43 replies to this topic

[WC]

As I understand it, Melina's parents, the Havelocks, were assigned the task of locating the wreck of the St Georges British spy ship while on board their research vessel, the Triana. If they were still in the process of locating it and the ATAC, why did Emile Locque pay a hitman, Hector Gonzales, to kill them off with his seaplane before they could actually locate the device? Wouldn't that be premature? Shouldn't he have waited for them to retrieve it and then kill them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them do the donkey work and then, once the ATAC was recovered, to get rid of them?

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

[Jim]

As I understand it, Melina's parents, the Havelocks, were assigned the task of locating the wreck of the St Georges British spy ship while on board their research vessel, the Triana. If they were still in the process of locating it and the ATAC, why did Emile Locque pay a hitman, Hector Gonzales, to kill them off with his seaplane before they could actually locate the device? Wouldn't that be premature? Shouldn't he have waited for them to retrieve it and then kill them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them do the donkey work and then, once the ATAC was recovered, to get rid of them?

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

There's a line of dialogue later in the film when Bond and The Moustachioed Melina are going through the log, which only she can read as it had a special code (Z for A, A for B, something suitably fiendish) and it confirms that the last entry was that Sir Havelock (yes, that's ghastly) found the wreck the day he died, and near one of Kristatos' diving bells.

So he had to die, vile capitalist running dog. Presumably he was spotted. The other presumption is that, unless he got really lucky on his first day, all this happens a little while after the sinking of the St Georges which makes one wonder a ) how long and b ) what's been going on in the meantime. There's nothing to suggest that this couldn't be a year or more later.

What all this doesn't explain is why the daughter cadges a lift with the only man in history with a bigger moustache than her - swapping grooming tips?

[WC]

As I understand it, Melina's parents, the Havelocks, were assigned the task of locating the wreck of the St Georges British spy ship while on board their research vessel, the Triana. If they were still in the process of locating it and the ATAC, why did Emile Locque pay a hitman, Hector Gonzales, to kill them off with his seaplane before they could actually locate the device? Wouldn't that be premature? Shouldn't he have waited for them to retrieve it and then kill them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them do the donkey work and then, once the ATAC was recovered, to get rid of them?

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

There's a line of dialogue later in the film when Bond and The Moustachioed Melina are going through the log, which only she can read as it had a special code (Z for A, A for B, something suitably fiendish) and it confirms that the last entry was that Sir Havelock (yes, that's ghastly) found the wreck the day he died, and near one of Kristatos' diving bells.

So he had to die, vile capitalist running dog. Presumably he was spotted. The other presumption is that, unless he got really lucky on his first day, all this happens a little while after the sinking of the St Georges which makes one wonder a ) how long and b ) what's been going on in the meantime. There's nothing to suggest that this couldn't be a year or more later.

What all this doesn't explain is why the daughter cadges a lift with the only man in history with a bigger moustache than her - swapping grooming tips?

Hmm... I'm still no clearer after your explanation. So Havelock finds the wreck near one of Kristatos' diving bells. But so what? Why not let Havelock recover it and bring the ATAC up to the surface? Or at least record the precise co-ordinates where the wreck is located? Instead, Kristatos' reasoning is that we'll kill off Havelock (who is close to a find, or may well have made the actual discovery) and we'll go and do the donkey work ourselves. So now Kristatos' men have to go and look for it all again. It doesn't seem to make sense. Was Kristatos so proud that he wanted to say "look, I found it all by myself, without any help from another"?

Most villains will let someone else do their dirty work for them, and then stab them in the back at the last second, not before the work is completed.

[Jim]

As I understand it, Melina's parents, the Havelocks, were assigned the task of locating the wreck of the St Georges British spy ship while on board their research vessel, the Triana. If they were still in the process of locating it and the ATAC, why did Emile Locque pay a hitman, Hector Gonzales, to kill them off with his seaplane before they could actually locate the device? Wouldn't that be premature? Shouldn't he have waited for them to retrieve it and then kill them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them do the donkey work and then, once the ATAC was recovered, to get rid of them?

