Plot Developments that make no effing sense!

[Steve T Power]

OK, so i have the Craig Bond flicks spinning in the background at work, and i start to think about the plots, and both films have some major plot elements that just befuddle and confuse me to no end:

1. Casino Royal - I'm not a Stock player or anything, but does LaChiffre's money making scheme make any sense whatsoever? If he's short-selling, why would he have to use his client's money? Isn't the whole point to move borrowed stock and rebuy when it plummets to give back to the original holder? And if the stock did skyrocket, why would LaChiffre bother to pay the difference? If he just bought the stock outright, wouldn't he be HAPPY if the price jumped? I'm so confused...

2. Quantum of Solace - How the heck did Bond end up in Haiti???

[Selk]

Plot Developments that make no effing sense!

Watch The Fountain. Or rather . . . don't.

[Steve T Power]

Plot Developments that make no effing sense!

Watch The Fountain. Or rather . . . don't.

That's a little different though, everything is subject to the stories being written/told by Tom and Izzy. it's also heavy on metaphor and imagery (i also love it immensely as a film about letting go of a lost loved one, i empathize with it).

I'm talking more traditional narratives that are otherwise solid flicks but feature one or two elements that make little or no sense, or just get the logic so damn wrong.

[Dan Mancini]

1. Casino Royal - I'm not a Stock player or anything, but does LaChiffre's money making scheme make any sense whatsoever? If he's short-selling, why would he have to use his client's money? Isn't the whole point to move borrowed stock and rebuy when it plummets to give back to the original holder? And if the stock did skyrocket, why would LaChiffre bother to pay the difference? If he just bought the stock outright, wouldn't he be HAPPY if the price jumped? I'm so confused...

It's the borrowing part of shorting that screws Le Chiffre. What you're saying would only be true if he sold stock that he owned with the intent of buying it back at a lower price (which wouldn't make a lot of financial sense, by the way). But he's selling stock that doesn't belong to him and that must be repurchased and returned to the lender. When the stock's price increases, it means that he has to buy back the shares for more than he sold them in order to return them to the lender. And, apparently, Le Chiffre's only means of buying back the shares is using his clients' money (or winning a massive gambling prize).

[Steve T Power]

1. Casino Royal - I'm not a Stock player or anything, but does LaChiffre's money making scheme make any sense whatsoever? If he's short-selling, why would he have to use his client's money? Isn't the whole point to move borrowed stock and rebuy when it plummets to give back to the original holder? And if the stock did skyrocket, why would LaChiffre bother to pay the difference? If he just bought the stock outright, wouldn't he be HAPPY if the price jumped? I'm so confused...

It's the borrowing part of shorting that screws Le Chiffre. What you're saying would only be true if he sold stock that he owned with the intent of buying it back at a lower price (which wouldn't make a lot of financial sense, by the way). But he's selling stock that doesn't belong to him and that must be repurchased and returned to the lender. When the stock's price increases, it means that he has to buy back the shares for more than he sold them in order to return them to the lender. And, apparently, Le Chiffre's only means of buying back the shares is using his clients' money (or winning a massive gambling prize).

I kinda get that, but why the heck would an evil Banker of Terrorists who weeps blood bother paying? And don't tell me it's just a movie...

[Dan Mancini]

1. Casino Royal - I'm not a Stock player or anything, but does LaChiffre's money making scheme make any sense whatsoever? If he's short-selling, why would he have to use his client's money? Isn't the whole point to move borrowed stock and rebuy when it plummets to give back to the original holder? And if the stock did skyrocket, why would LaChiffre bother to pay the difference? If he just bought the stock outright, wouldn't he be HAPPY if the price jumped? I'm so confused...

It's the borrowing part of shorting that screws Le Chiffre. What you're saying would only be true if he sold stock that he owned with the intent of buying it back at a lower price (which wouldn't make a lot of financial sense, by the way). But he's selling stock that doesn't belong to him and that must be repurchased and returned to the lender. When the stock's price increases, it means that he has to buy back the shares for more than he sold them in order to return them to the lender. And, apparently, Le Chiffre's only means of buying back the shares is using his clients' money (or winning a massive gambling prize).

