26 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

I watched “For Your Eyes Only” on iTunes during a business trip lately and the one nagging plot hole I have with the movie returned to irritate me. When Bond and Melina dive down to the wreck of the St. George’s 007 has the perfect opportunity to destroy the ATAC transmitter but instead deactivates it.

Of course he was under orders to retrieve the ATAC transmitter, but I’m certain it’s not the only ATAC that the British have. To reinforce this point what happens at the very end of the movie – Bond destroys it.

The movie ranks as one of my favorites of the entire series, and has remained there since I first saw back in 1981, but whenever I watch that scene in the sunken St. George’s I find myself thinking “Just to destroy it now Bond, pull that lever and be done with it.

 

I know there would not have been much of a movie to follow but I have a solution.

• Bond does indeed activate the self-destruct sequence, setting enough time for the two of them to be clear of the wreck.
• As Melina and Bond leave they are assaulted by the man in the deep-sea diving apparatus.
• Bond realizes the only way to defeat the man (and save Melina) is to use the explosive device for the ATAC and races back to detach it.
• Bond detaches the explosive and attaches the device to the diver, who then explodes.
• Bond and Melina are jumped by more of Kristatos’ men and taken to the surface.
• Since Bond had to deactivate the device to detach the explosive charge, Kristatos’ men are able to carry it to the surface.
• [Movie continues as originally with keel-hauling sequence etc]

 

I personally think this would have worked better offering Bond an internal conflict regarding the action on the St. George’s. Using the explosive device to save Melina, but in so doing perhaps dooming millions of people to a Russian use of ATAC to nuke British cities.

 

Still, it is probably my second favorite of the Moore series (after “The Spy Who Loved Me”) with a fantastic back-to-basics approach, ruthless 007 sending Locque to his death (shades of Sandor’s death in TSWLM), an appealing leading lady in Carole Bouquet, Topol (I love any movie he appears in), Julian Glover as a more realistic villain and IMO the best snow-and-ski action sequence in the series.

[Major Tallon]

I'm also a fan of FYEO.  Excellent ideas on the alternative plot line, for a point that's also occurred to me.

[Grard Bond]

Why should Bond destroy the ATAC if he could just take it and bring it with him to the surface? He doesn't know right then that Kristatos has taken over Melina's boat. I don't see that as a plothole.

[DLibrasnow]

Why should Bond destroy the ATAC if he could just take it and bring it with him to the surface? He doesn't know right then that Kristatos has taken over Melina's boat. I don't see that as a plothole.

 

But, by destroying it he doesn't run the risk of it falling into Russian hands?

 

Sure he doesn't know that Kristatos has taken over the boat but he would still need to find a way to safely transport it back to the UK. Why run that risk? When the British only have to manufacture another one. Melina even asks "But wouldn't the crew have destroyed it?"

 

The British officer at the beginning of the movie gives the command, "Destruct ATAC system" and when the ship sinks the Minister of Defence asks "How deep is the water there" to which the reply is "Not deep enough".

 

So, its clear the British are not too concerned about retreiving the ATAC but more concerned that it doesn't fall into Russian hands. The best way to prevent that from happening is to destroy it then and there.

 

After all, that's eventually what Bond does (after many more people have died). He knows they can just build another ATAC.

[Simon]

Indeed, why then does Kristatos send down a submersible to do battle with Bond's submersible when in fact, he is already on Melina's boat to take them captive when they surface.

 

'Save yourself a man and a piece of hardware' I would say.  'You've already sent down the chap in the JIM suit to do some retrieving....'

 

But I do remember it all playing through superbly at the time of watching it in the cinema.  Films in them there days weren't expected to be re-watched x-millions of times for frame by frame dissection and analysis.

 

A spot of forgiveness is required for anything not released 10 years previously.  (Date stamped April 2013)

[Turn]

That whole sequence with the other submersible piloted by the mad scientist/nerd guy (who reminds me of that scientist guy on The Simpsons) that attacks the Neptune just doesn't work at all for me. It's just a little too much for little if any payoff.

[Sir_James_Moloney]

I think you partially answered your own question in your original post when you pointed out that Bond's mission was to retrieve that ATAC, so it's not a mistake on his part for him not to destroy it. 