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

There's a line of dialogue later in the film when Bond and The Moustachioed Melina are going through the log, which only she can read as it had a special code (Z for A, A for B, something suitably fiendish) and it confirms that the last entry was that Sir Havelock (yes, that's ghastly) found the wreck the day he died, and near one of Kristatos' diving bells.

So he had to die, vile capitalist running dog. Presumably he was spotted. The other presumption is that, unless he got really lucky on his first day, all this happens a little while after the sinking of the St Georges which makes one wonder a ) how long and b ) what's been going on in the meantime. There's nothing to suggest that this couldn't be a year or more later.

What all this doesn't explain is why the daughter cadges a lift with the only man in history with a bigger moustache than her - swapping grooming tips?

Hmm... I'm still no clearer after your explanation. So Havelock finds the wreck near one of Kristatos' diving bells. But so what? Why not let Havelock recover it and bring the ATAC up to the surface? Or at least record the precise co-ordinates where the wreck is located? Instead, Kristatos' reasoning is that we'll kill off Havelock (who is close to a find, or may well have made the actual discovery) and we'll go and do the donkey work ourselves. So now Kristatos' men have to go and look for it all again. It doesn't seem to make sense. Was Kristatos so proud that he wanted to say "look, I found it all by myself, without any help from another"?

Most villains will let someone else do their dirty work for them, and then stab them in the back at the last second, not before the work is completed.

I agree - it is all nonsense, particularly given all the efforts in trying to kill Bond in Cortina when he's the only one (presumably) with the instructions about how to disarm the bloody thing.

The film doesn't make sense. But I wasn't really expecting it to. Moonraker, that makes sense. Man wants to gas everyone. Simple.

[WC]

As I understand it, Melina's parents, the Havelocks, were assigned the task of locating the wreck of the St Georges British spy ship while on board their research vessel, the Triana. If they were still in the process of locating it and the ATAC, why did Emile Locque pay a hitman, Hector Gonzales, to kill them off with his seaplane before they could actually locate the device? Wouldn't that be premature? Shouldn't he have waited for them to retrieve it and then kill them off? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them do the donkey work and then, once the ATAC was recovered, to get rid of them?

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

There's a line of dialogue later in the film when Bond and The Moustachioed Melina are going through the log, which only she can read as it had a special code (Z for A, A for B, something suitably fiendish) and it confirms that the last entry was that Sir Havelock (yes, that's ghastly) found the wreck the day he died, and near one of Kristatos' diving bells.

So he had to die, vile capitalist running dog. Presumably he was spotted. The other presumption is that, unless he got really lucky on his first day, all this happens a little while after the sinking of the St Georges which makes one wonder a ) how long and b ) what's been going on in the meantime. There's nothing to suggest that this couldn't be a year or more later.

What all this doesn't explain is why the daughter cadges a lift with the only man in history with a bigger moustache than her - swapping grooming tips?

Hmm... I'm still no clearer after your explanation. So Havelock finds the wreck near one of Kristatos' diving bells. But so what? Why not let Havelock recover it and bring the ATAC up to the surface? Or at least record the precise co-ordinates where the wreck is located? Instead, Kristatos' reasoning is that we'll kill off Havelock (who is close to a find, or may well have made the actual discovery) and we'll go and do the donkey work ourselves. So now Kristatos' men have to go and look for it all again. It doesn't seem to make sense. Was Kristatos so proud that he wanted to say "look, I found it all by myself, without any help from another"?

Most villains will let someone else do their dirty work for them, and then stab them in the back at the last second, not before the work is completed.

I agree - it is all nonsense, particularly given all the efforts in trying to kill Bond in Cortina when he's the only one (presumably) with the instructions about how to disarm the bloody thing.

The film doesn't make sense. But I wasn't really expecting it to. Moonraker, that makes sense. Man wants to gas everyone. Simple.

Well I was just wondering if I had missed an explanation somewhere in the film or had overlooked/ misunderstood something. For example, if Havelock did locate the wreck and had already transmitted the co-ordinates to a friend (who turned out be a traitor working for Kristatos), then Havelock would have outlived his usefulness. But I don't recall anything like that actually happening in the film.