I kinda get that, but why the heck would an evil Banker of Terrorists who weeps blood bother paying? And don't tell me it's just a movie...

It's doubtful that completion of a transaction that size would rely on Le Chiffre saying, "Aw, shucks," and then cutting a check. Even if it did, his fraud would expose him (and by extension, his clients) to law enforcement in a way that would pretty much guarantee Quantum assassinating him. The novel doesn't have the short sale (instead he sinks a fortune into French brothels that fail when prostitution laws are changed), but that's still the gist of the story: Bond is sent to prevent Le Chiffre from winning enough money to pay back the money he embezzled from his clients in order to pressure him into cooperating with British Secret Service in exchange for protection from said clients. It's not just that Le Chiffre has to avoid losing his clients' money; he also has to avoid them even finding out about the short sale.

[Dan Mancini]

2. Quantum of Solace - How the heck did Bond end up in Haiti???

I think the bread crumb trail to Haiti was created using their magical Minority Report-style computers.

[Selk]

That's a little different though, everything is subject to the stories being written/told by Tom and Izzy. it's also heavy on metaphor and imagery (i also love it immensely as a film about letting go of a lost loved one, i empathize with it).

I'm talking more traditional narratives that are otherwise solid flicks but feature one or two elements that make little or no sense, or just get the logic so damn wrong.

Oh me too, I'm still dealing with losing the love of my life. The problem with this movie is that that narrative was muddy that I found it hard to follow.

[Mark Van Hook]

Pretty much every major plot development in Avatar and Abrams' Star Trek .

Fun thread.

[mavrach]

The Fifth Element, just about everything:

Why does Zorg want to help end the world? Because the evil asteroid paid him? What's he going to spend it on if the world ends?

And if the world ends, why just Earth? The movie establishes that there are aliens, are their worlds safe from the evil asteroid?

What's with the forehead sludge/sweat?

[Dan Mancini]

Spider-Man 2 - Why does Dr. Octopus hurl a car at Peter Parker when Parker's supposed to be the guy who can lead him to Spider-Man?

[mkiker2089]

As great as the original material for "The Fountain" may have been the movie isn't on the same scale. It makes more sense to think of it as Hugh Jackman's remake of his earlier hit "Kate and Leopold".

I wonder how people will feel about Star Trek as time goes by. I think most of us liked it so much because we needed it to be good and knew a flop would kill the franchise. I do respect the idea of changing the timeline though. it get's the beancounters off the back.

[Dimwitted]

I have a q about Moon.

How does Bell1 see his daughter? Granted she's a hallucination but she is also her right age and how does he know that? He hasn't contacted her yet.

For such a tight movie this bugged me.

[Gabriel Girard]

You know how much I hate Haute Tension and its moronic revelation that the killer and the girl are the same person. It's totally impossible! At one point she'e supposed to be driving a delivery truck and talking with a girl locked in the back at the same time. Plus the fact that we're supposed to believe that she can wield an industrial chainsaw! And that she's killing people because she's a represseD lesbian as well as having multiple personalities syndrom! This is stupid and offensive at the same time. Adaptation satirized that kind of development - I thought no one would write such a twist after it... Man I hate that flick. Seriously, I've never been angry at a movie before...

I totally love The Fountain though. I'm surprised you didn't like it Selk, it feels similar to 2001 in its use of imagery. A lot of people don't ''get'' 2001 either...

[Mark Van Hook]

I wonder how people will feel about Star Trek as time goes by. I think most of us liked it so much because we needed it to be good and knew a flop would kill the franchise. I do respect the idea of changing the timeline though. it get's the beancounters off the back.

It should hold up fine. I actually like the film, sort of. The character stuff, at least, is solid, but it's also profoundly stupid and the screenplay is terrible, which hasn't stopped lesser movies from being looked at fondly over time. It even helps sometimes.

[mavrach]

I wonder how people will feel about Star Trek as time goes by. I think most of us liked it so much because we needed it to be good and knew a flop would kill the franchise. I do respect the idea of changing the timeline though. it get's the beancounters off the back.