 

You've actually touched upon what I consider to be the biggest plot hole in the film: It's Kristatos' plan to retrieve the ATAC and sell it to the Soviets. It's even implied that he is responsible for destroying the St George to begin with. He clearly knows where the ATAC is and has the equipment and men to retrieve it... so why doesn't he? Instead, he seems to fool around in Cortina with Bibi Dahl for a few weeks and then waits until the precise moment that Bond is about to snatch it. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

Am I missing something?

[AMC Hornet]

You and DLibrasnow are both missing something:

Where was it stated or even implied that Bond's mission was to retrieve the ATAC?

 

His mission was to find out who paid Gonzales to kill the Havelocks. At no point was he ordered to try to recover the transmitter. At best he was taking it upon himself to either confirm that the ATAC had been destroyed, or to ensure that it did not fall into enemy hands.

 

One line of dialogue could have fixed this (after Bond has advised Melina to conserve her gas supply and speak only when necessary, then provided a running commentary of what he was doing): "It will probably take us more than a minute to get clear of here, so we'd better take the ATAC outside first." Perhaps that was considered extraneous, after all his prior verbal diarrhea.

 

Of course, once they were outside Bond could have taken his pick to it, chipped it into pieces and scattered the bits to the current - and indeed he should have done. What was he thinking? Of course, from a purely dramatic/cinematic perspective, that would have left us without the final act.

 

I don't have a solution here, but yes, I always wondered what he was doing retrieving the ATAC. It's not like Naval Intelligence didn't have any more (besides, Agent XXX had probably already stolen the blueprints two years earlier).

[Dustin]

Well, the ATAC could be an experiment prototype, a one-of-a-kind single copy, and its inventor could have been on board the ship. That would have made the retrieval of the ATAC top priority.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, the ATAC could be an experiment prototype, a one-of-a-kind single copy, and its inventor could have been on board the ship. That would have made the retrieval of the ATAC top priority.

 

That´s what I´ve always thought, too. And this only makes sense of Bond´s final decision to destroy the one copy. Because that´s détente: the British don´t have it, and the Russians don´t have it.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 27 April 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[Mr_Wint]

You and DLibrasnow are both missing something:

Where was it stated or even implied that Bond's mission was to retrieve the ATAC?

 

 

Exactly.

Havelock’s mission was to locate and retrieve the ATAC. But - as the name "Operation Undertow" suggests - Bond’s mission was not this straightforward and simplistic.

 

The way I see it: The British are concerned about the loss of the ATAC, yes. But the 00-section is even more concerned about the fact that someone else is trying to retrieve it, so they want to know "who" and "why" and this is the type of job Bond was made for.

 

At the warehouse in Albania, Bond notices the JIM diving equipment and now, for the first time, he understands that Kristatos has the resources to carry out a salvage operation. Bond then decides to go after the ATAC by himself. Perhaps because his superiors ordered him to do so at that point, or because he wanted to be one step ahead of Kristatos. Perhaps, he deliberately put himself into danger for a chance to confront Kristatos and figure out his intentions.

 

In any case, when Gogol steps out from the helicopter, Bond has sorted out all the links in the pipeline. Gonzales was hired by Locque who was working for Kristatos, who in turn had made a deal with KGB. Bond’s mission is completed and he can now casually throw away the ATAC.

[AMC Hornet]

 

Well, the ATAC could be an experiment prototype, a one-of-a-kind single copy, and its inventor could have been on board the ship. That would have made the retrieval of the ATAC top priority.

 

That´s what I´ve always thought, too. And this only makes sense of Bond´s final decision to destroy the one copy. Because that´s détente: the British don´t have it, and the Russians don´t have it.

 

I always took that as a joke on Bond's part - after all, he didn't say "we don't have it," he said "I don't have it."

 

As for the inventor being on the St Georges - it's unlikely, and was not mentioned in the script, so I will not consider the possibility.

[plankattack]

One line of dialogue could have fixed this (after Bond has advised Melina to conserve her gas supply and speak only when necessary, then provided a running commentary of what he was doing): "It will probably take us more than a minute to get clear of here, so we'd better take the ATAC outside first." Perhaps that was considered extraneous, after all his prior verbal diarrhea.

Without a doubt a little extra exposition could have tidied up some loose ends. But really, what's more important for FYEO - a little plot clarity or extra screen-time with a talking parrot and a Margaret Thatcher impersonator?

