Possible Plot Hole (Spoiler) - Duplicity (2009) Discussion

[–] cherns-2 15 years ago

I agree with all of the questions, plus: just having a diagram of the chemical structure of something doesn't immediately allow you to produce it, much less test it.

reply

[–] coolrod 15 years ago

I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

Giamatti's company (in their mind) HAD done their due diligence. Julia on the inside for 14 months, the fake speech, all the fake travel invoices, the trip down to the Bahamas, the other guy trying to steal it, etc. They spent tons of money on all that. After all that work, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume you have the holy grail.

The Swiss makes perfect sense to me. I'm sure companies get approached all the time with the next "can't miss" product. And in every case, they do their due diligence on it. Plus, they were about to wire them $35 million dollars. And this was a "secret formula".

And what's being missed on this is that for all 3 companies, they had a patent-free formula. So the most important thing was first-to-market. That may be why they were rushing so much. And Giamatti had to make an announcement to the shareholders.

reply

[–] YannickG 15 years ago

I totally agree with coolrod.

Why do you think they waited for the last moment to place the formula in Julia's lap?? because Giamatti has been waiting for that formula for months, so he would't care to check it, assuming he has the real formula. He just needed the "go" from counterintel that they've got it, since they did such a good job before, and of course he believed them.
And like one of the counterintel guys said: "I'm no biochemist, but it sure looks like a formula to me". So they all were so happy that they've got it, that no checking in the last minute was necesary. That was the whole point of giving the formula to Julia so late, since they could've done the whole acted "stealing" part anytime.

And remember at the end of the movie, right before the speech, and after Giamatti gets the "we have the formula", the guy next to him says: "your rival has set up and emergency press conference for the next morning", this is a confirmation to Giamatti, that his rival knows he has stolen the formula, and since Giamatti will say it first to his shareholders right there, the rival has to spread the word too, that he invented the formula first, etc etc.
So Giamatti goes out and does the speech, 100% confident that he really has it, and knowing he is the first to say it, so the patent COULD go to him.

Julia and Clive on the other hand, are in the same deal, none of them are biochemists, and they certainly don't really trust ANYONE, not even themselves, as it is shown that they are paranoid most of the time. So OBVIOUSLY they don't show the formula to anyone, and sell it as quick as they can!!

So in my opinion, no plot hole, just logical events...!

reply

[–] bas1311-1 15 years ago

Neither of these points make much sense I'm afraid. It took the Swiss buyers 30 seconds to check it. You think someone running a multi-national corporation would at least want to know if it's real before telling the shareholders and the world. There is no excuse for this silliness in the movie no matter how many times one tries to explain the late timing of the handover. It just couldn't happen.

As for Julia and Clive, I think in the spy world trying to sell a fake to someone is a pretty good way to get killed so from merely a survival aspect it makes sense to check.

One final point. If we buy your premise that they "stole" the formula at the last possible minute that they could get it causing Giamatti to speak at the stockholder meeting blindly, what was the point of setting up this organization to steal the formula in the first place if they had run out of time and had no plan of their own to steal the formula?

reply

[–] kevine-4 15 years ago

Yes, there were many things here that didn't make sense, but let me see if I can fix some of them.

Remember the older woman in Giamatti's lab? She was somewhat miscast, although I really liked her. Anyway, she as a mole, could've verified the formula. She would've convinced Julia, Clive, and Giamatti.

Julia's character could've been asked to use the copy machine because they check cell phones on exit and do an electronic scan. However, she could've taken a picture with a disposable analog camera and then hidden the film (swallowed it?). Or better yet, simply not have her come back and expose Clive (sorry, I can't fix this).

The lackey who almost killed himself needed to not do that.

The other thing that can't be fixed is how patents and product testing works. At the point where they thought they might have a working formula, they'd apply for a patent. It's relatively trivial to apply for a patent and then withdraw it. You have protection based on the date of application. You don't go into testing and then apply for a patent...that would make no sense, because you'd be exposing the formula over a long period of time, testing for side effects and effectiveness. During this time, any test subject could take a sample and sell it.

And while I thought it was in Giamatti's greedy character to be reckless and announce something without verifying it, you certainly wouldn't announce an *untested* formula the way he did.

reply

[–] bas1311-1 15 years ago

A valiant effort. The issue I have with what you said is that Julia did take a picture with her phone because that's how she had the formula when they met in Europe so apparently it was easy. Also, had they really planned to use the copiers and had access to the building plans like they did, why didn't they practice or at least not seem so clueless when it was time to actually lose the copiers. That scene took over 5 minutes of screen time and was unnecessary.

