The Ending (SPOILERS)

Dutchfinger

For those who watched the movie. How did you like the ending?

I really took some getting used to from me to see Bond walk off hand in hand with Swann and actually be in love again. Especially since he had already been in love with Vesper before and this one seemed a lot more unexpected and sudden. I already started asking myself questions for Bond 25 as soon as the credits rolled 'whats next now?"

I feel Swann could be the modern interpertation of Tracy perhaps. She'll pressumally be killed in the next one and Blofeld should obviously return at some point. Heck, the next movie could even be titled: "Blofeld"

Also didn't really like the music used over the last shot. Just recycled again..

Your thoughts?

walther p99

I love the idea of Bond possibly being in love again, I mean he cant mourn Vesper forever, he has to move on eventually.

SFPROPS

I haven't seen the film but read the script. It seemed as though with all the nods to OHMSS, and Swann being the daughter of a criminal, that they were doing a very subtle homage to that film so it wouldn't surprise me to see Swann in the next film and die at the hands of Blofeld, only for Bond to kill in in 26

Number24

I agree the next movie could be "Blofeld", but I hope Swann doesn't get killed. Craig's Bond has had enough heartbreak and he doesn't need more motivation to go after Blofeld. Bond can just find a new girl or three in the next Movie, like he always did.

Dutchfinger

Number24 wrote:

I agree the next movie could be "Blofeld", but I hope Swann doesn't get killed. Craig's Bond has had enough heartbreak and he doesn't need more motivation to go after Blofeld. Bond can just find a new girl or three in the next Movie, like he always did.

It would defenitely follow Bond's overall life of the novells if they went with her getting killed though. Vesper being his first love in his first adventure, and later meeting Tracy (Swann) who gets taken away from him by his arch nemesis. This would defenitely immortolize Craig's Bond though. Would be so hard to top anything coming after that!

SFPROPS wrote:

I haven't seen the film but read the script. It seemed as though with all the nods to OHMSS, and Swann being the daughter of a criminal, that they were doing a very subtle homage to that film so it wouldn't surprise me to see Swann in the next film and die at the hands of Blofeld, only for Bond to kill in in 26

Brave move of reading the script! Would have never been able to do something like that myself.
And yeah, I defenitely think this will be the direction to go in next. They kept Blofeld alive. Also, I'm sure whenever they get to Bond 25 they'll want to think of something major because it's the 25th one.

walther p99 wrote:

I love the idea of Bond possibly being in love again, I mean he cant mourn Vesper forever, he has to move on eventually.

I agree on that. But the way it was done in this movie felt a bit 'sudden'. She seemed like 'just another girl' Bond encounters in his adventures untill the surveillance tape scene where he all of the sudden seemed very passionate about her.

Number24

But according to Blofeld he has already killed Tracy, why the need for a second woman killed?

Barbel

Number24 wrote:

But according to Blofeld he has already killed Tracy, why the need for a second woman killed?

You mean Vesper?

Dutchfinger

Number24 wrote:

But according to Blofeld he has already killed Tracy, why the need for a second woman killed?

Keep in mind that the Daniel Craig Bond movies are a reboot of the series. This new Blofeld never killed a Tracy. Everything from CR onwards was the start of a new universe.

Number24

I ment that Blofeld in the movie SPECTRE said he was responsible for killing Vesper.

Dutchfinger

Number24 wrote:

I ment that Blofeld in the movie SPECTRE said he was responsible for killing Vesper.

I see, sorry. (Didn't want to come off as some wiseass who thinks he knows it all by any means!)

But yes you're right. He did say he was ultimately responsible for that. But who knows, they might find a new plotline or reason for him to do this. He did want to kill Bond in this one, he didn't succeed. And he probably felt humililated on the bridge in London in the end. Probably enough reasons to hurt Bond by killing off his new love too.

zaphod99

I

Dutchfinger wrote:

For those who watched the movie. How did you like the ending?

I really took some getting used to from me to see Bond walk off hand in hand with Swann and actually be in love again. Especially since he had already been in love with Vesper before and this one seemed a lot more unexpected and sudden. I already started asking myself questions for Bond 25 as soon as the credits rolled 'whats next now?"