[Dustin]

Well, that parrot is a veteran of the Eon-family, you couldn't well scratch the greatest moment of this character's acting career...

[Hansen]

As a matter of fact, Bond films are full of plot holes (especially on non-fleming stories) As long as the entertainment is stronger...

[glidrose]

Plot hole?

 

Despite what AMC Hornet says above, logic dictates that Bond's mission should be get the ATAC before the Commies do. Instead Bond spends too much of the picture buggering about Cortina supposedly trying to find Havelock's killer while there is a race against time to get the ATAC before the Russians. And does anybody pretend to understand why it was necessary to send Bond to Cortina... other than the filmmakers wanted to film some ski action? Why not meet Kristatos in Greece?

 

I think John Brosnan covered this in an article for Starburst Magazine. Apparently Wilson did the first draft, then brought Richard Maibaum in who said there was no McGuffin and so they shoe-horned the ATAC sub-plot in. And not very deftly either.

 

A lot of British and American film critics noticed how thin and illogical the basic story was in their reviews way back when.

Edited by glidrose, 27 April 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Turn]

We have recognized how some films in the series loosely borrow the plots or are somewhat remakes of others -- AVTAK borrows from GF; TSWLM borrows from YOLT; MR from TSWLM, for example.

 

Nobody ever mentions FYEO borrows its basic plot device from FRWL -- Bond's mission is to recover an important piece of equipment -- without the other interesting elements associated with it such as the assassination plot and the girl involved. FYEO is celebrated by many fans as a return to earth after the far-out MR, but is basically a lot of stunts with some bits from Fleming tossed in. Some of those its elements seem borrowed too - Colombo is basically another Kerim Bey and Loque and Kriegler are variations of Red Grant.

[Mr_Wint]

Despite what AMC Hornet says above, logic dictates that Bond's mission should be get the ATAC before the Commies do. Instead Bond spends too much of the picture buggering about Cortina supposedly trying to find Havelock's killer while there is a race against time to get the ATAC before the Russians. And does anybody pretend to understand why it was necessary to send Bond to Cortina... other than the filmmakers wanted to film some ski action? Why not meet Kristatos in Greece?

 

Pay more attention next time you watch it.

 

 

Nobody ever mentions FYEO borrows its basic plot device from FRWL -- Bond's mission is to recover an important piece of equipment -- without the other interesting elements associated with it such as the assassination plot and the girl involved. FYEO is celebrated by many fans as a return to earth after the far-out MR, but is basically a lot of stunts with some bits from Fleming tossed in. Some of those its elements seem borrowed too - Colombo is basically another Kerim Bey and Loque and Kriegler are variations of Red Grant.

 

FYEO is obviously based on FRWL. Only characters, character motivations, dialogue, locations, music, sets, action scenes and events have been changed.

[marktmurphy]

Bond is clearly secretly working for the Russians. He's trying to retrieve the ATAC for them, but his mission is failed.

At the end, he and Melina go for a midnight swim where he quietly murders her.

[DLibrasnow]

I think John Brosnan covered this in an article for Starburst Magazine. Apparently Wilson did the first draft, then brought Richard Maibaum in who said there was no McGuffin and so they shoe-horned the ATAC sub-plot in. And not very deftly either.

 

A lot of British and American film critics noticed how thin and illogical the basic story was in their reviews way back when.

 

 

Yes. Brosnan did mention that in his 1981 review. They had the movie mapped out but then needed the McGuffin. But, that shouldn't have stopped them trying to clear up some of the plotholes. People have touched on another major plothole in this thread. Sure, Bond was in Cortina to locate Locque. But what was more important? Preventing ATAC from falling into Communist hands, or finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder.

 

After all the dialogue at the beggining said the water was "Not deep enough I'm afraid"

 

(Damn you all -- now I have another plothole to bug me  )

 

The reason Kristatos had to wait for 007 to show up was he didn't have the code and instructions on how to extract the ATAC. Bind had a set of printed instructions on the sequence of wires that needed to be cut.

 

Love the movie - but its full of plotholes.

[Mr_Wint]

 

I think John Brosnan covered this in an article for Starburst Magazine. Apparently Wilson did the first draft, then brought Richard Maibaum in who said there was no McGuffin and so they shoe-horned the ATAC sub-plot in. And not very deftly either.

