55 replies to this topic

[MajorB]

If you remove the presumption that Orumov and Trevleyan wanted Bond dead imo it actually makes sense. What they really wanted was a patsy.

Trevelyan isn't defecting to Communist Russia but rather to take his place at the head of the Russian Mafia (cant recall the name, still want to save the re watch for the hd version), Orumov is his stooge in the military. Trevelyan is effectively aiming to dissapear from both sides.

Trevelyan allows himself to be captured to draw Bond out so he can clearly see that he is shot in the head at close range...Bond is therefore conviced he is dead. Orumov aims to capture Bond, remove him from the room whereby Trevelyan can slip away and/or attempt to deactivate the bombs (thinking he had 6 minutes in either case). Orumov is hoping to have MI6 humiliated and Bond in his hands, becoming the hero for Mother Russia and allowing him to ascend in import becoming increasingly valuable to Trevelyans crime syndicate, later Bond will presumably be deported or allowed to escape to finalise the fate of 006 to the British.

What Bond does is to scupper/change the plan somewhat, escaping against the odds AND facilitating the explosion of the chemical works (whether Orumov/Trevleyan wanted this or not I cannot be clear but it is ultimately irrelevent later.)


Now to the admitedly ludicrous plane chase, we have to recall GE was Bonds return after an absence of 6 years. Reboots weren't even a concept at the time, the aim was to reintroduce the audience to the character and tone of 'a Bond movie'. The PTS is the key that sets the mood for the rest of the movie, it instructs the audiece in the level of 'suspension of disbelief' required to enjoy the film - the staples are laid out in rapid order and as long as these things are presented in an entertaining fashion the audience will buy them....never again does the film require quite the same level of concession in logic so everything else gets a free pass and is that bit more exciting as a result.

The PTS does exactly what it needed to in terms of character, audience investment and preparation for the movie beyond, the series was revitalised from its 6 year coma.

Well said Lachesis, well said!

Yes! THANK you!! Finally the opening makes sense (not counting the plane stunt)! Fifteen years of "WTF??" at last put to rest! It not only explains the Trevelyan/Ourumov plot, but also the "You gave me this face" remark, which I could never work out. The tension is finally leaving my body, and I'm letting my breath escape with a quiet hiss. I owe you a drink, Lachesis, whoever and wherever you are!

[elizabeth]

I think that Broz's whole shtick with the cart thing was kind of absurd. As if they didn't know that he was already there.

[BryanHerbert]

Are we really Bashing Brosnan's films yet again, leave Goldeneye the alone, this was a great film, and saved the franchise. If you wanna make fun of a bond movie make fun of Moonraker, gayest movie ever,and a laughing stock towards the bond series. Jaws could of been a better bond.

Edited by BryanHerbert, 31 March 2010 - 11:22 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Are we really Bashing Brosnan's films yet again, leave Goldeneye the alone, this was a great film, and saved the franchise. If you wanna make fun of a bond movie make fun of Moonraker, gayest movie ever,and a laughing stock towards the bond series. Jaws could of been a better bond.

I thought this tired shtick wore out last year. Why is it that anything negative said about Brosnan or one of his films is automatically a Brosnan bashing thread?

[BryanHerbert]

Read people's previous posts, second off Goldeneye was a really good movie and should be left alone, i never see any threads complaining about Dalton's or Moore's movie. I have only seen them about brosnan.

[JimmyBond]

Read people's previous posts, second off Goldeneye was a really good movie and should be left alone, i never see any threads complaining about Dalton's or Moore's movie. I have only seen them about brosnan.

I have read the previous posts, and everyone is discussing the plot of the movie. Just because they don't like aspects of the plot doesn't mean they are Brosnan bashing.

And re: not finding anyone complaining about Dalton or Moore's movies...really? Do you even visit those two forums?

[Lachesis]

Yes! THANK you!! Finally the opening makes sense (not counting the plane stunt)! Fifteen years of "WTF??" at last put to rest! It not only explains the Trevelyan/Ourumov plot, but also the "You gave me this face" remark, which I could never work out. The tension is finally leaving my body, and I'm letting my breath escape with a quiet hiss. I owe you a drink, Lachesis, whoever and wherever you are!

Delighted to be of assistance....mine really is a pint (John Smith Smooth, but dont try to mail it the envelope will get soggy) ^^.

