bond, but the guy wasn't exactly a rational thinker to begin with.

[JimmyBond]

After all, it was Alec who set off the alarm that alerted the gaurds in the first place. He needed Ouromov there so he could be "killed" in front of Bond, then Bond would report to MI6 that Alec was dead and he'd be off there radar.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Good explanation why he lived Agent76 but why is he mad at Bond?

[Matt_13]

I think it may have been what the Richmond Spy had said, and that Alec was only angry with Bond because he changed the time on the mine, leaving him with the scar (plus he's with the country that so called "betrayed" his parents).

This post has been edited by Matt_13: 05 June 2006 - 09:47 PM

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Let

[Matt_13]

[marktmurphy]

Agent 76, on 5 June 2006 - 22:31, said:

It was all a blank shot, from the beginning He was working with Ourumov and not agains't him.

Except that a blank would kill you just a certainly as a normal round at that range. Plus Ouromov appears to use a real round to kill one of his soldiers just afterwards, so he'd have to be very careful not to lose count of which of his bullets were real and which weren't. Unless they were all blanks and it was a very sophisticated bit of showmanship so Bond would think Alec dead. But then; why? They seem to be trying pretty hard to kill him- so if they think he's going to die, why put on the 'Alec's dead' show? Why not just kill Bond? Alec had his gun pointed at Bond's head when they first bump into each other- why didn't he kill him then? Did Ouromov and he come up with the plan in those few seconds in the gas tank room? Why not get Alec to stroll over and plant one in Bond's bonce?

No matter how you look at it, it makes no sense whatsoever- even the 'bungee jumping down a dam to drop into a toilet to go down some stairs to go down a trapdoor to go down more stairs, then down a conveyor belt to end up on a runway on top of a cliff that's still high enough to skydive off' geography is hugely suspect.

[Matt_13]

Excellent points markt.

[Tiin007]

marktmurphy, on 5 June 2006 - 17:56, said:

Why not just kill Bond?

Because even though Trevelyan was angry at England, he was still friends with Bond. He needed to give Bond at least a chance to survive. Your other questions still stand, marktmurphy.

[Mister Asterix]

marktmurphy, on 5 June 2006 - 16:56, said:

Except that a blank would kill you just a certainly as a normal round at that range.

Pretty much what I said.

[marktmurphy]

Mister Asterix, on 5 June 2006 - 23:13, said:

marktmurphy, on 5 June 2006 - 16:56, said:

Except that a blank would kill you just a certainly as a normal round at that range.

Pretty much what I said.

Ooh handbags! Yes, I was still typing my tirade (!) whilst you popped yours in. Many apologies for not being able to see into the future!

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Tarl_Cabot, on 5 June 2006 - 14:42, said:

Good explanation why he lived Agent76 but why is he mad at Bond?

I think these lines sum up the reasons for Trevelyan's seething animosity toward Bond:

"Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?
"No, you were supposed to die for me."

And in the train: "Your friend, or the mission?"

It all goes back to a theme in the story: loyalty. Trevelyan staged the scene (and not only his death) as a test of Bond's loyalty. Would Bond surrender to save his friend's life, or would he sacrifice his friend for the sake of the mission? That Bond chose the latter says where his loyalty lies, always with Her Majesty and never for simple personal relationships. For Trevelyan, this is deeply offensive given his entire backstory which is to do with betrayal of loyalty.

[marktmurphy]

Tiin007, on 5 June 2006 - 23:08, said:

marktmurphy, on 5 June 2006 - 17:56, said:

Why not just kill Bond?

Because even though Trevelyan was angry at England, he was still friends with Bond. He needed to give Bond at least a chance to survive. Your other questions still stand, marktmurphy.

Nice way of looking at it- I like it!
Mind you, if were Ouromov I'd be pretty annoyed! 'Why didn't you just shoot him?!'

[Matt_13]

Dmitri Mishkin, on 5 June 2006 - 18:28, said:

Tarl_Cabot, on 5 June 2006 - 14:42, said:

Good explanation why he lived Agent76 but why is he mad at Bond?

I think these lines sum up the reasons for Trevelyan's seething animosity toward Bond:

"Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?
"No, you were supposed to die for me."

And in the train: "Your friend, or the mission?"