Unless of course, Kristatos had already found the wreck, in which case he wouldn't want Havelock getting near the location and informing the British, so he had him killed. But I don't think that was the case, was it?

Anyone else have any ideas on Havelock's untimely (and perhaps unnecessary) death?

[HildebrandRarity]

For Your Eyes Only is a bottom of the drawer James Bond film and don't let the 'fans' tell you otherwise. It's a joke of a movie where the balance of nuclear power hangs on the beak of a talking parrot.

FYEO was a complete let down at the cinema in the early summer of 1981 after the scorching, blistering majesty of Moonraker two years earlier.

[dee-bee-five]

The Moustachioed Melina...

she cadges a lift with the only man in history with a bigger moustache than her - swapping grooming tips?

Very cruel....


...very true.

I wonder if Melina found work in a Village People Tribute Band after James had had his wicked way with her, got over the stubble burn from kissing her (the curse of my life, believe me) and moved onto Octopussy? (And I've often wondered if the pussies were numbered and if he worked his way through them chronologically.)

FYEO was a complete let down at the cinema in the early summer of 1981 after the scorching, blistering majesty of Moonraker two years earlier.

Or a breath of fresh air, depending on your point of view. It certainly felt that way at the premiere at the Odeon Leicester Square, which I did attend.

Edited by dee-bee-five, 02 April 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Anyone else have any ideas on Havelock's untimely (and perhaps unnecessary) death?

...um...er...to establish the revenge element of the main Bond Girl early in the movie and to depict the tragic occurrence in Miss Bouquet's big green eyes so as to tie it into the film's then-unconventional title...again, early in the movie?

[WC]

Anyone else have any ideas on Havelock's untimely (and perhaps unnecessary) death?

...um...er...to establish the revenge element of the main Bond Girl early in the movie and to depict the tragic occurrence in Miss Bouquet's big green eyes so as to tie it into the film's then-unconventional title...again, early in the movie?

Yeah, but you're talking about the reasons from the scriptwriters' point of view, not from the internal logic of the story. I'm sure, if this was taking place in reality, a villain wouldn't hire a hitman to kill the Havelocks, and then explain that the reasoning for this is to establish a revenge element with their daughter. I'm not interested in what the writers were trying to establish. I want to know the reasoning within that fictional world of FYEO.

Similarly, I'm not particularly interested whether you thought it was a let-down of a movie or not. This thread isn't to discuss the merits of the film but to attempt to figure out a particular plot point.

[HildebrandRarity]

Anyone else have any ideas on Havelock's untimely (and perhaps unnecessary) death?

...um...er...to establish the revenge element of the main Bond Girl early in the movie and to depict the tragic occurrence in Miss Bouquet's big green eyes so as to tie it into the film's then-unconventional title...again, early in the movie?

Yeah, but you're talking about the reasons from the scriptwriters' point of view, not from the internal logic of the story. I'm sure, if this was taking place in reality, a villain wouldn't hire a hitman to kill the Havelocks, and then explain that the reasoning for this is to establish a revenge element with their daughter. I'm not interested in what the writers were trying to establish. I want to know the reasoning within that fictional world of FYEO.

Similarly, I'm not particularly interested whether you thought it was a let-down of a movie or not. This thread isn't to discuss the merits of the film but to attempt to figure out a particular plot point.

It's a MOVIE! Written and re-written by SCRIPT WRITERS! You're approaching this if it was reality.

The last time I looked, James Bond films were esacapist and/or aspirational entertainment...they were/are not entirely grounded in "logic" or "reality" (your words).

[Scottlee]

It was a stupid way for Gonzalez to carry out his 'contract'. He only hit two of his three targets and he might have hit none had everybody reacted quicker to the helicopter's dive pattern. He should have gone onboard for coffee and then bumped everyone off with a pistol.

[WC]

Anyone else have any ideas on Havelock's untimely (and perhaps unnecessary) death?

...um...er...to establish the revenge element of the main Bond Girl early in the movie and to depict the tragic occurrence in Miss Bouquet's big green eyes so as to tie it into the film's then-unconventional title...again, early in the movie?

