Factual error: At the climax of the movie, when Bond is holding Trevelyan by his foot over the dried lake and the dialog exchange of "For England, James?" "No... for me.", Bond lets go of Trevelyan. He then falls a very long distance onto solid concrete. A short time later, the movie shows Trevelyan still alive and moving his head around. This is not possible. A fall from that that height, especially falling on concrete, would have killed him instantly. The shot of him hitting showed him landing on his head and back first. This would have crushed his skull, and snapped his spine. Even if that didn't kill him, it would have knocked him out cold. The mistake goes even further though. The antenna array then explodes and falls on Trevelyan, while he screams at the top of his lungs. Even if someone was somehow able to survive that fall, the damage done to their body would have caused massive internal damage and bleeding. Trevelyan's lungs would have filled with blood. There is no way he could have screamed, let alone that loudly. So this mistake is twofold. The fall would have killed him instantly. And even if not, he could not have possibly screamed. (01:59:05)
Suggested correction: This is simply your opinion. There is record of people surviving skydiving falls where their chutes didn't open. While it is likely he would have died on impact or been unable to move or scream if surviving, it is not a certainty.
Question: Was any reason ever given as to why Bond's gadget-filled car was barely used in this film? It seems odd to give the series a fresh start in many ways, make a big deal about his car with missiles inside the lights, and then he drives it for 30 seconds and gives it away. Why bother giving him a car at all?
Chosen answer: There hadn't been a Bond film for seven years, and it was a new Bond. They wanted to get away from the gadgets and show him at his best. It was a way to let people accept Pierce Bronsan, watching what he can do. He put a lot of Sean Connery into it.
I can see that, but it just seems weird to highlight the features the car has and then not use them. Would have been simpler to omit it entirely, but presumably BMW wanted some product placement.
According to Wikipedia, the deal with BMW came at the last stage in production, so they were only able to put the car in the movie but not make scenes where the gadgets are actually used. I can imagine they'd have to rewrite parts of the script and take more time filming to do that.
Corrected entry: The direction of the train hostage scene is all wrong. After the train crashes into the tank, 007 enters and beats Trevelyan to the gun on the ground, he then holds Trevelyan and Xenia at gunpoint. General Ourumov then enters the scene again, behind Bond, holding Natalya hostage himself, at gunpoint. As Bond and Alec Trevelyan negotiate the situation, Ourumov just stands patiently with a gun, all while Bond still has his back to him.. what is to negotiate? Ourumov can blow 007 away at any time and still James Bond pays him little to no attention, always keeping his gun focused on the unarmed pair 10+ feet away from him. (01:28:36)
Correction: I think it can be assumed Bond knows full well what Ourumov is up to behind his back, considering how quickly he does turn and kill him when he gets round to it. Plus, Ourumov is waiting for a signal from Trevelyan (which is delivered by a quick flick of his head after he says "See you in hell, James"), so it can be assumed he's been ordered not to kill until then.
Your explanation doesn't make my point any less valid. It's all "Hollywood" and I get that.
Corrected entry: Pierce Brosnan emerges from the tank chase scene with his necktie perfectly in place.
Correction: Throughout all Bond films, he has always adjusted his necktie after an action scene - Bond probably did it off-screen, in the tank, once it had stopped moving.
He is actually shown adjusting his tie while inside the tank. It's a quick cut and easy to miss.
Corrected entry: Brosnan's contract to play James Bond specifies that while contracted as Bond he is not permitted to appear in any other film wearing a tuxedo. Although he then went on to wear one in the remake of the Thomas Crown Affair.
Correction: Brosnan's contract states he can't wear a James Bond-like tuxedo (including the black tie). In the Thomas Crown Affair he was allowed to wear a tuxedo, without breaking the JB contract, as it included a white bowtie.
In TCA, Brosnan's bowtie was not only white, but all undone and hanging around his neck.
Question: How did Alec survive being shot at the start only to return later in the film. It's something that I can't figure out, as James saw him get shot.
Chosen answer: The real answer, which I believe was explained better in the game or in special features. Regardless, I did hear, is that Ourumov wasn't aiming directly at Alec's head, but to the side and shot the ground behind him. But made it look like he shot him in the head. Alec would have felt the bullet whiz by him.
Answer: He was shot with a blank cartridge. What that means is that the casing in the gun chamber didn't contain a live bullet; instead of killing him, the gun simply gave off a realistic flash that tricked Bond into thinking Alec had been shot. As explained later in the film, Alec's death was staged between himself and Ourumov.
Ourumov shot Alec and the Russian soldier with the same gun but, only the soldier was actually killed.
But that doesn't work, because even blanks can be deadly at close range.
