Why did the NSA make all those deals with them amd not just shoot them. They had the guns and you shoot them and they wont talk. I know its just a movie and I know people think they couldn't do that but I would think the government could easily do that and cover it up. There were some other things but that jumped out at me.
share"The NSA doesn't kill people, Marty."
With that line, Crease establishes (within the Sneakers universe) that the NSA doesn't kill people.
Aside from that, Bernard Abbott doesn't strike me as the cold-blooded-killer type.
>>Aside from that, Bernard Abbott doesn't strike me as the cold-blooded-killer type.
Indeed. As easy to kill as it might seem in the movies, most people, even with very important jobs to do, have compunctions about killing.
At any rate, the line about the NSA not being the ones listening in on people's phone calls makes it pretty clear that the Sneakers-verse NSA has little to nothing to do with its real-world equivalent.
shareIt was the imposter who said that, right? What does that have to do with what the "real" NSA (in Sneakers) does?
shareI didn't remember that comment but I think you are right. The NSA doesn't kill people in the Sneakersverse. But that brings me to another question, why did they have guns in the first place. I know its just a movie and there are holes but still.
share>>why did they have guns in the first place
There's a big difference between "eliminating" people and shooting them in self-defense. They had guns in case the Sneakers crew attacked them.
By that point, the movie had descended into pure farce. I have no problem with that; it's supposed to be fun, and it was. If we're really looking for reality, try Cosmo's bosses (crime families) offing them all in pretty short order, let alone the gov't. coming after them.
And the female NSA agent giving her number to Carl in front of her boss? Sounds like career suicide to me. But it's just fun, so let it be fun, and stop carping about idiotic minutiae. And that means me, too.
NSA doesn't kill people in the Sneakersverse. But that brings me to another question, why did they have guns in the first place.
I saw it on TV the other day, and all through the movie I was thinking "wow this is great, why did I forget about this one"?.
Then the ending comes and reminds me. I really like this movie but that bit at the end with all the "gifts" really ruins the whole thing for me. Totally bogus, totally unrealistic, and totally not in keeping with the rest of the movie.
It's a minor point to be sure, but I think they could have come up with a more realistic ending to such a movie.
yeah I agree it was a unrealistic ending. But it was kinda funny. Having guns for self defense purposes fine. But why say get up against the wall. And have the upper hand and then all of a sudden you dont have the upper hand. The guns were useless all of a sudden, right after they were told to stand up against the wall. It just didn't make any sense. But it was a good movie all the same.
shareI took it as a parody of the myth of "the good NSA" - just a satirical form of a "happy ending". And I really had to LOL about Bernard's response to Whistler's wish. I think the whole film is a lesson about the question "whom can I trust" - and that there is no easy answer, but that maybe it is not a question of trust or believe at all - but of being witty, intelligent and subversive.
shareThey didn't shoot them because they have moral standards. Yes, for the love of crap, they do.
The real question here is why didn't they arrest them? I think this has to do with their desire for secrecy. They want to keep the black box for themselves, and their plans for it seem to be somewhat questionable. If they were to arrest Bishop and co., all of this would come out in their trials.
Abbot was caught between his morality and his amorality. He wanted to keep them quiet, but he wasn't ready to kill them for it. Thus, he had to pay them off.
Hmm well good point. But you would think the NSA would not have to make deals. But anyway.
shareThey wouldn't, if they were acting legitimately. When you're afraid of being caught, you're more likely to compromise.
shareWhat did the NSA have to be afraid of? They wanted to keep the box for their own bidding? Well yeah your right it is just a movie.
share"What did the NSA have to be afraid of?"
The FBI and the CIA.
But yeah, this is all speculation. The real reason is, as you say, because it's just damn funny seeing James Earl Jones driven up the wall by demands for Winnebagos.
[deleted]
They should have had the end scene pull back to a big screen ala "The Prisoner".
Why kill anybody if they are already being watched and led?
"We can see you now.."
I used to be LVCAMBOT. Now I'm LVCAMBOT-2.
It's funny, c'mon!
"I wanna Winnebago."
"...WHAT??" (I love how it's a Darth Vader kind of "WHAT??")
"This is not a car dealership, pal!"
"I have never taken my wife to Europe."
"I'm sorry to hear it -- gimme the box!"
"You...will...buy...me...two round-trip first class tickets to Lisbon, Madrid, (insert third city that I can't remember here), and Scotland."
