Licence to Confuse: The inconsisency of the Bond franchise
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 тра 2024
- Grab your martini and prepare to be shaken, not stirred, as we explore the hidden plot holes and inconsistencies that have plagued the iconic James Bond movies. It's time to set the record straight.
9:43 I always assumed Felix was a bit high on painkillers and just happy that the bastard is dead.
They must have been seriously good painkillers.
"Why did the dummy have a real gun in the first place"
It was hidden in plain sight for Scaramanga to use if he lost his weapon or ran out of ammo.
Interesting point 🤔 Scaramaga was shown to be willing to use weapons other than his golden gun at the beginning when he reached for that locked cabinet.
I mean... why would it be a fake gun? That it was loaded might be a better question but getting access to real guns is probably easier for Scaramanga than getting a fake one.
The practicality issue aside, there is also the mental factor to consider in that he wanted to make the scenario as realistic as possible in his own mind... Hence real gun with real bullets. The only thing he could simulate was Bond... And that's what killed him. He practiced against a dummy and thus he didn't consider the dummy a threat because he trained himself to go after the real thing... So when he saw what he thought was the dummy, he ignored it.
@@davfree9732 "That it was loaded might be a better question"
Agreed
Here's another: Why did Bond carry only one gun? Why no ankle holster, e.g.?
Here's one that not only applies to Bond movies, but to action movies in general. Why do time bombs invariably have a blinking red light on them? Since the purpose of a time bomb is to remain undetected until it goes off - it seems like you would never want an attention attracting feature (like a blinking red light) on it!
I'm glad people besides me have questioned how Anya was so shocked about the Lotus Esprit if she stole the plans? My only guess is that she never payed attention to the plans and only figured out what car it was after it transformed. You could argue she was faking it just so Bond wouldn't get suspicious, but her reaction seems too genuine, as if she genuinely had no clue that the Lotus would survive the sinking.
It's how the fish got inside the car that bothered me ... bit of a major design flaw.
There are 2 reasons why a tarantula is used in Dr. No instead of a poisonous centipede. #1: The general public in the '50s and early '60s assumed that tarantulas were deadly poisonous because they were so big and scary looking. As most people now know, they were wrong. #2: Where are you going to get a trained centipede? The movie industry is rife with animal wranglers who work with tarantulas (which are semi-trainable). So the movie makers used what was available to them.
5:03 Oh, darn. I thought you were going to show the "The American CIA swear by them," from _Dr. No._ That the gun is treated like _only_ Bond uses it in one movie and but as an object of reluctant conformity in another has pissed me off for years.
Some of my favourite inconsistencies:
Bond: But, darling. You said Baines was killed _up_ in the hills.
Rosie: Up in the hills, down _there._
Bond: I had a hat when I came in here. (making light of a continuity error)
Now for excuses:
I do think Red Grant's appearing on the train ahead of Bond isn't much of a crime. He saved Bond's life twice because he was always a step ahead. He stuck to Bond like white on rice. And surely he had accomplices to radio, and could have a porter send a telegram at a station stop.
Just as Bond swiped one of Dr. Goodhead's gadgets (the pen), Bond would surely swipe Red's main weapon, if not the gloves as well.
As for Jaws, Bond took a looong walk to get to the pyramid; furthermore, Jaws' trip over the waterfall may have cut his own travel time a bit.
As for the ATAK, Bond's assertion, "You don't have it. I don't have it," belies your assertion that it could be easily recreated. Maybe that line is instead the inconsistency you were looking for, since it didn't make a lot of sense to me from the first time I heard it. McGuffins need to make a _little_ sense...
As for Anya, this never bothered me. She wouldn't necessarily know the body of the car from the stolen plans, but would more likely recognize the armrest control panel.
As for the jetpack, I figured "If there's anything our department can do for you," meant that a confederate could place the jetpack in advance, especially if the funeral is, say, half an hour or an hour away from the castle. And an Aston Martin should be able to pass a slow-moving funeral procession. How about the absurdity of Angelo getting access to the front seat of the Vulcan and the only slightly more probable putting on a gas mask after eating a sandwich in time to get gassed? It also pisses me off that Bond took the time to eat a grape and throw the lilies: both times he might've escaped unseen. That two assassination attempts would happen at the same time was a bit much, too. Some plot devices these days really burn you up. Besides, I thought such coincidences happened only in Dealey Plaza.
As for the clown suit, even worse was Bond's giving himself away by hitting the helium tank, changing out of the suit, and getting to the roof exit. At least the bomb time could have been adjusted to make the clown makeup take at least two minutes.
"I had a hat when I came in" has bothered me for years ... I always just assumed it was a 4th wall break on Connerys' part. Like someone moved it between filming or something, only he noticed, and they just left it in the film.
Those are some very good points you made, gave me something to think about, and I like the other inconsistencies you've pointed out.
Maybe I poorly explained it in the video. But the inconsistency I was pointing out in FYEO is "Why wasn't it Bond's mission to just destroy the ATAC while it was still underwater rather than taking the risk to recover it and making it vulnerable to enemy intervention (which is what happened)?
And trust me, pal, that bomb would have gone off long before Bond could get the red nose and floppy shoes on.
Wikipedia: "Although [tarantula] venom is not deadly to humans, some bites cause serious discomfort that might persist for several days. In general, the effects of the bites of all kinds of tarantula are not well known. While the bites of many species are known to be no worse than a wasp sting, accounts of bites by some species are reported to be very painful and to produce intense spasms that may recur over a period of several days . . . . In all cases, seeking medical aid is advised." In my opinion, Bond, being far from friendly medical attention, would be justified in feeling anxious.
Oh, there's no doubt that Bond has every right to be scared. But still, why would Dr. NO, use a tarantula to assassinate Bond if it is likely not to kill him?
They didn't specify which spider it was in the movie (VERY smart choice) and although it's not a Sydney Funnel-Web Spider shown in the movie (either nobody felt comfortable with bringing a live one on set or they couldn't do it for budget reasons), I think they were trying to either imply it was one of these or... (this would be very cool if true) Dr No and SPECTRE had mastered creating new species (or mutations/enhances to species) to the point that they actually created a genetically modified spider able to kill (cool concept especially during the 60s and later during the 2000s as during the 60s there were reports of experiments such as the partial revival of a dog through electricity and later in the 90s it was all about cloning and modifying the DNA)... Once again (film wise) Smart choice not to throw any names such as "Tarantula" but instead show a spider and let the rest work for itself (also its death worked as a comic relief with bond using his slippers to kill it... This just creates memories of old relatives hunting down insects in their homes whenever one visits them - this is typical in the Balkans at least and I've seen it a lot to consider it typical for any old man or woman to do... It just makes Bond brake character for a while and be more human)
Very interesting and cool, good edits too, I think a lot of movies are like this, probably more so vs not.
Wait what 6:20 hie did they not recognize him face to face 😂
Wait, What?
7:54 Ah, well, that is a great question sir and can be answered very simply; if Bond would go through all of that trouble just to get his hnds on it, how much effort would the Russians go through to get it in the first place
True, but doesn't that reinforce my point? Bond was in a race to recover the ATAC before the Russians. If he had recovered the ATAC safely and unnoticed. He'd still have to deliver it back to his people, making it vulnerable to enemy interception with it no longer being underwater. Wouldn't it have been safer to destroy it underwater where he found it.
There were some valid points dude
Why, thank you.
Your "inconsisencies" seem to be more like self-answering questions