Edit: No movie should be above criticism, but I think the plot logic holds quite well and although the plane chase was ridiculous it doesnt prevent the film from being fun (and in truth is it any less ridiculous than Bond blindly ploughing through a wall, or driving a Moon Buggy, or putting an rc on two wheels, or walking on crocodiles etc..at the end of the day a credible suspension of disbelief and wonderful devlivery of pure escapism are Fleming's real gifts to the world of entertainment - in the face of that selective cynicism does come across as less than laudable.)

Edited by Lachesis, 01 April 2010 - 11:08 AM.

[Jim]

Read people's previous posts, second off Goldeneye was a really good movie and should be left alone,

You're right, it should be left alone. Completely ignored would be even better.

[Icephoenix]

5. I just don't buy the physics of Bond pulling the plane out of its dive in time (any more than that helicopter that fell out of the plane at the end of DAD).

I always thought an easy solution the filmmakers could have used would have been this:

1. Bond steals the motorcycle and chases after the plane.
2. The plane and motorcycle go over the edge.
3. Bond whips out his grapple gun once again and fires it at the fuselage of the place.
4. He then proceeds to reel himself to the plane and climb into the cockpit.

It's still exceedingly over the top, but at least more (slightly) credible physics wise?

[LTK_(1989)]

Any other problems with the Goldeneye PTS???

Yes....


- "Beg your pardon, forgot to knock": What? Does one usually knock on a closed stall to try to get in? Does one usually try walk into a closed stall at all? NO! And why is he saying anything to the pooping guard at all when the guard probably doesn't speak any English to begin with? The line is not funny and makes no sense at all. And how is Brosnan hanging upside down like that? Who is he, Spider-man? On the other hand, Brosnan's Bond being revealed upside down while making a nonsensical joke over a guy taking a dump is a wonderful metaphor for Brosnan's entire Bond era.

- Jumping DOWN to get UP: When Bond flies away from the facility, it is clearly shown to be on TOP of a mountian - the only problem is that we also clearly saw Bond jump DOWN from a dam to get to the facility. You don't have to be a geography expert to see something wrong with that.


.... and I'm glad to see the physics-defying jump to catch a plane and the muddy handling of Trevelyan's defection has been covered so well on this thread.

[Janus Assassin]

Any other problems with the Goldeneye PTS???

Yes....


- "Beg your pardon, forgot to knock": What? Does one usually knock on a closed stall to try to get in? Does one usually try walk into a closed stall at all? NO! And why is he saying anything to the pooping guard at all when the guard probably doesn't speak any English to begin with? The line is not funny and makes no sense at all. And how is Brosnan hanging upside down like that? Who is he, Spider-man? On the other hand, Brosnan's Bond being revealed upside down while making a nonsensical joke over a guy taking a dump is a wonderful metaphor for Brosnan's entire Bond era.

- Jumping DOWN to get UP: When Bond flies away from the facility, it is clearly shown to be on TOP of a mountian - the only problem is that we also clearly saw Bond jump DOWN from a dam to get to the facility. You don't have to be a geography expert to see something wrong with that.


.... and I'm glad to see the physics-defying jump to catch a plane and the muddy handling of Trevelyan's defection has been covered so well on this thread.

I agree... when Bond is escaping from the Chemical Facility... you see no sight of the dam at all.. when he jumps off the dam, you dont see a building or a runway. So he sneaks in through the vent. So was majority of the facility hidden in the mountains? The whole geography portion still bothers me to this day.

[The Richmond Spy]

If you remove the presumption that Orumov and Trevleyan wanted Bond dead imo it actually makes sense. What they really wanted was a patsy.

Trevelyan isn't defecting to Communist Russia but rather to take his place at the head of the Russian Mafia (cant recall the name, still want to save the re watch for the hd version), Orumov is his stooge in the military. Trevelyan is effectively aiming to dissapear from both sides.

Trevelyan allows himself to be captured to draw Bond out so he can clearly see that he is shot in the head at close range...Bond is therefore conviced he is dead. Orumov aims to capture Bond, remove him from the room whereby Trevelyan can slip away and/or attempt to deactivate the bombs (thinking he had 6 minutes in either case). Orumov is hoping to have MI6 humiliated and Bond in his hands, becoming the hero for Mother Russia and allowing him to ascend in import becoming increasingly valuable to Trevelyans crime syndicate, later Bond will presumably be deported or allowed to escape to finalise the fate of 006 to the British.