I liked how Kirk gets jetisonned onto a random planet, that happens to be the planet that old Spock was on. And on top of that, within that whole giant planet, Kirk also happened to land at the exact point where Spock was on the planet.

[Selk]

Back to the Future Part III potentially could have ended in five minutes. Marty rips the fuel line in the Deloreon he brings back to the old west, so the rest of the story hinges on being able to get the car up to 88 mph to get home. Yet, there IS gasoline in the past, what about the gas in the tank of the car that brought Doc Brown back?

Even if he stored it in the cave for 70 years with an empty tank, by the time of 1955, all he had to do was fill it with gas in order to get it operational again. OR they could have switched Deloreons and Marty could have gotten home in the car that originally brought the doc back in time. Of course, there would have been no Clara, no train and no train-built time machine.

MOMMY! Time travel makes my head hurt!

[Jon Mercer]

I wonder how people will feel about Star Trek as time goes by. I think most of us liked it so much because we needed it to be good and knew a flop would kill the franchise. I do respect the idea of changing the timeline though. it get's the beancounters off the back.

I liked how Kirk gets jetisonned onto a random planet, that happens to be the planet that old Spock was on. And on top of that, within that whole giant planet, Kirk also happened to land at the exact point where Spock was on the planet.

I just wondered why in the far flung future we haven't invented a brig with laser beam bars yet, so we can avoid jettisoning officers off of the ship during a military crisis. Or is this SOP for the navy? How much more entertaining would Crimson Tide have been if Gene Hackman fired Denzel Washington out of a torpedo tube and Denzel had to fight off a shark or giant squid before breaking back onto the sub?

[Dan Mancini]

Minority Report - If the Precogs see the future, then how is it that they see murders that never actually happen because the Cruise missile and his team arrest the would-be murderers before the murders take place? Shouldn't the Precogs see the arrests, not the murders?

Also, who the hell designs a computer with a free-floating UI that outputs information on polished epoxy balls? Is there a merger between Apple and Brunswick in our future?

[the5thghostbuster]

That's a little different though, everything is subject to the stories being written/told by Tom and Izzy. it's also heavy on metaphor and imagery (i also love it immensely as a film about letting go of a lost loved one, i empathize with it).

I'm talking more traditional narratives that are otherwise solid flicks but feature one or two elements that make little or no sense, or just get the logic so damn wrong.

Oh me too, I'm still dealing with losing the love of my life. The problem with this movie is that that narrative was muddy that I found it hard to follow.

The film isn't a typical narrative film though: it rejects simple cause and effect and requires the viewer to work towards putting those pieces together themselves. Heck, The Fountain is basically an art film barely disguised as a studio romance.

[Gabriel Girard]

Sherlock Holmes - Why doesn't Watson do a full autopsy on Blackwood? I mean you have the body of a dangerous man known for his deviousness and uo just check his pulse ? How about opening the thoracic cage or removing the brain?

[Dan Mancini]

Sherlock Holmes - Why doesn't Watson do a full autopsy on Blackwood? I mean you have the body of a dangerous man known for his deviousness and uo just check his pulse ? How about opening the thoracic cage or removing the brain?

Why would he do an autopsy? The cause of death is known. The purpose of dissection isn't to ensure that a hanged man is actually dead. Still, why didn't Watson recognize that Blackwood didn't look like he had a broken neck?

[Jon Mercer]

Near Dark - So...your son's transformation into one of the immortal damned can be cured with a small blood transfusion? That begs some particularly disturbing questions about Keith Richards.

[Gabriel Girard]

Sherlock Holmes - Why doesn't Watson do a full autopsy on Blackwood? I mean you have the body of a dangerous man known for his deviousness and uo just check his pulse ? How about opening the thoracic cage or removing the brain?

Why would he do an autopsy? The cause of death is known. The purpose of dissection isn't to ensure that a hanged man is actually dead. Still, why didn't Watson recognize that Blackwood didn't look like he had a broken neck?

Right - his examination was summary to say the least.

[Andrew Forbes]

Sherlock Holmes - Why doesn't Watson do a full autopsy on Blackwood? I mean you have the body of a dangerous man known for his deviousness and uo just check his pulse ? How about opening the thoracic cage or removing the brain?