Yeah, but you're talking about the reasons from the scriptwriters' point of view, not from the internal logic of the story. I'm sure, if this was taking place in reality, a villain wouldn't hire a hitman to kill the Havelocks, and then explain that the reasoning for this is to establish a revenge element with their daughter. I'm not interested in what the writers were trying to establish. I want to know the reasoning within that fictional world of FYEO.

Similarly, I'm not particularly interested whether you thought it was a let-down of a movie or not. This thread isn't to discuss the merits of the film but to attempt to figure out a particular plot point.

It's a MOVIE! Written and re-written by SCRIPT WRITERS! You're approaching this if it was reality.

The last time I looked, James Bond films were esacapist and/or aspirational entertainment...they were/are not entirely grounded in "logic" or "reality" (your words).

Well if that's the case that everyone should simply write everything off to simply being a movie, why should any scriptwriters or writers bother to have anything make sense? Or why should anyone be bothered whether there are continuity problems from one scene to another within a movie (for instance a person could be dead earlier in a movie but come back to life later within the same movie with no explanation whatsoever). Heck, we can just say "It's a MOVIE!" and take that cop-out stance. Why not just make all Bond films like the 1967 Casino Royale then with no sense whatsoever to its plot?

Of course I'm approaching this as if it's reality. That's how any writer or scriptwriter should, in order to see if the plot actually makes sense from A to B to C. Granted, there is some leeway for fantasy, but there still has to be an internal logic to the story otherwise that is the point when readers or an audience will no longer be engaged in the book/ film but will have stepped outside that fictional world and will be simply reading/watching the work for the purpose of nitpicking.

Again, I'm not interested in what you think of this movie or whether you think it's merely supposed to be entertainment. This isn't a thread for criticism of FYEO but a discussion of that particular plot point as stated in the original post.

[HildebrandRarity]

Charming.

If you want to continue to find logic and reality in a movie where:

- 'Blofeld' is turned into a wimp who can sell you a delicatessen in stainless steel,
- an 18 year-old figure skater has a sick crush on a 50 year old grandpa, and
- a talking parrot is required in order to save the planet,

then i'm not going to waste my time.

Good luck with finding any "logic" and "reality" with respect to the plot of FYEO. I gave you a legitimate reason as to why the producers did what they did. You disregarded that legitimate reason and instead gave me grief for it. I'll taking my leave of this thread. Good luck, etcetera.

[dee-bee-five]

Get her...!

[Mr_Wint]

First, For Your Eyes Only is a great, well-made, Bondfilm. It's not top-ten material, its top 3... if not better! A true classic. Very few Bondfilms comes close to this level of perfection. And Carole Bouquet is one of the most capable and beautiful Bondgirls in the series.

As for the Havelocks, my guess is that the villains just had to act fast. Gogol made a deal with Kristatos and he had to stop the British rather quickly. As Tanner said: "Before he could report, he and his wife were killed". This gave the villains enough time for planning. Eliminate the competition.

We dont really know what "Operation Undertow" means but it is clear that Bonds mission is to find out who is after the ATAC (He's not initially assigned to recover the ATAC).

[WC]

Charming.

If you want to continue to find logic and reality in a movie where:

- 'Blofeld' is turned into a wimp who can sell you a delicatessen in stainless steel,
- an 18 year-old figure skater has a sick crush on a 50 year old grandpa, and
- a talking parrot is required in order to save the planet,

then i'm not going to waste my time.

Good luck with finding any "logic" and "reality" with respect to the plot of FYEO. I gave you a legitimate reason as to why the producers did what they did. You disregarded that legitimate reason and instead gave me grief for it. I'll taking my leave of this thread. Good luck, etcetera.

You obviously still seem to be coloured by your own opinion of the movie, citing various examples above where there things have been played for laughs. However, the Havelocks' death isn't such a situation. It is a serious matter within the movie and the catalyst which sparks Melina's revenge. Yes, we all know that the producers wanted a motivating factor to lead her on this path of vengeance, but that's not what I'm asking at all. You haven't provided a legitimate reason whatsoever. You are still concentrating on the external reasoning of the filmmakers rather than the internal logic of the film.