What Bond does is to scupper/change the plan somewhat, escaping against the odds AND facilitating the explosion of the chemical works (whether Orumov/Trevleyan wanted this or not I cannot be clear but it is ultimately irrelevent later.)


Now to the admitedly ludicrous plane chase, we have to recall GE was Bonds return after an absence of 6 years. Reboots weren't even a concept at the time, the aim was to reintroduce the audience to the character and tone of 'a Bond movie'. The PTS is the key that sets the mood for the rest of the movie, it instructs the audiece in the level of 'suspension of disbelief' required to enjoy the film - the staples are laid out in rapid order and as long as these things are presented in an entertaining fashion the audience will buy them....never again does the film require quite the same level of concession in logic so everything else gets a free pass and is that bit more exciting as a result.

The PTS does exactly what it needed to in terms of character, audience investment and preparation for the movie beyond, the series was revitalised from its 6 year coma.

Well said Lachesis, well said!

Yes, very nicely said.

[tim partridge]

Any other problems with the Goldeneye PTS???

Yes....


- "Beg your pardon, forgot to knock": What? Does one usually knock on a closed stall to try to get in? Does one usually try walk into a closed stall at all? NO! And why is he saying anything to the pooping guard at all when the guard probably doesn't speak any English to begin with? The line is not funny and makes no sense at all. And how is Brosnan hanging upside down like that? Who is he, Spider-man? On the other hand, Brosnan's Bond being revealed upside down while making a nonsensical joke over a guy taking a dump is a wonderful metaphor for Brosnan's entire Bond era.

- Jumping DOWN to get UP: When Bond flies away from the facility, it is clearly shown to be on TOP of a mountian - the only problem is that we also clearly saw Bond jump DOWN from a dam to get to the facility. You don't have to be a geography expert to see something wrong with that.


.... and I'm glad to see the physics-defying jump to catch a plane and the muddy handling of Trevelyan's defection has been covered so well on this thread.

I agree... when Bond is escaping from the Chemical Facility... you see no sight of the dam at all.. when he jumps off the dam, you dont see a building or a runway. So he sneaks in through the vent. So was majority of the facility hidden in the mountains? The whole geography portion still bothers me to this day.

Even if you want to play by the film's logic, why is 007 sent to blow up a mountain top chemical weapons facility connected to a major dam in Arkhangelsk, right next to Finland? Water contamination for inland USSR any nation sharing the White sea, anyone? Not only that, but the sequence is set in 1986, meaning the Russians have to contend with a major gas cloud sailing across mainland USSR and the West, almost like another disaster- Chernobyl, also from 1986! What brilliant, sensitive foreign relations the UK has...

More puzzling is the motivation as to why Orumov and 006 would put themselves at such a high risk just to send 007 home under the belief that 006 is no more. Wouldn't a major chemical weapons explosion cause a little more than a facial graze? I'm sure Ourumov too at such high altitude would be suffocated with the side effects of a chemical facility clouding up.

Even by "it's only a movie" standards, it strikes me as worrying that the Arkhangelsk plant is phyiscally not the same building or even in the same location from scene to scene. The Meddings miniature looks nothing like the building at the Swiss Dam. Where do the army go to after Bond escapes? We see Orumov and a whole army stood, watching with breathless anticipation as 007 jumps to the plane, and after the plane flies away, we cut back to the tiny miniature, and the entire army + Orumov have miraculously vanished! Did they re-enter the facility in a few seconds? Did Orumov get bored and turn in with his whole team, even though seconds before he was about to enjoy watching 007s failed gravity defying stunt and the plane smash into the mountains? How the hell did they all manage to flee the facility after the explosion, anyway, given everything was destroyed?

There's also as clumsy handheld shot revealing the backlot version to be a bungalow!

Maybe crunch time just arrived, the writers couldn't solve it and they had to just shoot the "dam" thing? Maybe the dam jump was shoehorned into the script after the miniatures of the facility had already been designed and built? Who knows.

Not a 007 pretitle high point, for me. Is there any other pretitle with more problems?

