A few questions about FRWL

Firemass · August 2014

1. Why did Kronsteen (Director of Planning) chose to involve the British Secret Service in his plot to steal the lektor ?
SPECTRE already has the cypher clerk Romanova taking orders from (ex) head of SMERSH Klebb. Why not have Romanova deliver the Lektor directly to Klebb or Red Grant?

2. Why did Klebb say, "The cold-war in Istanbul will not remain cold much longer." ? How is this relevant to the lector plot?

3. Why did Bond think Kerim Bey committed suicide ?

4. Kerim's son asks Bond why the train did not stop. I also wonder, because Bond never answers this question. I imagine it had something to do with Kerim's death, but not sure why.

5. Did the real Agent Nash have an escape plan ? Why does Bond search his standard-issue briefcase prior to dinner? There was no reason to be suspicious of him.

6. Was Grant ordered to make Bond's death a painful and humiliating one? Of all the villains, Grant seems the most likely to shoot Bond in cold blood. In retrospect Grant should have gotten the gold sovereigns after Bond was dead.

7. Why does Bond choose to take Red Grant's escape route, which will surely lead him thru enemy territory to a hostile destination?

Bonus question: Is Kerim Bay using a Walther PPK when he enters Benz's cabin ?

Barbel · August 2014

Have you read the novel, Firemass? The answers to at least some of the above are either there, or in the changes made for the film.

Apart from the helicopter and boat scenes added at the end, which don't affect the actual plot, the biggest change is having the main villains (Klebb, Grant, Kronsteen) all work for SPECTRE rather than SMERSH. This means that revenge on Bond is no longer the direct focus of the scheme with the Spektor* as a side-issue: the Lektor machine is the focus, with revenge on Bond becoming the side-issue. This change of emphasis does slightly affect the sense of the plot, but was felt necessary at the time.

* Spektor in the novel, Lektor in the film to avoid confusion with SPECTRE which hadn't been created when the book was written.

Thunderpussy · August 2014

1, For revenge for the death of Dr No
2, after killing an Agent, of course things are going to heat up
3, I never thought he did.
4, train not stopping,they were supposed to get off, Kermin's death stopped that plan.
5, Bond should be suspicious of everyone.
6, Grant even says himself, how he operates is up to him
7, uses Grant's escape route, as he can change it.
8, never noticed what gun he used ( I'm sure others have )
I'm surprised you were able to watch FRWL at all, not being able to follow the story.

)
It's very close to the book, only the boat and helicopter chase added to the end.

If you haven't, ..... read the novel, It's one of Fleming's best. -{

Firemass · August 2014

FRWL was the first Fleming novel I read, but that was like 10 years ago.

Thunderpussy · August 2014

I've only recently re-read all the Fleming novels, this time in order.

So FRWL is still fairly fresh in my mind.

Firemass · August 2014

Funny that Kronstein's "foolproof" plan revolved around Red Grant being able to kill Bond.

Why did Red Grant kill Kerim Bay?

Why would Kerim's death prevent Bond from using their designated escape route? (Bond had no reason to think a killer was still on the loose)

Did Kronstein count on Bond requesting an agent to meet him? or was that an adjustment to the original plan.

Firemass · August 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

I'm surprised you were able to watch FRWL at all, not being able to follow the story. )

Seriously. FRWL, OP, and TLD are the 3 Bond films which I still don't understand the plot.

Firemass · August 2014

Thunderpussy wrote:

1, For revenge for the death of Dr No
2, after killing an Agent, of course things are going to heat up
3, I never thought he did.
4, train not stopping,they were supposed to get off, Kermin's death stopped that plan.
5, Bond should be suspicious of everyone.
6, Grant even says himself, how he operates is up to him
7, uses Grant's escape route, as he can change it.
8, never noticed what gun he used ( I'm sure others have )
I'm surprised you were able to watch FRWL at all, not being able to follow the story. )
It's very close to the book, only the boat and helicopter chase added to the end.
If you haven't, ..... read the novel, It's one of Fleming's best. -{

Another AJB member recently pointed out how Kronstein's plan only speculates the British will send Bond, whereas the actual plot specifically targets Bond. This made me want to scrutinize Kronstein more carefully.