It all goes back to a theme in the story: loyalty. Trevelyan staged the scene (and not only his death) as a test of Bond's loyalty. Would Bond surrender to save his friend's life, or would he sacrifice his friend for the sake of the mission? That Bond chose the latter says where his loyalty lies, always with Her Majesty and never for simple personal relationships. For Trevelyan, this is deeply offensive given his entire backstory which is to do with betrayal of loyalty.

Ah HA! That makes total sense, the theme of Goldeneye really is loyalty, I never noticed that. Way to go Dimitri Mishkin, well done!

This post has been edited by Matt_13: 05 June 2006 - 10:31 PM

[marktmurphy]

Dmitri Mishkin, on 5 June 2006 - 23:28, said:

It all goes back to a theme in the story: loyalty. Trevelyan staged the scene (and not only his death) as a test of Bond's loyalty. Would Bond surrender to save his friend's life, or would he sacrifice his friend for the sake of the mission? That Bond chose the latter says where his loyalty lies, always with Her Majesty and never for simple personal relationships. For Trevelyan, this is deeply offensive given his entire backstory which is to do with betrayal of loyalty.

Ironic (intended?) considering Bond was actually surrendering at the time (gun down, hands up) and Alec told him to 'finish the job; blow them all to hell!'! The exact opposite of saying Bond is loyal only to the mission and Alec to friends as their final actions as friends were as Bond being loyal to his friend and Alec to the mission.

[K1Bond007]

Matt_13, on 5 June 2006 - 16:00, said:

Towards the end of the PTS in Goldeneye, we see Alec Trevelyan get shot in the head by Ourmouve. How the hell did he live?

Matt

It's a work of fiction. Assume anything you like. Perhaps Alec can take a blank shot to the head. Did any of you think of that? This is series where 7 foot tall giants can live through just about anything, chew through just about anything. Alec later falls off a satellite and lives. If the man can do that, then a blank to the head? Ha. That's nothing.

marktmurphy, on 5 June 2006 - 16:56, said:

Agent 76, on 5 June 2006 - 22:31, said:

It was all a blank shot, from the beginning He was working with Ourumov and not agains't him.

But then; why? They seem to be trying pretty hard to kill him- so if they think he's going to die, why put on the 'Alec's dead' show? Why not just kill Bond? Alec had his gun pointed at Bond's head when they first bump into each other- why didn't he kill him then? Did Ouromov and he come up with the plan in those few seconds in the gas tank room? Why not get Alec to stroll over and plant one in Bond's bonce?

They were friends. Alec merely gave him a chance. If he died, so be it, but if he lived, then most certainly Alec would be classified as Deceased not MIA or Captured or whatever (because I don't think the Soviets would just come out and say, "hey we killed your d00ds" - there'd always be a question - maybe presumed deceased.) Bond living makes it so that they know Alec is 100% dead.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

Matt_13, on 5 June 2006 - 15:31, said:

Ah HA! That makes total sense, the theme of Goldeneye really is loyalty, I never noticed that. Way to go Dimitri Mishkin, well done!

Thanks Matt_13. Glad that helped.

Quote

Ironic (intended?) considering Bond was actually surrendering at the time (gun down, hands up) and Alec told him to 'finish the job; blow them all to hell!'! The exact opposite of saying Bond is loyal only to the mission and Alec to friends as their final actions as friends were as Bond being loyal to his friend and Alec to the mission.

That's true, mark; a little bit of a role reversal there. But I tend to think it is a case of Alec bluffing more than a sincere desire for the mission's success. However, there are probably myriad ways to interpret it!

[Publius]

I largely agree with Dmitri Mishkin's and K1Bond007's points, although I do share marktmurphy's confusion over the bungee jump and other quirks. Truly a bizarre PTS.

Even though I enjoyed most of the movie, the fact we have to analyze the PTS this much only to get more questions just goes to show this is possibly GE's biggest weak point.

[Harmsway]

Story *is* GOLDENEYE's weak point. Just take the fact that Sean Bean is too young to have fitted the whole Lienz Cossack storyline into consideration.

The pre-title sequence, though, is clearly the weakest and most confusing section. It's entertaining the first time around, but if you think about it, your mind hurts.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Dmitri Mishkin, on 5 June 2006 - 17:28, said:

Tarl_Cabot, on 5 June 2006 - 14:42, said:

Good explanation why he lived Agent76 but why is he mad at Bond?

I think these lines sum up the reasons for Trevelyan's seething animosity toward Bond:

"Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?
"No, you were supposed to die for me."

And in the train: "Your friend, or the mission?"

