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 was just about to post this! Tiffany is great in Amsterdam, tough, and a bit in Vegas as well, but then the writing just goes off the cliff. Poorly acted and directed.
And who was in charge of that? Barbara Broccoli.
Why?
Add incredible explosions, a great score, some nice stunt driving and an always kinetic sequence and for me LTK has the greatest climax out of all of the Bond films.
Very well put. I'd also add that it ends perfectly with Sanchez' fitting demise by Leiter's lighter, and Bond sitting against that rock looking at the field of battle sighing to himself as he reflects over what has been done.
TLD is tennis: stylish and elegant, it oozes class in a traditional way. A beautiful thing to look at and it invites you to emerge in its atmosphere.
LTK is football: rough around the edges but spectacular and an emotional rollercoaster. You'll be at the edge-of-your-seat and feel emotionally attached to the outcome.
TLD is classy, LTK is passionate.
I love them both, for different reasons.
This kind of epilogue works well in some films (DAF) but not so well in others.
If they had done it in LTK, they would have ruined the climax. I guess not having money is a good thing sometimes.
That's a great analogy, @GoldenGun. And I agree with your concluding remark.
Yes the action epilogue pops up a few times doesn't it; I guess it's kind of from Fleming, where the villain or henchman suddenly pops up on Bond on a train or his hotel room to get some sort of revenge for the scheme being ruined. I guess it's often a nice little extra treat for the audience just when they thought it was all over.
TLD had elements of this sort of epilogue, but it hasn't properly been used since TMWTGG, I believe. Which might explain why it hasn't been used in decades.
I suppose this is a controversial opinion in itself, but in that same way I’ve never understood some of the dislike for SF’s climax. I’d argue it’s foreshadowed effectively and gives us the showdown needed from the film. I think it might be due to the fact that a Bond film has this Straw Dogs type finale and gives us M’s death (the Quentin Tarantino critique I suppose!)
I think the SF climax is great. It's different from anything else we've seen in the series, and its "Home Alone" vibe isn't a problem for me at all. I rather like that Bond, M and Kincaid use their wits to defeat many of Silva's goons, against all odds no less. The death of M is a dramatic punch that hits hard but is dealt with beautifully.
I wonder if Spectre could have worked with Hinx's train attack coming after the London finale, in a retro style. You need that dinner conversation between Bond and Madeline to plant the idea of him leaving the service, but other than that maybe it would work. As has been noted, Hinx attacking Bond at that point doesn't really make sense.
I think it looks like it's from a completely different movie.
In any case, endings with lots of gunfire are usually pretty boring, and this one is no different. Only M's death makes it memorable.
Plus, Bond in the UK is not a good idea. It's not exotic.
Never gotten the impression it's from a different movie personally, but to each their own. A lot of good climaxes have lots of gunfire so I wouldn't say that's a rule of thumb (I suppose you can get climaxes that get a bit samey/don't have much tension to them, but I like how SF's climax movies through the space). I'd also say I love how Gothic looking and atmospheric Scotland looks in that final act, so I'm fine with it being the location.
Anyway, I think it's a lot more satisfying than many Bond film climaxes. I'd take it over TB or SP any day.
I suppose the way I see it is Bond is one of the only characters in SF to be fully redeemed by the end. I guess Mallory ends up on top too (although he's not one of the main players, and you can argue he doesn't actually do anything wrong in the story, despite how distrustfully Bond and the audience view him for a chunk of the film). M and Silva both die as a consequence of their actions and personal failings, whereas Bond has spent the entire film effectively building himself up again after his self imposed, drunken exile. I don't see it as a failure per se for Bond. It's a bit of a last ditch, off the books effort all round by the time they go to Skyfall, and the priority was taking out Silva, with M being a lame duck. It'd actually be easier for everyone if she'd died earlier, awful as that sounds. There's a tinge of fatalism to it in that way, but it's quite an optimistic ending too in many ways.
I think they'd have to do something different with the 'henchman coming back for a one off fight' ending to make it work, but I think it could have been, and would be cool to see again.
Oh and I know I said it before, but I'll repeat it here: I think SF makes more sense with the SP retcons.
That’s interesting, I don’t think I have seen you say that. In what way are you thinking?
Well, first it would make sense that such elite professional hacker as Silva would have clients or employers that are among the most powerful and wealthy criminals. So the retcon of him working for Spectre (in whatever capacity, employee or consultant) was perfectly justifiable and didn't really contradict anything in SF. Secondly, it makes more sense for the henchmen of Silva to be motivated to work for him by something else than a revenge that isn't their own to begin with, especially given how risky and uncertain the whole plot was. If Silva is merely their line manager, so to speak, or the operation is bankrolled by Spectre, then they are mercenaries for a bigger cause. Without SP, you have a bunch of mooks ready to serve a boss with a death wish with little to no incentives.
Yeah that’s pretty good.
I actually wish they’d drawn a bigger line between the two than they did: Silva’s plan to humiliate MI6 and M actually makes more sense as the first stage of Blofeld & C’s destabilisation plan to take over the security services- MI6 is arguably weakened by Silva’s attacks which gives C the chance to step in.
I don’t think it removes Silva’s ‘agency’ or whatever if he’s been bankrolled by Spectre: he has a genuine beef with M and both he and Spectre get something out of the plan. Plus I feel like he makes it clear he works for outside clients I think.
You could have Lucia reveal some bit of evidence that Sciarra was meeting with Silva perhaps to make Bond draw the connection; and somehow that’s what DenchM knew about and why she put Bond onto Sciarra. That’s probably all extraneous plotting you don’t need, but it would tie it all together a bit more convincingly than some rings I think.
Considering the plot of both films concerns MI6 itself being threatened, I think it’s kind of bonkers they didn’t tie them together more, it’s right there.
But then equally Bond doesn’t seem to care that Blofeld killed his foster dad, so maybe some anger over M’s death could have replaced that, and even the foster brother thing altogether.