Imagine, just imagine for one moment that you were the scriptwriter. You bring a story to me, the director, and I ask you what is the reason for the Havelocks' death within the film? You can't simply tell me "well, it's to establish a revenge motive". That's not enough. Everyone is aware it exists for that purpose. I will want to know why, within the story, does Kristatos have the Havelocks killed when he may still need them later on. It's as simple as that. If you as the scriptwriter can't answer that, then you have a serious plot hole.

To give you another example, take Casino Royale. If one were to ask "why did Vesper commit suicide at the end of the film?", again, the answer can't be "to establish a motive for revenge in Bond." The proper answer here within the internal logic of the film is "because she felt guilty about having betrayed him and the British government, and for having helped the enemies. She couldn't live with herself." You can't say "who cares why she killed herself?" Don't you think audiences will be asking the reasoning behind it? It is unsatisfactory for you to turn around and tell them "well it's only a movie and not meant to be taken as reality."

[HildebrandRarity]

You obviously still seem to be coloured by your own opinion of the movie, citing various examples above where there things have been played for laughs...You haven't provided a legitimate reason whatsoever. You are still concentrating on the external reasoning of the filmmakers rather than the internal logic of the film.

Imagine, just imagine for one moment that you were the scriptwriter. You bring a story to me, the director, and I ask you what is the reason for the Havelocks' death within the film? You can't simply tell me "well, it's to establish a revenge motive". That's not enough. Everyone is aware it exists for that purpose. I will want to know why, within the story, does Kristatos have the Havelocks killed when he may still need them later on. It's as simple as that. If you as the scriptwriter can't answer that, then you have a serious plot hole.

To give you another example, take Casino Royale. If one were to ask "why did Vesper commit suicide at the end of the film?", again, the answer can't be "to establish a motive for revenge in Bond." The proper answer here within the internal logic of the film is "because she felt guilty about having betrayed him and the British government, and for having helped the enemies. She couldn't live with herself." You can't say "who cares why she killed herself?" Don't you think audiences will be asking the reasoning behind it? It is unsatisfactory for you to turn around and tell them "well it's only a movie and not meant to be taken as reality."

A. It is precisely because the film is played for way too many laughs (given the sombre nature of a major part of the plot) AND because of the plot hole even you can't seem to fill that I don't rate the movie.

B. The script writing was on FYEO (as you're finding out) and it was a terrible attempt to create another From Russia With Love-type of outing, right down to the Lektor-like device (Atac) which the Russians wanted and the element of revenge between Kerim Bey and Krilencu (Columbo-Kristatos)...in fact FYEO is a hodge-podge and mish-mash of some of the other great Bonds such as Thunderball (underwater chariots/mini subs) and OHMSS (the ski chase which, in the case of FYEO, looks completely contrived and unnatural with an emphasis on showing off stunts). The writers didn't know what to do so, for the first time in their history, they begged, borrowed and stole from three of the greatest Bonds to date (FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS).

C. The reason you cite why Vesper kills herself is laid out in the book written in 1951 by Ian Fleming and no script writer could have improved on that reason.

Have you read the book, WC? It's right there in Vesper's suicide letter...and those who adapted the screenplay left in the exact reason...and not to "establish a motive of revenge in Bond" as you quote. Bringing in CR in this argument won't help your case. Apples v oranges, i'm afraid. Let's stick to FYEO because it's not in the same league as CR...and never will be.

...and sometimes an "external" reason is just as legitimate and plausable then an "internal" reason, perhaps even moreso.

Btw, did you even see FYEO at the theatre in 1981?

[Mr. Blofeld]

You're acting like you've a stick up your , Hildy.

Personally, I think it was just to move the plot along... sort of like Bond's chance encounter with Lippe at Shrublands in Thunderball!

[HildebrandRarity]

You're acting like you've a stick up your , Hildy.

Personally, I think it was just to move the plot along... sort of like Bond's chance encounter with Lippe at Shrublands in Thunderball!

Moving the plot along is not a bad thing, especially in an era where there was effectivley no video (let alone dvd) for fan boys to sift through endlessly.

