MovieChat Forums > For Your Eyes Only (1981) Discussion > Can any divers answer this?

Can any divers answer this?

posted 13 years ago by lukeflyporker
12 replies | jump to latest

When Bond finds Melina clearing the undersea ruins, they swim up to the boat but before they go, she removes her scuba gear and leaves her oxygen tank on the seabed.

Later in the film after they have been dragged over the coral, they use this air tank to survive underwater until Krystatos' boat has gone.

My question is this: is there any reason why she would remove her (presumably quite expensive) oxygen tank and leave it at the bottom of the ocean? Or is it just a plot device that they came up with so they could survive after the coral-dragging? There was no way that she would know that at some later point she would find herself stuck underwater like that.

Seems like a bit of lazy writing in an otherwise good Bond film, but I am not an experienced diver so didin't know if there was a legitimate reason for her doing this.

Thanks

"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go."

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Strausszek 13 years ago

And seriously, being dragged bound through the water at high speed, they would have drowned long before they had a chance to set up the rope to make the buoy backfire on the yacht.

It's a cheesy scene right through, in an otherwise quite good film - but these oddly convoluted ways of disposing of Bond have always been a staple in the 007 films; it reached an apex in the Moore era though.

You are a lunatic, Sir, and you're going to end up on the Russian front. I have a car waiting.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tyler-A-Arse 12 years ago

Yeah, that was some really weak writing.

[–] hal-9010 11 years ago

But why not. It was her work space and when Bond greeted her they went to the surface to talk, so why not leave her equipment where she would later need it again to continue her work. It was not just on the sea bed but right by the ruin she was working on and had been working on for a long time and it was right under her boat. Pratically the only scuba tank she should transport to the boat would be an empty one, this was not empty and could thus also be used by the other workers in case of...

If we remove the water from the equation, it would not seem weird to leave e.g. a hammer by the ruin she was cleaning and working on.. same thing here; for convenience.

___________
• I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman •

[–] PatrickS77 10 years ago

If we remove the water from the equation, it would not seem weird to leave e.g. a hammer by the ruin she was cleaning and working on.. same thing here; for convenience.

Yes. But there is water in the equation and while I'm no diver, I still have to assume, that it's much easier to put on your scuba gear on the boat, than to dive down without it and put it on in the water. Also, the tank most likely is half empty, so why not get down again with a fully filled tank? So, yeah... it was lazy writing and only served one purpose.

[–] hal-9010 10 years ago

But it was not the full gear is was just a tank. And simple tanks, as this one was, are easier to handle underwater. I dive for fun, so it is not completly bs :-) Lazy writing or not, a bond script without very convenient happenings is perhaps not even a bond script :/) cheers.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hal-9010 10 years ago

Realistic in what way do you mean? It was enough in the movie, but only just. In real life, I think only a bad ass james Bond kind of type could do it, or would try and do it.

Anyways, 8 minuts is longer tha one would think... but gooing down and back up, it leaves little to the actual operation.

___________
• I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman •

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hal-9010 10 years ago

Normal is about 45 minutes in one tank

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]