For example, what's the point of heating things up by killing an agent ? They're not trying to start WWIII here.

SPECTRE does not tolerate failure. I'm surprised they would be so sentimental about the loss of Dr. No.

CmdrAtticus · August 2014

Screwing up the plot of the novel by putting in SPECTRE just to keep them as Bond's main villain and because they were trying to be PC with the Soviets at the time was just ridiculous to me. One of the things Fleming managed to get across to me through his novels was the fact that the British Secret Service at that time was a pretty small, tight but well organized government body. It seemed like a small fraternity of dedicated civil servants than the bloated bureaucacy that the CIA had become (they're motto should have been "Thow as much money at the problem as we can get and we'll get by fine").

Now the Soviets were like the CIA size wise, but the KGB had a long history of spying and counter-intelligence work and was ten times as paranoid, so the idea of using their code machine as bait in order to kill off one of the BSS's top operatives (and one who is in the most secret section in the service to boot), then exposing the whole affair in public as a propaganda smear campaign was just the way they operated back then. The KGB (and the Presidium) loved their black propaganda section....

This is why FRWL is such a true spy vs spy movie, which is how the books started out. It wasn't until EON put out DN that Fleming started to make the stories more cinematic and less about the Cold War.

So making the whole plot using SPECTRE and getting their revenge on Bond for DN based on the whole premise that the BSS would not send any other agent but Bond was amateurish and stupid. Even people who gamble for a living wouldn't take those odds, let alone a chess master.
Well by that time, EON knew they were going to keep the films big box office and entertaining by keeping SPECTRE around as leering, creepy villains like Kronsteen and in a faceless Blofeld stroking his Persian. Compare that to how Fleming introduced SPECTRE, where Blofeld is shown to be a real, nasty criminal type who empties his pistol in a confederates face like Capone did in a similar situation with a baseball bat. EON wanted the villains to be cartoonish like the Nazi's in the Raider's films while Fleming kept them truly evil.

Firemass · August 2014

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Screwing up the plot of the novel by putting in SPECTRE just to keep them as Bond's main villain and because they were trying to be PC with the Soviets at the time was just ridiculous to me.

Thank you Commander. This is a HUGE difference between the novel and the film.

The plot makes perfect sense the way Fleming wrote it: Lure Bond into a trap, kill him, AND discredit the BSS.

But when EON adds SPECTRE into the mix, it doesn't hold up as well. For example, it sounds like SPECTRE also wants the Lektor, but needs Bond to get it for them. Killing Bond would be seen as a "bonus" according to Kronsteen. (Not the main objective)

This is ridiculous, because SPECTRE could obtain the Lektor anytime they wanted with Klebb as their inside connection.

Firemass · August 2014

Barbel wrote:

This means that revenge on Bond is no longer the direct focus of the scheme with the Spektor* as a side-issue: the Lektor machine is the focus, with revenge on Bond becoming the side-issue. This change of emphasis does slightly affect the sense of the plot, but was felt necessary at the time.

Thank you Barbel. I would say it affects the plot a great deal. (More than most fans would care to admit)

Barbel · August 2014

Any Bond film (and many other films, too) falls apart when the plot is examined too closely. Just relax and enjoy the ride would seem to be the motto! FRWL is hardly the worst offender in the series.

CmdrAtticus · August 2014

Barbel wrote:

Any Bond film (and many other films, too) falls apart when the plot is examined too closely. Just relax and enjoy the ride would seem to be the motto! FRWL is hardly the worst offender in the series.

True enough. That applies to the novels as well - SMERSH no longer existed when Fleming wrote it. However, he was writing the fictional side of spying and the average civilian outside the privy of intelligence wasn't aware of this (and I doubt would have cared anyway).

Yes, by all means, enjoy the film and don't focus on the plot holes. It is only an entertainment, not a documentary. However, FRWL - as with other well regarded films - don't really need close examination at all to reveal how over complicating a plot can make the pock- mark sized plot holes into chasms.
Given that, a review is a review. It would not make much of a review if the film wasn't dissected.