It all goes back to a theme in the story: loyalty. Trevelyan staged the scene (and not only his death) as a test of Bond's loyalty. Would Bond surrender to save his friend's life, or would he sacrifice his friend for the sake of the mission? That Bond chose the latter says where his loyalty lies, always with Her Majesty and never for simple personal relationships. For Trevelyan, this is deeply offensive given his entire backstory which is to do with betrayal of loyalty.

You'd think two men who go to war together would have a better impression of eachother's character after so many intense situations and years of comradery. Why would Bond stop being who he is and become a Blofeld type because of thier friendship? Lame Lame Lame. It's a piss poor story; the villians plot is ridiculous to an extreme but I enjoy the film. I wish they kept Alec alive so we could se him come back and haunt Bond again ah la Spectre/Blofeld.

[50 Yen]

What I think about the whole Bond/Trevelyan thing is that Alec Trevelyan really was James Bond's friend during the Goldeneye PTS, and when Ourumov held Trevelyan at gunpoint, the bullet only grazed Alec's head, it didn't kill him. When Trevelyan woke up afterwards, he probably realized too late that the timers were down to three minutes instead of six, so probably he got burned (hence the facial scars) when trying to escape, and when he only saw Ourumov and the Russian Soldiers, Bikers and Siberian Guards (if you play the game, then you'll know that those are the given names of the guards who returned to the facility with Ourumov), Ourumov took that as an opportunity to take advantage of Alec and together, he and his men brainwashed Trevelyan into thinking Bond left him for dead, therefore Mr. Ourumov is the real villain of Goldeneye.

[K1Bond007]

Publius, on 5 June 2006 - 17:55, said:

I largely agree with Dmitri Mishkin's and K1Bond007's points, although I do share marktmurphy's confusion over the bungee jump and other quirks. Truly a bizarre PTS.

Even though I enjoyed most of the movie, the fact we have to analyze the PTS this much only to get more questions just goes to show this is possibly GE's biggest weak point.

I was being facetious, but it's still true. This is a series where a man tries and blows up Fort Knox with a nuke, where a villain has a hollowed out volcano, an underwater lair or a super secret space station with space marines, a guy throws a ing hat and kills people, a freakin giant that lives from a fall from a plane, an invisible car. I mean.. some of you look past all that garbage, but then chastise this movie. Come on now. This is James Bond. I admit though that there are limits to believability, but that can sometimes be fun. You Only Live Twice, Moonraker, and Die Another Day crossed that line, but they certainly have their moments and some feel they're the best of the series while others feel they're the worst.

That's Bond's appeal IMHO. There is something for everyone: real, camp, actual spy fiction, huge action, romance, literally taking the character out of this world... yeah... it's got it all. That's why it has endured....

[RevolveR]

Dmitri Mishkin, on 5 June 2006 - 22:28, said:

Tarl_Cabot, on 5 June 2006 - 14:42, said:

Good explanation why he lived Agent76 but why is he mad at Bond?

I think these lines sum up the reasons for Trevelyan's seething animosity toward Bond:

"Am I supposed to feel sorry for you?
"No, you were supposed to die for me."

And in the train: "Your friend, or the mission?"

It all goes back to a theme in the story: loyalty. Trevelyan staged the scene (and not only his death) as a test of Bond's loyalty. Would Bond surrender to save his friend's life, or would he sacrifice his friend for the sake of the mission? That Bond chose the latter says where his loyalty lies, always with Her Majesty and never for simple personal relationships. For Trevelyan, this is deeply offensive given his entire backstory which is to do with betrayal of loyalty.

That pretty much clears it up, good analysis! The only problem I see is that Bond was actually about to surrender and the count was speeded up and Trevelyan was shot anyway. Perhpas Alec's head was turned and he couldn't see that. But had Bond surrendered, wouldn't that have messed up his plan if he was already working for the enemy? Alec's plan had too many holes!!

[License To Kill]

Trevelyan was a very bad villain in my opinion because of this really shotty plan he had concocted. But, Mishkin really did a heck of job analyzing the situation, good job.

[crheath]

Supposedly the actor who played Alec tested for the role of Bond. Maybe that's why he got so mad and turned against him: Because Pierce got the part instead.

[DLibrasnow]

Matt_13, on 5 June 2006 - 16:20, said:

Good to see I'm not alone when it comes to confusion in this movie.

You are not alone...from the time I saw it opening night it has bothered me too.


[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='562846' date='5 June 2006 - 16:53']
[mra]Let