It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think that fits to the 'Bond by the numbers' line of thinking around Brosnan. But I think that's unfair. Brosnan is still negatively influenced by the fact that his films fall into a day and era that was, in effect, the most peaceful (in the West) and perhaps most decadent. DAD was over the top, but was even more so as it came on the heels of major historical changes, that make it look bad in hintsight.
I agree with the critique on TND, just because somehow Wai Lin and Bond don't really have any chemistry. The producers/writers tried to make her a bit too much of an independent force, with the result that the connection between them doesn't materialize.
But other than that, the films fit their time perfectly. Except, perhaps, for DAD, but it was still hugely succesfull at the boxoffice.
Imagie if Craig would've followed Moore. Bt then again, the producers wouldn't go that far, and Timthy did an excellent job of turning Bond into a more realistic, human, 'hero'.
It's just that the endings of his films are not outstanding ;-)
Yes, that's what I meant as well. Brosnan's endings are rarely quippy. GoldenEye has the joke about coming up in a clinch but it ends on them flying off in a helicopter romantically. In Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond says "Let's stay under cover", which is very light pun but bears a lot of resemblance to Connery's "This is no time to be rescued" from Goldfinger. In Die Another Day, Bond kisses Jinx after saying, "Especially when you're bad," (which is less a quip and more akin to Connery's "let me show you" when asked about the tape in FRWL) and the only real "humour" in the scene is us hearing Jinx's pleas to leave it in. The VR ending would be a more traditional Moore type ending.
Only TWINE, with the heat signatures in front of M, followed by the Christmas pun, is a proper replica of the Moore endings.
Anyway I liked the TWINE endings because of its creativity. The other 3 are more in line with the Connery era in putting function over funny, which of course works over the film but as individual scenes they lack oomph.
Brosnan's endings (for his last 3) are all pretty saved/helped significantly by David Arnold's score and the his romantic takes on the Bond theme.
I just realized that DAD ripped off the "in/out" joke from OP.
Wai Lin and Brosnan Bond needed a shot-for-shot remake of the TB ending. There, I fixed it.
The internet says
denouement
A dénouement is the final part of a story where the intricate plot is resolved, loose ends are tied, and questions are answered, providing a sense of closure for the audience.
Sounds more like an Agatha Christie or Sherlock Holmes ending, rather than anything from a James Bond movie to me
A "sting in the tail ending" is not a formal literary term but an idiomatic phrase for an unexpected and unpleasant twist at the end of a narrative or announcement.
Surprise: The twist is unexpected and catches the reader off guard.
Negative Connotation: The surprise is usually a critical or unpleasant aspect that changes the reader's perception of the story or situation.
Like that, except that the surprise in a Bond movie gernerally doesn't change the viewers perception of the story, being merely the unexpected reappearance of a villain bent on revenge
For me CR manages to include all the ending types together in one packege
Firstly "Bond falls in love with Vesper and resigns from MI6, and the couple sail to Venice..."
Those unfamiliar with the book might well have been expecting the film to end there, with the traditional "Romantic Ending"
Secondly "M reveals that his winnings were never transferred to the British treasury, Bond realizes that Vesper has betrayed him."
Giving us the "Sting In The Tail" aka "Surprise Twist" ending
An example of Fleming subverting the readers expectations, by not providing the expected. Keeping his readers off balance and interested, by doing something different from the norm.
And finally "Bond checks the contacts and locates Mr. White at an estate in Lake Como. He shoots White in the leg to disable him and introduces himself: "The name's Bond, James Bond".
Which I would describe as a "Post Script / Teaser Ending" a little taste of what to expect from the next installment, in order to pique the viewers interest for the future, as Marvel currently try to do in their post credits scenes.
But not quite a "Cliff Hanger" ending, which is what NTTD would have been, if they had left Bond's fate in any doubt...
To me all these endings are the ones where while the main villain plot has been defeated, loose ends remain.
I'm not knocking the endings themselves, they are all fine, just questioning the terminology used to describe what category of ending they fall into.
I was more meaning that "denoument" and "sting in the tail" ending do not equate (although they may overlap). Many denouments do not involve any particular "sting in the tail" element.
A Sherlock Holmes / Agatha Christie type denoument may hope to surprise in terms of "who done it", but is more often about "how done it" or "why done it" and how the detective worked it all out.
With Bond the surprise usually only relates to the timing, it's no surprise that it's Goldfinger or some henchman, and it's not a resolution, in terms of the audiences being able to better understand what has gone on before, only a matter of physical retribution.
Goldfinger ending
Bond boards a jet to have lunch with the President at the White House, but Goldfinger hijacks the plane
"Sting in the tail / suprise twist"
However, in this case, because Goldfinger is the titular character, it has greater significance than the others you mention
Leiter's search helicopter passes over the unseen pair; Pussy tries to alert them, but Bond playfully declares, "This is no time to be rescued".
"Romantic ending"
As for the others, if the audience never heard from Wint and Kid (or the satellite), Tee Hee (or Baron Samedi), or Nic Nack again, would it really matter?
What I mean is that the raison d'etre of the scenes you mention is to provide an additional jolt of excitement for the audience at the end, not to "tie up loose ends". The writers could have dealt with the henchmen earlier, but deliberatley chose to put them to one side and keep them alive to use for a "shock" ending. Equivalent thinking to that behind the Bond pre-credit sequences. Start with a bang, go out with a bang. A different plot device.
The internet says
Characteristics of a Denouement
Tying up loose ends: Any unanswered questions or unresolved subplots are addressed and brought to a close.
"Loose ends", yes.
However I expect to see baddies get their just desserts in any case, it doesn't require a denoument to achieve that.
"Unanswered questions or unresolved subplots"
Does a missing henchman who has not been caught and punished qualify?
Revealing secrets: Hidden information or identities are brought to light, often explaining key plot points.
Not in most Bond movies (imagine the MI6 team standing around M's desk, Moneypenny, Q, Tanner etc, while Bond expounds about the ramifications of the mission, then cracks wise and they all laugh)
Returning to normalcy: A new state of equilibrium is established, though the characters may have been changed by the events of the story.
Pre Craig, not so much. "Normalcy" yes, "state of equilibrium" yes, but "new" no, the staus quo of the existing establishment is always maintained. "Characters changed" no, the recurring characters remain unchanged by events (until Felix gets bitten).
While the Craig era is the reverse, no "normalcy" is returned to and no "new equilibrium" is ever established.
Providing resolution: The central conflict is resolved, and the characters find peace, happiness, or at least an acceptance of their situation.
Pre Craig, yes, Craig not so much
So I think the definition of "denoument" you are using is too narrow and doesn't do the word justice
God i hate that ending! If i'd been Bond i would have given Jack Wade an unfortunate one..
Would you rather gun barrel at the start OR at the end of the film?
Do you want Bond to "earn" the gun barrel or are you good with the first time we see the new guy it's in the gun barrel?
Do you want the producers to play with it? Should we see blood, or no blood? Maybe a digital bullet like DAD?
It would open up right in the hall way as it did then Bond comes into the shot
That's kind of like having the gunbarrel twice in quick succession.
That’s not to say I want it at the end - I’d prefer it at the beginning, but I think they should do what feels right for the opening.
My preference - gun barrel at the beginning, but with a silhouetted Bond a la the original Bob Simmons gun barrel.