"...and Tahiti, don't forget Tahiti."
"AND Tahiti."
"TAHITI is not in Europe!!!"
"When you get the box, then you give us geography lessons, until then, this man goes to Tahiti."
"The young lady with the...Uzi...is she single?"
"Abby, Abby, c'mon! The FBI'd give him twins!!"
"I want peace on earth and goodwill toward men."
"We're the United States government! We don't do that sort of thing!"
Are we so use to seeing government agencies in movies portrayed as evil, corrupt organizations that casually kill people indiscriminately for little or no reason, that we now consider it a 'plot hole' when they don't?
NSA is a government agency staffed with ordinary people who manages to solve problems, and do their jobs everyday, without killing innocent people. I am sure the NSA can get 'dirty' when it's absolutely necessary, but I think it's nice to see a movie portray government agents realistically, as real people for a change, instead of as rouge, homicidal, super-spies.
"Is this how time normally passes? Really...slowly...and in the right order?"
-The Doctor
Little or no reason? It's a box that can Hack into everything in a heartbeat.. In the real world I would assume that blood would have been shed over being blackmailed by some hackers who are currently in front of you, unarmed.
I agree with you that many movies portrays the US government agencies very cold blooded and in many cases overdoes it. But obviously that is not the case in this one, but this takes in too far the other way instead. In other words it was a very unrealistic ending.. may you find it good or not, that is what I'm getting at.
It's not actually so easy to just kill a bunch of people, especially when you're trying to keep your association with them a secret. Meanwhile, the list of demands given to them were pretty inconsequential, given the agency's resources. The quibbling over small details ("Tahiti is NOT in Europe!") clearly signifies Abbot's personal frustration over the ridiculousness of the moment rather than any serious setback to his agenda.
In any case, he knew he was getting the box either way, and the negotiations were merely for the sake of amiable secrecy. Anyone who thinks that a massacre would have been a better option to a few minutes of negotiation and some token demands being met has been watching too many movies.
Anyone who thinks that a massacre would have been a better option to a few minutes of negotiation and some token demands being met has been watching too many movies.
I always assumed they tried to keep them alive so that they could use them for jobs later on, as NSA freelancers, that type of thing.
*man draws circle on easel board*
Man: "It's a pie chart for procrastinators."
looks like Crease was wrong when he said "There isnt a government in the world that wouldnt kill us all for that thing"
shareI think the portrayal of the NSA is largely accurate. They do signals intelligence, and wouldn't be directly involved in shooting anyone. They are also supposed to work on foreign countries via satellites etc. If anything you could question why they had guns at all.
If you are so sure that the NSA kills American citizens, why not give an example?
Anyway, there are practical problems with killing them. We know the gang's all there, but the NSA don't. We know the gang's got the box there. If the NSA shoots them they might end up without the box but with a gang-member on the run with evidence of a NSA murder. That's not a good outcome.
If you are unaware that the government kills people, you need to read up on the subject. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins and "The Ashes of Waco: An Investigation" by Dick Reavis are good starting points. "Jackals" are real. The US government assassinates people. Government agents gun people down en masse. Its simply a matter of fact.
As for the NSA killing people, I don't think that is their forte, but I'm sure it isn't beyond them.
I think they would have simply stolen the box.
LOL Okay, I'm 8 years late to this party, but....
At the risk of repeating some of the other posters, let me summarize:
Dick Gordon and Buddy Wallace were not NSA, they were in the employ of Cosmo.
Mr. Abbot WAS NSA, but clearly did not want to kill them. Despite what most people think - because for some reason people actually believe TV and Movies to be real - government agents don't actually run around routinely blowing people away just because they're involved with something, particularly when there isn't a legal/justified reason. When there is a murder (forget several), there is always an investigation.
So here we have Mr. Abbot, who doesn't want to kill the Sneakers because there isn't a legally justified reason. But they know too much about the situation. He can't just send them to jail because they can talk while in jail. Lawyers, media, what have you. So what do you do when you're Mr. Abbott from the NSA and you need someones silence but can't kill them or jail them?
You buy them off.
....because you think too much.....
The whole pt. is to make the protagonist look good....
If the NSA was that dirty they'd have finished them on their own the same way Lee Harvey Oswald & Timothy McVeigh were both probably "deep cover" NSA or CIA agents....