And if it seems as if i've got a stick up my it's because I actually saw the movie on opening weekend and I walked out thinking they had completely run out of ideas.

I'm not the only James Bond fan who thought FYEO was a let down from Moonraker and TSWLM back in 1981. I'm probably still not.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm not the only James Bond fan who thought FYEO was a let down from Moonraker and TSWLM back in 1981. I'm probably still not.

Well, I rather like it; it's a fine continuation of OHMSS if you're watching them back-to-back, and it's also a great way to introduce the Roger Moore era.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm not the only James Bond fan who thought FYEO was a let down from Moonraker and TSWLM back in 1981. I'm probably still not.

Well, I rather like it...and it's also a great way to introduce the Roger Moore era.

LOL!

Yes. We're all entitled to an opinion.

I think its bottom drawer...others think its middle of the pack...while others still think its top of the heap.

Now...will someone please satisfy our dear WC and provide him with a legitimate internal and logical reason they knocked off the Havelocks right after the underwhelming PTS?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Now...will someone please satisfy our dear WC and provide him with a legitimate internal and logical reason they knocked off the Havelocks right after the underwhelming PTS?

They wanted Bond to come specifically, as a sort of trap, similar to the one from FRWL; Gogol has had it out for Bond since TSWLM, it seems...

[WC]

You obviously still seem to be coloured by your own opinion of the movie, citing various examples above where there things have been played for laughs...You haven't provided a legitimate reason whatsoever. You are still concentrating on the external reasoning of the filmmakers rather than the internal logic of the film.

Imagine, just imagine for one moment that you were the scriptwriter. You bring a story to me, the director, and I ask you what is the reason for the Havelocks' death within the film? You can't simply tell me "well, it's to establish a revenge motive". That's not enough. Everyone is aware it exists for that purpose. I will want to know why, within the story, does Kristatos have the Havelocks killed when he may still need them later on. It's as simple as that. If you as the scriptwriter can't answer that, then you have a serious plot hole.

To give you another example, take Casino Royale. If one were to ask "why did Vesper commit suicide at the end of the film?", again, the answer can't be "to establish a motive for revenge in Bond." The proper answer here within the internal logic of the film is "because she felt guilty about having betrayed him and the British government, and for having helped the enemies. She couldn't live with herself." You can't say "who cares why she killed herself?" Don't you think audiences will be asking the reasoning behind it? It is unsatisfactory for you to turn around and tell them "well it's only a movie and not meant to be taken as reality."

A. It is precisely because the film is played for way too many laughs (given the sombre nature of a major part of the plot) AND because of the plot hole even you can't seem to fill that I don't rate the movie.

B. The script writing was on FYEO (as you're finding out) and it was a terrible attempt to create another From Russia With Love-type of outing, right down to the Lektor-like device (Atac) which the Russians wanted and the element of revenge between Kerim Bey and Krilencu (Columbo-Kristatos)...in fact FYEO is a hodge-podge and mish-mash of some of the other great Bonds such as Thunderball (underwater chariots/mini subs) and OHMSS (the ski chase which, in the case of FYEO, looks completely contrived and unnatural with an emphasis on showing off stunts). The writers didn't know what to do so, for the first time in their history, they begged, borrowed and stole from three of the greatest Bonds to date (FRWL, Thunderball and OHMSS).

C. The reason you cite why Vesper kills herself is laid out in the book written in 1951 by Ian Fleming and no script writer could have improved on that reason.

Have you read the book, WC? It's right there in Vesper's suicide letter...and those who adapted the screenplay left in the exact reason...and not to "establish a motive of revenge in Bond" as you quote. Bringing in CR in this argument won't help your case. Apples v oranges, i'm afraid. Let's stick to FYEO because it's not in the same league as CR...and never will be.

...and sometimes an "external" reason is just as legitimate and plausable then an "internal" reason, perhaps even moreso.

Btw, did you even see FYEO at the theatre in 1981?

No I didn't see FYEO in the theatres in 1981. And again, you're still concentrating on the negative aspects of FYEO and allowing that to colour your answer.