Edited by tim partridge, 02 April 2010 - 02:36 PM.

[Lachesis]

"Just repeat to yourself its just a show you really should relax!" wise words indeed even if spoken in jest!

"Beg pardon forgot to knock!" err is that really a problem you can't move beyond..... certainly I cannot offer any assist to resolve that one!

Bond isn't aiming to enter a Dam, hes using it as a means to enter the facility, which could be some location distant, next door or through several mountain passes, the next three minutes and or hours of travel are surely not nescessary for exposition. Ultimately no one questions that a sewer or ducting system is a common way writers assume to bypass security and the like, going down to come up is actually entirely 'de rigor' for fictional entertainment.

The place did explode and there is no evidence or suggestion that such caused a major chemical crisis, so why assume the operation had such an end in mind. The method and delivery of the weapons in question isn't discussed, nor is the state they are stored in...in any event this is irrelevent to the ongoing plot so its odd that anyone needs justification there of.

006 and Orumov were clearly working to a plan so its no real leap of imagination to assume the actual timetable and their route of escape was planned, even if they had to walk all over dead soldiers to achieve it. Given the of the nature location, is a bunker not likely to have secure or blast proof areas. In any event to my memory the platform/runway took a blast but didnt actually exlode itself (admittedly not showing the army that was assembled there was careless but hardly life altering - I say this with the conscession I am still determined not to watch it again till hd is relased so I hope you dont demand this of me).

That 006 was disapearing from Russian and British sight means the set up was clearly aimed at both ssides and any preservation of Russian assets was unlikely to be on their personal agendas...indeed as criminal networks thrive in times of adversity its entirely plausible any ensuing fallout was simply anticipated as good for business.

Ultimately however what 006 and Orumov planned to achieve and what actually did happen is modifeied by Bonds uncanny ability to survive...a nice message to relaunch the franchise imho.

Edited by Lachesis, 02 April 2010 - 03:18 PM.

[tim partridge]

The place did explode and there is no evidence or suggestion that such caused a major chemical crisis, so why assume the operation had such an end in mind. The method and delivery of the weapons in question isn't discussed, nor is the state they are stored in...in any event this is irrelevent to the ongoing plot so its odd that anyone needs justification there of.

Ouromov clearly states "don't shoot, you'll blow the gas tanks!" and we see gas cannisters galore in that room where 006 is killed. Also, the whole building is called the Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility, which is a pretty serious indicator of what it's about! Also, the caption title card that reads Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility is superimposed over the footage of 007 reeling below the dam, so it's not like the dam or the building beneath it is ambiguously linked to the facility- it is the facility!

I am not dicussing whether or not Ouromov and Alec betrayed the Russians, but more regarding their own livelihood and exit from Arkhangelsk. Were all of those little army teamsters double agents too? Was the whole facility run by them?

Edited by tim partridge, 02 April 2010 - 03:41 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Well, I'll give him credit for at least trying to make sense of it. Which is more than at least four of the actual screenwriters bothered to do.

The daftest thing is, this scene was 'inspired' by a flashback scene in Michael France's original script (which actually does make sense), where Bond and two other Double-O agents attempt to rescue Trevelyan from a Russian safe house, only to discover that he's defected and they've walked into a trap.

They could have just opened the film with that scene, instead of concocting a new one.

[Lachesis]

The place did explode and there is no evidence or suggestion that such caused a major chemical crisis, so why assume the operation had such an end in mind. The method and delivery of the weapons in question isn't discussed, nor is the state they are stored in...in any event this is irrelevent to the ongoing plot so its odd that anyone needs justification there of.

Ouromov clearly states "don't shoot, you'll blow the gas tanks!" and we see gas cannisters galore in that room where 006 is killed. Also, the whole building is called the Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility, which is a pretty serious indicator of what it's about! Also, the caption title card that reads Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility is superimposed over the footage of 007 reeling below the dam, so it's not like the dam or the building beneath it is ambiguously linked to the facility- it is the facility!

I am not dicussing whether or not Ouromov and Alec betrayed the Russians, but more regarding their own livelihood and exit from Arkhangelsk. Were all of those little army teamsters double agents too? Was the whole facility run by them?