Why would he do an autopsy? The cause of death is known. The purpose of dissection isn't to ensure that a hanged man is actually dead. Still, why didn't Watson recognize that Blackwood didn't look like he had a broken neck?

Right - his examination was summary to say the least.

I like to picture Watson freaking out every time he comes across one of his friends sleeping.

[Steve T Power]

Minority Report - If the Precogs see the future, then how is it that they see murders that never actually happen because the Cruise missile and his team arrest the would-be murderers before the murders take place? Shouldn't the Precogs see the arrests, not the murders?

Also, who the hell designs a computer with a free-floating UI that outputs information on polished epoxy balls? Is there a merger between Apple and Brunswick in our future?

They establish in the flick that what's inferred is a potential future, with about a 99 percent probability of being true (minus the minority report factor). But that makes no goddamn sense either, because you can't exactly arrest someone for a murder they commit in a possible future that hasn't happened yet, no matter how high the probability. Not exactly reasonable doubt. wouldn't a more reasoned response be to barge in with the swat team, shout, "Hey Bob! don't go stabbin your wife with those scissors! Take care and have a nice day!" and just leave again. After bob changes his shorts he'd be all, "shit man, i almost stabbed my wife with these scissors..."

[Jon Mercer]

Minority Report - If the Precogs see the future, then how is it that they see murders that never actually happen because the Cruise missile and his team arrest the would-be murderers before the murders take place? Shouldn't the Precogs see the arrests, not the murders?

Also, who the hell designs a computer with a free-floating UI that outputs information on polished epoxy balls? Is there a merger between Apple and Brunswick in our future?

They establish in the flick that what's inferred is a potential future, with about a 99 percent probability of being true (minus the minority report factor). But that makes no goddamn sense either, because you can't exactly arrest someone for a murder they commit in a possible future that hasn't happened yet, no matter how high the probability. Not exactly reasonable doubt. wouldn't a more reasoned response be to barge in with the swat team, shout, "Hey Bob! don't go stabbin your wife with those scissors! Take care and have a nice day!" and just leave again. After bob changes his shorts he'd be all, "shit man, i almost stabbed my wife with these scissors..."

And as he stands there with sweat running down his face...and watery dookie running down his leg, his wife would look up and say, "Howard...Howard don't cry..."

[Future Man]

Not sure if it is exactly a plot development but It has always bugged me that the original Planet of the Apes did not deal with the fact that the apes and Taylor speak the same language (i.e. English) which should be a dead giveaway to the astronaut about his whereabouts. They should have first had the apes speaking an unknown language onscreen which Taylor quickly picks up and which soon translates onscreen to English.

[Kenneth Morgan]

Not sure if it is exactly a plot development but It has always bugged me that the original Planet of the Apes did not deal with the fact that the apes and Taylor speak the same language (i.e. English) which should be a dead giveaway to the astronaut about his whereabouts. They should have first had the apes speaking an unknown language onscreen which Taylor quickly picks up and which soon translates onscreen to English.

That's the way it is in the original book. From what I undersatand, they decided to go English only as a matter of convenience. As for what Taylor may have thought, he was already caught off-balance by talking apes period, so their speaking English may have been a secondary concern.

[molly1216]

Not sure if it is exactly a plot development but It has always bugged me that the original Planet of the Apes did not deal with the fact that the apes and Taylor speak the same language (i.e. English) which should be a dead giveaway to the astronaut about his whereabouts. They should have first had the apes speaking an unknown language onscreen which Taylor quickly picks up and which soon translates onscreen to English.

That's the way it is in the original book. From what I undersatand, they decided to go English only as a matter of convenience. As for what Taylor may have thought, he was already caught off-balance by talking apes period, so their speaking English may have been a secondary concern.

the original novel is actually in french

and from what i remember the presence of a common language wasn't a concern in the novel.
IMHO Boulle was merely using the vehicle of apes v men to express his ideas about civilization being in the mind of the beholder.
back before verisimilitude became such a big honking deal in our culture, things like that just weren't an impediment to telling a good story it's a CONVENTION that the author and the writer mutually accept so that you can just get on with the story...
see the Stargate universe for a present day example.