Thunderpussy · August 2014

To quote a tag line from " Last house on the left '

" Just keep telling yourself, It's only a movie ..... "

) :007)

DEFIANT 74205 · August 2014

Firemass wrote:

Funny that Kronstein's "foolproof" plan revolved around Red Grant being able to kill Bond.

Either they overestimated Grant, or underestimated Bond.

Firemass wrote:

Why did Red Grant kill Kerim Bay?

Now, that's a good question. My guess is that Kerim is too resourceful. If Kerim was successful in his escape route, they'd all be off the train with the Lektor well before Grant's own escape plan hatched.

Firemass wrote:

Why would Kerim's death prevent Bond from using their designated escape route? (Bond had no reason to think a killer was still on the loose)

Presumably because Kerim was needed to make the plan work. Evidently he had a lot of connections, both on and off the train. Bond didn't.

Firemass wrote:

Did Kronstein count on Bond requesting an agent to meet him? or was that an adjustment to the original plan.

I doubt very much that Kronsteen would've predicted this - unless Kerim's death was part of the plan. It would be reasonable to presume that after Kerim's death, Bond would still have needed an ally to make the escape. Without Kerim, he had none.

Firemass wrote:

Another AJB member recently pointed out how Kronstein's plan only speculates the British will send Bond, whereas the actual plot specifically targets Bond. This made me want to scrutinize Kronstein more carefully.

There's nothing to suggest that Tatiana allegedly "defecting" and asking Bond to go to Russia to pick her up wasn't part of Kronsteen's plan. When he was briefed by Number 1, it sounded to me like he was counting on the British to send Bond, rather than speculating it, which leads me to believe that Tatiana asking for Bond is also part of Kronsteen's plan.

Firemass wrote:

The plot makes perfect sense the way Fleming wrote it: Lure Bond into a trap, kill him, AND discredit the BSS.

But when EON adds SPECTRE into the mix, it doesn't hold up as well. For example, it sounds like SPECTRE also wants the Lektor, but needs Bond to get it for them. Killing Bond would be seen as a "bonus" according to Kronsteen. (Not the main objective)

This is ridiculous, because SPECTRE could obtain the Lektor anytime they wanted with Klebb as their inside connection.

It still makes sense for SPECTRE to lure Bond into a trap. Sure, you're right in that SPECTRE could've got the Lektor any time they wanted, but the opportunity arose to "kill two birds with one stone", as it were. So why not take it?

Thunderpussy · August 2014

For anyone looking for plot holes .........
http://movieplotholes.com/

I love my movies too much, to go picking holes in them.

-{

Gala Brand · August 2014

Firemass wrote:

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Screwing up the plot of the novel by putting in SPECTRE just to keep them as Bond's main villain and because they were trying to be PC with the Soviets at the time was just ridiculous to me.

Thank you Commander. This is a HUGE difference between the novel and the film.

The plot makes perfect sense the way Fleming wrote it: Lure Bond into a trap, kill him, AND discredit the BSS.

But when EON adds SPECTRE into the mix, it doesn't hold up as well. For example, it sounds like SPECTRE also wants the Lektor, but needs Bond to get it for them. Killing Bond would be seen as a "bonus" according to Kronsteen. (Not the main objective)

This is ridiculous, because SPECTRE could obtain the Lektor anytime they wanted with Klebb as their inside connection.

Rosa Klebb couldn't exactly stuff the Lektor under her shirt and walk out with it. And if it showed up missing, she'd be one of the first suspects.

I always thought the inverse of FRWL would be an interesting Bond plot. An MI6 decoder (or whatever) is stolen by a foreign power and then goes missing. Bond is sent to get it back and quickly realizes that the theft was an inside job. SF was sort of like that.

Firemass · August 2014

Gala Brand wrote:

I always thought the inverse of FRWL would be an interesting Bond plot.

Ooo that would be cool. Bond could play a Red Grant type of character.

Firemass · August 2014

Barbel wrote:

Just relax and enjoy the ride would seem to be the motto! FRWL is hardly the worst offender in the series.

I'm prepared to rewatch FRWL in the spirit you suggest... if I knew what it was about, sir.

Barbel · August 2014

)
I won't keep you for more than an hour or so if you give me your undivided attention.

A few questions about FRWL

Comments