Of course Orumov wanted care to be taken he was standing in the room at the time, he and Trevelyan did actually want to survive! It was certainly a plan with risk attached (in these cases what worthwhile plan is risk free) his instruction at that time was entirely logical and wholly in keeping with the plot. That the tanks would explode is made very clear...not least by the fact they later did! Personally I can't fault the guy for being careful, its logical, inkeeping witht he plot and also indicative that the contents are combustable - which is useful later.

There is certainly no dispute that it is a chemical facility but as to the exact location and function of each entry point and relationship to the susequent exit there is no real reason to think they are not simply linked as opposed to one and the same 'building'. You would have to be fairly pendatic to demand a caption that reads 'the beginning of a Route that eventually leads to the bit of the Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility where the 'chemical weapons' stuff are actually stored and can be blown up' when for 99% of the audience 'Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility' does exactly the same job.

As to a method of disposing of toxic and infection chemicals eviceration is a common approach, napalm was even used in the past to 'disinfect' areas of possible contamination (isn't it mentioned in 'The Rock') so exploding a chemical facility is entirely plausible way to destroy it particularly given the comprehension of movie goers at that time (and thats assuming the chemicals were stored or develped to their active state.....which is by no means a given). Obviously today we know many weapons are designed to exploit vapourisation as a means of distribution (as a direct response to the know methods of dealing with them) but our general awareness of terrorism is greater today for the saddest of reasons.

Edited by Lachesis, 02 April 2010 - 05:44 PM.

[tim partridge]

Of course Orumov wanted care to be taken he was standing in the room at the time, he and Trevelyan did actually want to survive! It was certainly a plan with risk attached (in these cases what worthwhile plan is risk free) his instruction at that time was entirely logical and wholly in keeping with the plot. That the tanks would explode is made very clear...not least by the fact they later did! Personally I can't fault the guy for being careful, its logical, inkeeping witht he plot and also indicative that the contents are combustable - which is useful later.

OK, but my argument was regarding the threat and stupidity of exploding Arkhangelsk, the damage it would have caused on oo6 and Ourumov, the threat of the weapons themselves, which Ourumov actually kills someone for nearly shooting as they are that deadly. Seems too many plot holes too many for my liking, and that's how I felt in 1995. Cherry on the top being the gravity defying plane jump shot (and the way it was undesirably executed with awkward looking special effects).

There is certainly no dispute that it is a chemical facility but as to the exact location and function of each entry point and relationship to the susequent exit there is no real reason to think they are not simply linked as opposed to one and the same 'building'. You would have to be fairly pendatic to demand a caption that reads 'the beginning of a Route that eventually leads to the bit of the Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility where the 'chemical weapons' stuff are actually stored and can be blown up' when for 99% of the audience 'Arkhangelsk Chemical Weapons Facility' does exactly the same job.

Not quite the same though, is it? By that logic, we could have had "Arhangelsk" labelled onto the screen as Bond reels down the wire, lasers the square panel, lowers himself into a toilet below, enters the facility and then exits across a Hawaiian beach front.

It is established in the opening that he specifically lasers a hole in the toilet roof of Arkhangelsk chemical weapon facility, below a dam. Bond runs down a few meesly corridors and ends up in a gas tank room that immediately exits out of a completely different building that is clearly not in the same geographic space as the building he walked into during the opening. It's also very clearly not connected to anything, proven in those vast wide shots of the facility. Like I said, it makes about as much sense as Bond entering Arkhangelsk and exiting onto a Hawaiian beach.

As to a method of disposing of toxic and infection chemicals eviceration is a common approach, napalm was even used in the past to 'disinfect' areas of possible contamination (isn't it mentioned in 'The Rock') so exploding a chemical facility is entirely plausible way to destroy it particularly given the comprehension of movie goers at that time (and thats assuming the chemicals were stored or develped to their active state.....which is by no means a given). Obviously today we know many weapons are designed to exploit vapourisation as a means of distribution (as a direct response to the know methods of dealing with them) but our general awareness of terrorism is greater today for the saddest of reasons.

Not a given? We see tons of active gas cannisters that Orumov shoots someone over! That and the facility is high altitude next to a dam going out to the White sea and into mainland USSR. Again, these questions brimmed over me in 1995.