[Dimwitted]

The thing that always burned my ass about Minority Report was the coda. Yeah, there was corruption but nobody has been murdered for 50 years. So you shut down the bureau and someone gets killed and this is progress? I'm surprised that Speilberg didn't do the obvious and have everyone in Washington sued by the victim's family as a result. It's that obvious. Just pathetic.

[Steve T Power]

Ok, another doozy from Spielberg-ville.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - Walter Donavan, the guy who instigated the whole grail quest, who sent Indy looking for dear old Dad because his own expedition had hit a snag when daddy-o disappeared... is a NAZI!???

Why the elaborate ruse? Why not just use Jones Sr. until he found the grail and then lay claim. So what if he found out Elsa was a Nazi, kill her and move on.

This whole revoltin' development exists so they can use the cool as hell "Because he didn't listen to what i said!" reveal.

[umershazi]

A really nice idea. I appreciate it much !

*Mod Edit*
You are welcome. No spam though please.

[JoshRode]

A really nice idea. I appreciate it much !

*Mod Edit*
You are welcome. No spam though please.

The spam line is kinda ironic...

[Jim_Thomas]

They establish in the flick that what's inferred is a potential future, with about a 99 percent probability of being true (minus the minority report factor). But that makes no goddamn sense either, because you can't exactly arrest someone for a murder they commit in a possible future that hasn't happened yet, no matter how high the probability. Not exactly reasonable doubt. wouldn't a more reasoned response be to barge in with the swat team, shout, "Hey Bob! don't go stabbin your wife with those scissors! Take care and have a nice day!" and just leave again. After bob changes his shorts he'd be all, "shit man, i almost stabbed my wife with these scissors..."

That's the point: In this society, you can be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for a potential crime. It's called dystopia for a reason.

[Steve T Power]

They establish in the flick that what's inferred is a potential future, with about a 99 percent probability of being true (minus the minority report factor). But that makes no goddamn sense either, because you can't exactly arrest someone for a murder they commit in a possible future that hasn't happened yet, no matter how high the probability. Not exactly reasonable doubt. wouldn't a more reasoned response be to barge in with the swat team, shout, "Hey Bob! don't go stabbin your wife with those scissors! Take care and have a nice day!" and just leave again. After bob changes his shorts he'd be all, "shit man, i almost stabbed my wife with these scissors..."

That's the point: In this society, you can be arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced for a potential crime. It's called dystopia for a reason.

Yes, this is very true.

[Attrage]

Deadly Pursuit (in the US it was released as Shoot to Kill, I believe), 1988 action film starring Tom Berenger, Sidney Poitier and Kirstie Alley.

SPOILER ALERT *** Okay, so maybe I’m way off here, but even as a kid I found the fact that the killer executes an innocent fisherman in the EXACT SAME way he murders a woman in Stanton’s (Poitier) jurisdiction – by putting a bullet through the left eye – irritating. Why? Because this is the ONLY piece of evidence that links the two murders and thus puts FBI agent Stanton on the killer’s trail. Had he, y’know, strangled the fisherman or hit him with a length of 2x4 or something, he would have been able to escape to Canada and Stanton would never have been any the wiser. But this detail immediately gets Stanton’s attention, and after a chase through the mountains leads eventually to the killer’s death.

But like I said, maybe I’m way off and this was intentional by the writer – the killer did this because he WANTED Stanton to know it was him. If that’s the case, then it’s not lazy writing, the killer’s just a narcissist and a bit of a moron. Still, they go to great lengths to keep telling us that this killer is so “smart” and cleverly elusive. If he really was smart and clever, it’s doubtful he would have done something so deliberate to obviously link the two incidents.

Anyway, rant over. Still a very enjoyable film. That bit just always bugged me.

[The Butcher]

You know how much I hate Haute Tension and its moronic revelation that the killer and the girl are the same person. It's totally impossible! At one point she'e supposed to be driving a delivery truck and talking with a girl locked in the back at the same time.

The truck doesn't exist....


at all