Whether FYEO can be compared with CR or not is neither here nor there. Vesper's suicide in CR is cited for motive, not for whether it is Ian Fleming's reason or a later script writer. I could just as easily have used the example of an Agatha Christie book. Any one will do, but let's take someone like Hercule Poirot just so that i'm actually using a name here and not talking abstractly. When the murderer is revealed, doesn't Poirot have to uncover a motive for why the killer murdered the victim? Does the murderer answer "well, it was so that it could bring you, Poirot into the plot because without a crime there would be no mystery to solve and therefore Agatha Christie wouldn't be constructing a very effective whodunnit"? No. If he said that, he would be breaking the fourth wall, but that is effectively the kind of answer you want to give with regard to FYEO. In a murder mystery, the murderer will usually say something like "well I did it to get back at my brother/sister/whoever" or "to inherit so and so's money." In other words, there is a motive within the plot itself quite apart from what Christie was intending. The same should be for any story, including FYEO with the killing of Havelock. That's what you don't seem to understand. You cannot seem to distinguish between the story's internal logic and the writer's external intentions.

The original post and the whole topic of this thread concerns the internal workings of the plot. Yes, there is seemingly a plot hole, but the question I originally asked is whether there was something I had missed/overlooked within the film itself which explained why the Havelocks were killed prematurely when they would obviously have been beneficial to Kristatos in locating the ATAC.

[Turn]

You're acting like you've a stick up your , Hildy.

Personally, I think it was just to move the plot along... sort of like Bond's chance encounter with Lippe at Shrublands in Thunderball!

Moving the plot along is not a bad thing, especially in an era where there was effectivley no video (let alone dvd) for fan boys to sift through endlessly.

And if it seems as if i've got a stick up my it's because I actually saw the movie on opening weekend and I walked out thinking they had completely run out of ideas.

I'm not the only James Bond fan who thought FYEO was a let down from Moonraker and TSWLM back in 1981. I'm probably still not.

No, you're not.

I also saw FYEO opening weekend and also felt a bit let down, like I'd see these stunts done before and better in prior Bond films. And not to mention I'd see a little film a couple weeks earlier called Raiders of the Lost Ark that upped the action film stakes Bond once owned by several notches.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hey, WC, how about this:

Kristatos has Havelock killed because Havelock is only a researcher and does not have the expertise to disarm ATAC. Killing him sends an immediate message to Military Intelligence back in London. The message is that the St Georges has been found...so send someone who can disarm ATAC sooner rather than later.

Kristatos will need someone like Bond (as opposed to Havelock) to disarm the device. He does not want Bond dead*. Loque, however, does...and acts independently because he's been implicated at Gonzales' villa in Spain and wants to cover his tracks. It is Loque who sends the assassins after Bond in Cortina, not Kristatos.

Does that answer your question?

[And kindly refrain from engaging in a weak tactic of suggesting that i'm incapable of differentiating external/writing elements from internal/plot-logic elements. It's unbecoming. I, however, am a forgiving soul and have tried to answer your question in the spirit we all would like to adhere to on CBn.]

*With the added sweetener of discovering in Corfu that Bond can do his dirty work by taking-out his old enemy Columbo.

[WC]

Hey, WC, how about this:

Kristatos has the Havelocks killed because Mr. Havelock is only a researcher and does not have the expertise to disarm ATAC. Killing him sends an immediate message to Military Intelligence back in London. The message is that the St Georges has been found...so send someone who can disarm ATAC sooner rather than later.

Kristatos will need someone like Bond (as opposed to Havelock) to disarm the device. He does not want Bond dead. Loque, however, does...and acts independently because he's been implicated at Gonzales's villa in Spain and wants to cover his tracks. It is Loque who sends the assassins after Bond in Cortina, not Kristatos.

Does that answer your question?

Thank you. You finally have your thinking cap on. This is all I have been asking for all along - an explanation (or at least speculation) of the motive, whether it is correct or not, not whether you thought FYEO was a bad script.

[And kindly refrain from your weak tactic of suggesting that i'm incapable of differentiating external/writing elements from internal/plot-logic elements. It's unbecoming. I, however, am a forgiving soul and have tried to answer your question in the spirit we all would like to adhere to on CBn.