As for the plot hole regarding Ourumov, the troops and Alec left at Arkhangelsk, what happened next? It's not like Ourumov is going to just sit around and wait for emergency services to get him, is it? How did Ourumov covertly manage to get Alec out of a flaming chemical weapons facility high up in the middle of nowhere, while not drawing attention to the troops on the runway who would have given witness reports about the whole event? This implies that they must have all been in on it. They are also God knows how many feet up there in the middle of a snowy mountain range, so where do they all huddle?

I remember scratching my head about the whole thing as I watched the film in the cinema, but my other friends with me were more put off by "invincible" Bond outrunning a squad of bikes on foot and Bond defying gravity. Then and now it feels to me like a muddled work in progress. I do wonder how it ended up so messy, to me the messiest of the 007 PTSs. I still find it very entertaining and suspenseful, however, which I think comes down to Campbell's tense direction.

[Lachesis]

Please forgive me for not quoting but I think the reply is going to be long enough.

Whatever we see in storage (ie complete) is obviously but the tip of the iceberg to what any facility has the potential to make over time. Look to any conflict since 1950's and blowing up chemical facilities are a standard approach. Combustion is a chemical process used to destroy/convert/disipate the deadly materials being created (assuming they aren't of a kind to vapourise before being active - which there is no given reason to assume here).

Orumov kills a soldier for the stupidity/risk he poses to himself, to underline the threat to the audience and to suggest that Bond himself is in danger..there is no sugggestion of any greater consequence (and indeed even that act could be part of a staged set up to sell the bullet to 006's head). At no stage before or after is there anything to suggest the explosion was going to have far reaching chenobyl like effects, the tactic was employed in real world situations prior to that time, I cannot see any argument, real or filmic that dictates the need insist on any other explanation.

Fair enough if you cannot accept the change in geography I accept it requires a leap of faith and taking that leap is largely down to the 'are you enjoying it' vibe. Ultimately if we had been shown 006 and 7 move down a protracted tunnel or up a lift, left, right and up again I suspect there would have been far more criticism regarding pace and length than any disorientation might have produced.

Active gas canisters and the chemicals within are not one and the same, an aerosol is explosive even when the contents is inert. Oxygen/ozone is highly unstable but is used to make very stable products....its not the chemical toxins which are nescessarily explosive and again the suggestion is clear that exothermic reaction is often enough to comletely neautrlise the contents, there nothing in the movie or in the real world that denies the valididty of this approach.

What happens next? Do you need to see bloody, weary and wounded soliders dragging themselves out of the wreckage of the faclity? Knowing Orumov and 006 must have been in cahoots later explains comprehansively why they knew how/where to escape the explosion.

When you have a theory/proposal that fits the facts and one that doesnt what reasons have you for demanding the latter applies? I concede the effects shot was lazy/careless, the plane chase was ott and silly but ultimately nothing more nothing less...the plot holes aren't holes unless you demand them to be, which seems crazy.

[tim partridge]

Please forgive me for not quoting but I think the reply is going to be long enough.

Whatever we see in storage (ie complete) is obviously but the tip of the iceberg to what any facility has the potential to make over time. Look to any conflict since 1950's and blowing up chemical facilities are a standard approach. Combustion is a chemical process used to destroy/convert/disipate the deadly materials being created (assuming they aren't of a kind to vapourise before being active - which there is no given reason to assume here).

Orumov kills a soldier for the stupidity/risk he poses to himself, to underline the threat to the audience and to suggest that Bond himself is in danger..there is no sugggestion of any greater consequence (and indeed even that act could be part of a staged set up to sell the bullet to 006's head). At no stage before or after is there anything to suggest the explosion was going to have far reaching chenobyl like effects, the tactic was employed in real world situations prior to that time, I cannot see any argument, real or filmic that dictates the need insist on any other explanation.

I just would've thought that, logically, a chemical weapons facility, right next to a dam, might do a bit more damage on the landscape than a weeny gash on Alex's face, especially when it's got a mile high fireball coming off it.

Fair enough if you cannot accept the change in geography I accept it requires a leap of faith and taking that leap is largely down to the 'are you enjoying it' vibe. Ultimately if we had been shown 006 and 7 move down a protracted tunnel or up a lift, left, right and up again I suspect there would have been far more criticism regarding pace and length than any disorientation might have produced.

