I have some questions about parts I did not understand.

I have some questions about the plot of A View to a Kill that I don't understand though, and might be plot holes.
SPOILERS

1. How did Gogol know that Zorin eliminated Bond, when he went to confront Zorin about it? Zorin wouldn't have told Gogol about it, since he know longer considers himself a KGB agent, as he put it. So how would Gogol have found out? Does he have a spy working in Zorin's organization who was there when Zorin tried to drown Bond?
If this is so, then why didn't Zorin immediately become suspicious of his own group, after Gogol confronted him about it? Zorin is just relaxed and doesn't suspect anything of why Gogol would know about that.

2. How did Bond know that Zorin went to San Francisco? Bond had to stay underwater till Zorin left, so did he catch up with Zorin later, and tracked him to San Francisco somehow? If so, this is not shown.

3. When Mayday says "What a view", and Zorin says "To a kill", I don't understand his response. What does a good view of San Francisco have to do with a kill?

I haven't seen it for some time, but I'll give it a go. 

1. Probably a plot hole, but could easily be explained that Gogol had a spy keeping an eye on Zorin. Not necessarily a mole, but an agent keeping surveillance from afar. Could have even been Pola Ivanova. 

2. He was tracing Stacey Sutton from memory. 

3. It's really just shoehorning the title into some dialogue, but could be that he's referring to manipulating nature to murder the people of San Francisco.

Okay thanks. But this leads me to some other questions for points one and two.

1. Since Gogol found out so fast, why didn't Zorin suspect a spy in his organization as a possibility and become suspicious of such possibility?

2. Why did Bond think that Zorin would go after Stacey in San Francisco?

It doesn't do to over-analyse the films sometimes ... I mean, for example in Skyfall Silva's plans rely on Bond acting exactly as he expects him to to an almost ludicrous degree.

Doesn't mean it isn't one of the series' very finest entries.

ironpony wrote:

Okay thanks.  But this leads me to some other questions for points one and two.

1.  Since Gogol found out so fast, why didn't Zorin suspect a spy in his organization as a possibility and become suspicious of such possibility?

2.  Why did Bond think that Zorin would go after Stacey in San Francisco?

1. Because that's not the film the film makers wanted to tell. Insiders and double agents would later come briefly in Brosnan's era, but since the film makers became creatively bankrupt in Craig's era, they rely on that trope for a story (Dryden, Mathis, for god knows why, Special Branch Agent, Mitchell, Gregory Beam, Silva, C).

2. He wanted to find a new lead in Stacey, not that he know Zorin would go after Stacey. He wanted to know what she was being paid off for, having found Zorin's chequebook during the party.

BI wrote:

...in Skyfall Silva's plans rely on Bond acting exactly as he expects him to to an almost ludicrous degree. 

I don't subscribe to that. Considering he has been monitoring MI6's activity through cyberspace, it seemed like a back up plan which he had to rely on. Since he knew Bond's evaluation results, he knew their new digs, so he could rig the emergency exits. He knew M would be going to the public enquiry, etc.

Oh okay thanks, those are good points.

Why is it that almost every Bond movie feels they have to have the title in the dialogue though? There are lots of movies that don't have the title in the dialogue, so why can't they just not have it in at all, rather than shoehorning it in?

Blunt Instrument wrote:

It doesn't do to over-analyse the films sometimes ... I mean, for example in Skyfall Silva's plans rely on Bond acting exactly as he expects him to to an almost ludicrous degree.

Doesn't mean it isn't one of the series' very finest entries.

Plot in Skyfall is sometimes secondary to theme. If you enjoy visual metaphors that's a strength not a weakness.