Shaken, not Q'ed

I just finished watching Thunderball, starring Sean Connery as James Bond. My roommate purchased the four volume box set of all James Bond films (excluding the one that came out last year, whatever it was called), so I decided I would watch through them. So far I've enjoyed them. They are obviously movies that you can't watch with too critical an eye because there are logic holes that are wildly gaping. The thing is, they are only holes in the real world. For the most part, things work differently in the Bond world, and within that world everything that occurs makes perfect sense. Thunderball is the fourth movie, and it was entertaining.
I'll be honest, I'm not a huge Bond fan. I can appreciate them and, as I've said, can be entertained by them, but they are by no means my favourite movies out there. I often find them to be a bit unappealing. I find it difficult putting my finger on exactly why. Part of it, at least for the first few, is that the movies seem so dated to me. Not just because they take place in the 1960s, but just in the style of how movies were made then. I suppose I'm just accustomed to how movies are filmed in the present, but that isn't entirely the problem because there are old movies that don't bother me like these ones do. The Bridge On The River Kwai was made in the 50s, and I didn't have the same problem I do with the early Bond films. There's just something about the style of the movies that turns me off. Not the whole thing, either, just parts here and there. For the most part I'm not bothered at all. And the illogicalities of the plot and the characters doesn't bother me. Take the movies for what they are, it's a great deal more satisfying.
That being said, I do have a question about the end of Thunderball. They are on an out of control boat that is about to hit some rocks and explode. Bond, the girl (cuz there's always a girl), and some random guy run to the edge of the boat. The random guy says that he can't swim, so Bond gives him a life saver, one of those round floaty tubes, and pushes him overboard before jumping in with the girl. You can see all three of them in the boat. After watching the explosion (ka-BOOM!!!) a plane flies by and drops an inflatable raft. It inflates (which is probably a good thing) and the girl climbs in, followed by Bond. They then inflate a small balloon with an on board tank of helium. It floats into the air and the plane flies by again. This plane has a weird contraption on the front, and as it flies by this last time this contraption snags the cable running from the balloon to the boat. The cable is attached to the back of James' wet suit. It jerks him up into the air and since he is holding on to the girl, she goes up with him. I am willing to ignore the fact that doing something like that is extremely dumb and pointless, especially given how there are boats in area that could just pick him up. I am also willing to ignore the fact that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to hold on to the girl when the cable gets tight and yanks Bond into the air. Remember, he is now being pulled by a plane, something that has to be going fast enough to stay in the air. My question is: what happened to the other guy? He never climbs into the boat, they never show him after he lands in the water, he just disappears. Did he walk ashore? Did he get caught by some flaming wreckage? Was he eaten by sharks (there were alot of sharks in the movie, so this is actually plausible)? Was he really a half-human, half-fish mutant and the statement about not being able to swim was just to throw people off of his secret identity? We'll never know. Even if it just means they left him there, they still just completely abandoned this guy in the middle of nowhere, with no means of waving down a ship other than shouting. Seems rather random.
I like listening to the commentaries on movies. These movies, so far anyway, the commentaries are made up of different clips of interviews done with various actors, directors, producers, and the editor (one guy edited the first six movies, and they seem to like him on these commentaries), and in between these clips there is narration provided by some guy from "The Ian Fleming Institute" (for anyone unaware of Ian Fleming, he was the author of the books about James Bond, which the movies are based on). This guy has some interesting things to say, but he is WAY too enthusiastic about the movies. To listen to him, you'd start to believe that no movie in the history of movies has been as good as a James Bond movie. He talks about how every movie was so influential and how every story was brilliantly written and amazing and that everyone who worked on the movies was the best and...it just goes on and on. I listen to the guy and wonder if he watches the movies or just makes love to them. It's very hard to tell. He says things that make me roll my eyes, making wild proclomations about the popularity and importance of the movies that leave me shaking my head. It's truly amazing to listen to this guy. I'm waiting to see what he has to say about the movies when I get to ones that everyone seems to think are not so good (the George Lazenby one comes to mind, as well as some of the more recent offerings). Will he cry? Or will he say that they were only the second most influential movie of all time, after the previous Bond movies, of course. I guess I'll find out soon enough.