They got a away with a grimey canteen with a sports game playing on an old television, so a few shots of 007 and 006 on a lift wouldn't have been too relatively slow. That said, even with such inserts, what about the fact that each site is geographically not even in the same space and in no way connected? It would have to be underground tunnels or elevators many miles long, which would probably prove even more disorientating.

Active gas canisters and the chemicals within are not one and the same, an aerosol is explosive even when the contents is inert. Oxygen/ozone is highly unstable but is used to make very stable products....its not the chemical toxins which are nescessarily explosive and again the suggestion is clear that exothermic reaction is often enough to comletely neautrlise the contents, there nothing in the movie or in the real world that denies the valididty of this approach.

I defer to your knowledge on the subject. Incidentally, how often are chemical weapons facilities built next to major rivers (in high altitudes affected by Siberian winds)?

What happens next? Do you need to see bloody, weary and wounded soliders dragging themselves out of the wreckage of the faclity? Knowing Orumov and 006 must have been in cahoots later explains comprehansively why they knew how/where to escape the explosion.

Except that didn't happen, rather Ourumov teleported out while Alec got a weird gash mark on his face. Somehow they managed to hook up again, their secret safe, atop a flaming chemical factory in the middle of a freezing mountain range in the middle of nowhere.

When you have a theory/proposal that fits the facts and one that doesnt what reasons have you for demanding the latter applies? I concede the effects shot was lazy/careless, the plane chase was ott and silly but ultimately nothing more nothing less...the plot holes aren't holes unless you demand them to be, which seems crazy.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this, but nevertheless, I appreciate the effort you went to in trying to convince me that the GoldenEye PTS makes any sense. I'd be interested to know more about that Michael France version of the PTS that Dalton describes above.

Edited by tim partridge, 02 April 2010 - 09:40 PM.

[Lachesis]

The key with the GE PTS is that it can't make sense first time through, its not till you factor in the set up and 006/Ormumovs duplicity that it comes together, which I thought was rather clever, but not for everyone I guess.

The fate of the factory wasn't actually influential on the subsequent plot, Orumov did escape (perhaps he was knocked around, suffered some non permananet wounds/breaks that ten years saw well healed who knows it really doesnt change anything), with an extra few minutes Orumov like Trevelyan would have escaped without even that scratch - any other consequence they faced was down to Bond's unexpected actions. It makes perfect sense to me but I guess agreeing to differ is most appropriate at this stage lest we drag the board beneath the waves through volume of text ^^

In closing I will state that if something is fun I can forgive a lot of plot logic. The elements I find most difficult to accept are those descisions made by film characters where they seeingly had to know its only a film.....but thats an entirely different story and gripe from me heh.

[Taro Todoroki]

Read people's previous posts, second off Goldeneye was a really good movie and should be left alone,

You're right, it should be left alone. Completely ignored would be even better.

[Scottlee]

This is the most enjoyable debate I've read on the forums in quite some time, and Lachesis, I find your writing a breath of fresh air.

For me the original plot explanation from Lachesis works fine. The only things I would change about the PTS is the manner in which Bond gets control of the plane, but wouldn't everyone? Frankly though the Goldeneye PTS deserves to be highly thought of just for the amount of intrigue and mystery it's always generated.

[zerominus]

Goldeneye may have many flaws, but I thought the PTS did a great job of reintroducing 007 to the cinema-going public. As far as introducing a new Bond goes however, I'd take The Living Daylights' PTS over Goldeneye every time.

[Mr. Blofeld]

You know what would've been better than the apparently Escher-esque chemical facility we got? Just start the PTS with Bond running after the plane; he gets in, blah blah, Trevelyan's held captive by Ourumov, blah blah, they fight, pilot's shot, blah blah, free-falling, blah blah, Trevelyan's presumed dead and Bond survives in a parachute.

No hand-wringing, no scenic changes, and you get a PTS that positively reeks of old-school Bond (which is just what the producers wanted, right?); problem solved.

[DaveBond21]

Goldeneye may have many flaws, but I thought the PTS did a great job of reintroducing 007 to the cinema-going public. As far as introducing a new Bond goes however, I'd take The Living Daylights' PTS over Goldeneye every time.

Goldeneye was what everyone wanted from a Bond film in 1995. Anyone who didn't like it then - didn't matter.