Finally, what was their plan to steal the formula? It seems like an important detail that was never mentioned in the movie because the lackey conveniently "stole" it for them.

reply

[–] kevine-4 15 years ago

"The issue I have with what you said is that Julia did take a picture with her phone because that's how she had the formula when they met in Europe so apparently it was easy."

Yes, that's what I meant. There was no point in the copier scene, because anyone would've just taken the picture with the cell phone. It was further contrived because it wasn't Clive or Julia who came up with the idea to use the copier. So to fix this, they should've made it impossible, for her to have done this, and found some other way for her to get a second copy, or simply not have her rat out Clive.

Also, yes I agree the finding the copier thing needed to be fixed as well.

"Finally, what was their plan to steal the formula?"

What was funny about this, is just like Julia points out that the use of copiers was retarded, they also point out that they really didn't have a plan. Their idea was to just get positioned and wait for something to happen.

So really all they were doing was waiting until either one of them got their hands on something worth stealing. It's nothing more than embezzlement and not something Clive would've just walked away from after being caught red handed.

Oh, and because of the fact that there was no plan, neither one needed the other. If Clive had just stayed at the pizza gig, Julia would've done everything exactly the same, and there's a chance Clive would've been successful stealing something from the pizza company.

Idiots.

While I'm being harsh on this film, I actually did like it ok. It was fun...stupid, but fun.

reply

[–] bas1311-1 15 years ago

Oh sorry, I think I misunderstood. We seem to be pretty much on the same page. I felt all of these plot issues were the result of Gilroy really liking his twist, which was shaky at best, and not having a movie to go with it.

My other problem was that I felt the dialogue was pretty poor and Julia and Clive had about the same chemistry that Tom and Nicole had in Eyes Wide Shut, which is to say none.

Ultimately, there are just too many problems to excuse away for this to be a good movie in any way and it's a shame that Gilroy is allowed to get away with such sloppy, lazy writing.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Naexdil 15 years ago

The reason that I think they didn't get he formula double-checked was because of Howard's confidence on it. Howard made the biggest deal about it to the people working for him, etc. that everyone thought the formula was fail-safe and had been tested numerous times by his team.

reply

[–] rutel 15 years ago

I loved the movie, slept most of it and gosh, i needed it!!!

reply

[–] Katiedot 15 years ago

I think the reason Julia and Clive didn't check the formula was because they were spies and not chemists and would have had no way to check it. They could hardly walk in to their nearest chemistry lab and get it checked out.

Did Giamatti's character have the time to get the forumula tested? It seemed to be from the film's timeline that he was announcing the new shampoo very soon after it was stolen. He also had absolute confidence that the thing was genuine because he could not imagine the lengths that the other company went to.

Which brings me to my own question: how did the Swiss team manage to test the forumula so quickly? There's no way any chemist - even if armed with a pretty laptop - could check a complicated formula so quickly.

Also, Giametti's team would have tested the formula very soon and found it was fake. Surely by the time Julia and Clive reached switzerland, set up an appointment etc it would have been revealed as a fake already?

~psychos don't explode in the sunlight, I don't care HOW psycho they are~

reply

[–] sap-4 12 years ago

How do we know that the Swiss weren't scamming the scammers? Maybe the formula was good, but they just said it wasn't to save 35 million? But then, the scammers should have suspected a scam (since they are scammers themselves) and had their own paid for chemists check the formula. The fact that they didn't not only leaves a major plot hole, but also the possibility that the formula was good after all (which would explain the announcement)...and now the Swiss have it too.

reply

[–] s_a_n_d_w_i_c_h_e_s 13 years ago

You and everyone else on this thread are engaging in what the director Tony Gilroy rather endearingly refers to as "Internet fanboy chatroom horse$#!t." And if you think that reads badly you should hear the vitriol and contempt in his voice when he says it on the DVD commentary.

His frankly very weak assertion is that the film has made abundantly clear that Giamatti's character is prone to impulsive, reckless acts and so it's perfectly in keeping with what we've seen of him before.

The scene where he's getting his make-up done before the speech was shot specifically for internet fanboys like you guys to pre-empt all your horse$#!t.

"If I have any genius it is a genius for living" - Errol Flynn

reply