Ok, maybe you're not incapable of differentiating between the two. You're just being deliberately difficult and obtuse, and refusing to answer in the way I've been asking since the original post.

[HildebrandRarity]

Hey, WC, how about this:

Kristatos has the Havelocks killed because Mr. Havelock is only a researcher and does not have the expertise to disarm ATAC. Killing him sends an immediate message to Military Intelligence back in London. The message is that the St Georges has been found...so send someone who can disarm ATAC sooner rather than later.

Kristatos will need someone like Bond (as opposed to Havelock) to disarm the device. He does not want Bond dead. Loque, however, does...and acts independently because he's been implicated at Gonzales's villa in Spain and wants to cover his tracks. It is Loque who sends the assassins after Bond in Cortina, not Kristatos.

Does that answer your question?

Thank you. You finally have your thinking cap on.

Ok, maybe you're not incapable of differentiating between the two. You're just being deliberately difficult and obtuse...

I always have my thinking cap on, my friend...and the only reason I was deliberately being difficult is because I didn't want to defend a movie that I think, at its best, is a cut above Diamonds Are Forever.

[WC]

Hey, WC, how about this:

Kristatos has the Havelocks killed because Mr. Havelock is only a researcher and does not have the expertise to disarm ATAC. Killing him sends an immediate message to Military Intelligence back in London. The message is that the St Georges has been found...so send someone who can disarm ATAC sooner rather than later.

Kristatos will need someone like Bond (as opposed to Havelock) to disarm the device. He does not want Bond dead. Loque, however, does...and acts independently because he's been implicated at Gonzales's villa in Spain and wants to cover his tracks. It is Loque who sends the assassins after Bond in Cortina, not Kristatos.

Does that answer your question?

Thank you. You finally have your thinking cap on.

Ok, maybe you're not incapable of differentiating between the two. You're just being deliberately difficult and obtuse...

I always have my thinking cap on, my friend...and the only reason I was deliberately being difficult is because I didn't want to defend a movie that I think, at its best, is a cut above Diamonds Are Forever.

Well you're not being asked to defend it. Just divorce your feelings from it for a moment, as I've been suggesting since the beginning. Pretend that this plot point of the Havelocks being killed prematurely is in the script of your favourite Bond movie, or within the original Ian Fleming FYEO work itself. Or pretend you are someone like Paul Haggis asked to come and improve a Bond script. You see this plot hole and need to explain it somehow, so that it makes sense to the audience. You can't simply tell the cinemagoers to accept it because it is not meant to be reality. You need to find an actual reason within the story.

Now just analyse that plot point in itself - that's all you and everyone else have been asked to do, not to whinge about how you still feel cheated out of a theatre ticket since 1981 because, in your opinion, the movie didn't measure up to your standards.

[Bondian]

Now...will someone please satisfy our dear WC and provide him with a legitimate internal and logical reason they knocked off the Havelocks right after the underwhelming PTS?

It would take a logical answer to make sense of your more than logical question. But being an illogical person. The only illogical logical answer I can give you is that they were cut off permanently. Not by Jaws, but by the fact they'd fulfilled their screen time. Okay. I'd admin it's an logically illogical answer but it's fact. The actors were a bore, and it gave James Bond something to do later on in the film.

Our James did save the world. Well. Some of it. Defeated the villains. Shagged the parrot. Climbed up a lofty preciface when he neglected to use the lift. Shook off a an Ice Skating teenager then ignore the then at the time Prime Menstrual of England.

I'd admit that For Your Eyes Only has it flaws, but it's the first time it's apparent that Sir Roger Moore dresses to the left.

[Jim]

Or have I got it wrong? What was the reason for the Havelocks' murder? How do they even fit into the plot (other than to bring in Melina as the vengeful Bond girl)?

The fun of this thread aside - why is all this posturing going on? - the short answer to your question is evidently no, you didn't miss anything because it basically wasn't there. There is an internal logical problem and it would have served "revenge" just as well if the Havelocks had been killed after recovery of the typewriter thing.

I was eight when For Your Eyes Only came out and claim no ownership of it by being there when it did.