 

A lot of British and American film critics noticed how thin and illogical the basic story was in their reviews way back when.

 

 

Yes. Brosnan did mention that in his 1981 review. They had the movie mapped out but then needed the McGuffin. But, that shouldn't have stopped them trying to clear up some of the plotholes. People have touched on another major plothole in this thread. Sure, Bond was in Cortina to locate Locque. But what was more important? Preventing ATAC from falling into Communist hands, or finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder.

 

I don't see it as a plot hole if "finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder" was his mission (which it was).

[DLibrasnow]

 

 

I think John Brosnan covered this in an article for Starburst Magazine. Apparently Wilson did the first draft, then brought Richard Maibaum in who said there was no McGuffin and so they shoe-horned the ATAC sub-plot in. And not very deftly either.

 

A lot of British and American film critics noticed how thin and illogical the basic story was in their reviews way back when.

 

 

Yes. Brosnan did mention that in his 1981 review. They had the movie mapped out but then needed the McGuffin. But, that shouldn't have stopped them trying to clear up some of the plotholes. People have touched on another major plothole in this thread. Sure, Bond was in Cortina to locate Locque. But what was more important? Preventing ATAC from falling into Communist hands, or finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder.

 

I don't see it as a plot hole if "finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder" was his mission (which it was).

 

 

But surely the more important mission was stopping the ATAC from falling into Russian hands.

[Dustin]

Question is: why was Bond only assigned to investigate Havelock's death? One might argue that automatically entails taking over Havelock's mission. Then again it would have been more convenient had Bond/the 00-section been assigned the retrieval right from the start, especially if opposition activity was to be expected. 

[Mr_Wint]

 

 

 

I think John Brosnan covered this in an article for Starburst Magazine. Apparently Wilson did the first draft, then brought Richard Maibaum in who said there was no McGuffin and so they shoe-horned the ATAC sub-plot in. And not very deftly either.

 

A lot of British and American film critics noticed how thin and illogical the basic story was in their reviews way back when.

 

 

Yes. Brosnan did mention that in his 1981 review. They had the movie mapped out but then needed the McGuffin. But, that shouldn't have stopped them trying to clear up some of the plotholes. People have touched on another major plothole in this thread. Sure, Bond was in Cortina to locate Locque. But what was more important? Preventing ATAC from falling into Communist hands, or finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder.

 

I don't see it as a plot hole if "finding out who ordered Sir Havelock's murder" was his mission (which it was).

 

 

But surely the more important mission was stopping the ATAC from falling into Russian hands.

 

 

Bond was called in after Havelock's death, not before.

I am arguing that Bond's mission was to find Havelock's killers and figure out their intentions.

[DLibrasnow]

Question is: why was Bond only assigned to investigate Havelock's death? One might argue that automatically entails taking over Havelock's mission. Then again it would have been more convenient had Bond/the 00-section been assigned the retrieval right from the start, especially if opposition activity was to be expected. 

 

Precisely...there would have been plenty of time to search for Havelocks killer after taking care of the ATAC. After all the British government was obviously aware of the possibility of the Russians getting their hands on it. That is brought home in this dialogue exchange:

 

Minister of Defense: My God, How deep is the water there?

First Sea Lord: Not deep enough, I'm afraid.

 

Also, is Bond the only 00 agent on duty in 1981? The ATAC is capable of ordering British nuclear submarines to attack British cities, Surely something that vital would have been top priority, In "Thunderball" every 00 agent was called into the search for missing nuclear weapons. In "For Your Eyes Only" the entire Polaris fleet was at risk and the British knew roughly where the wreck was.....

 

Yet, not another 00 agent in sight.

[glidrose]

 

Despite what AMC Hornet says above, logic dictates that Bond's mission should be get the ATAC before the Commies do. Instead Bond spends too much of the picture buggering about Cortina supposedly trying to find Havelock's killer while there is a race against time to get the ATAC before the Russians. And does anybody pretend to understand why it was necessary to send Bond to Cortina... other than the filmmakers wanted to film some ski action? Why not meet Kristatos in Greece?

 
Pay more attention next time you watch it.

 

I did. You should heed your own advice.

[MajorB]

I'm interested in the fact that the ATAC was TAC'd onto the storyline during development. Did Brosnan's article give any sense of what the villain's plot was in the pre-ATAC drafts?