I feel Swann could be the modern interpertation of Tracy perhaps. She'll pressumally be killed in the next one and Blofeld should obviously return at some point. Heck, the next movie could even be titled: "Blofeld"

Also didn't really like the music used over the last shot. Just recycled again..

Your thoughts?

I really liked it, it was refreshing and terrific that Madeleine did not have to die. Bond got ( for a while at least) to go off into the sunset. It would make sense if this indeed is Daniel's Swan song ( see what I did there)

Number24

Dutchfinger wrote:

Number24 wrote:

I ment that Blofeld in the movie SPECTRE said he was responsible for killing Vesper.

I see, sorry. (Didn't want to come off as some wiseass who thinks he knows it all by any means!)

But yes you're right. He did say he was ultimately responsible for that. But who knows, they might find a new plotline or reason for him to do this. He did want to kill Bond in this one, he didn't succeed. And he probably felt humililated on the bridge in London in the end. Probably enough reasons to hurt Bond by killing off his new love too.

Yes, Blofeld has reasons to kill Swann (as if he needs reasons ...), but in my view the scriptwriters don't. Killling both Vesper and Swann would seem a bridge too far, milking it too much or even jumping the shark (look at all the Englïsh expressions I know )
BTW, I liked the ending. It was about time Craig's Bond got to end the movie with a woman, and the Aston Martin is always nice.

Robbo88

He wants to cause Bond as much harm as possible. At the end where Blofeld looks up at Bond, Bond then looks at Swann and looks back at Blofeld and says something along the lines of "I've got better things to do now."

The look that Blofeld gives them as Bond walks away is almost like "I'm going to make you wish you had killed me."

Dutchfinger

Robbo88 wrote:

He wants to cause Bond as much harm as possible. At the end where Blofeld looks up at Bond, Bond then looks at Swann and looks back at Blofeld and says something along the lines of "I've got better things to do now."

The look that Blofeld gives them as Bond walks away is almost like "I've going to make you wish you had killed me."

Yes! Exactly that! This just has to continue in the next Bond movie, and hopefully with Craig still as Bond!

sniperUK

The more I think about the movie, especially the ending I think FFS , in fact I said that out loud to the other half at the time, using the PPK at about 200 mtrs to take out the chopper the DAD satellite and invisible car are more beliveable, and as for the Goldmember storyline the more I put it just above the 80s Moore movies as my least favourites.

7.65 round larger than life.

Asp9mm

sniperUK wrote:

The more I think about the movie, especially the ending I think FFS , in fact I said that out loud to the other half at the time, using the PPK at about 200 mtrs to take out the chopper the DAD satellite and invisible car are more beliveable, and as for the Goldmember storyline the more I put it just above the 80s Moore movies as my least favourites.

That and the constant racking of the slide. Bond constantly carrying his sidearm without a round in the chamber And after he showed such great firearms handling skills in CR. What happened? Although, as my missus points out to me. Who else notices? Not 99.99% of the cinema going public. But it took me out of the moment, especially the chopper part.

Robbo88

Asp9mm wrote:

sniperUK wrote:

The more I think about the movie, especially the ending I think FFS , in fact I said that out loud to the other half at the time, using the PPK at about 200 mtrs to take out the chopper the DAD satellite and invisible car are more beliveable, and as for the Goldmember storyline the more I put it just above the 80s Moore movies as my least favourites.

That and the constant racking of the slide. Bond constantly carrying his sidearm without a round in the chamber And after he showed such great firearms handling skills in CR. What happened? Although, as my missus points out to me. Who else notices? Not 99.99% of the cinema going public. But it took me out of the moment, especially the chopper part.

Yeah when he approaches Mr White's lair he cocks it as he's approaching. I'd have the chamber loaded as soon as I was near the place. Not a few metres from the door.

Asp9mm

He does it in the train station too Also means he's constantly carrying one less round than he can. Makes no sense.

Sir Miles

Asp9mm wrote:

He does it in the train station too Also means he's constantly carrying one less round than he can. Makes no sense.

But it's a film...it looks 'cool' to idiots like me...and it's saying - "right, I'm ready now" - to the audience...

As for shooting down the helicopter ? It's been done in many other movies so I think it passes largely unnoticed to the general cinema going public...

The_Commander

If we start getting into the minutiae of weapon capability and etiquette, then we're losing the plot. As Sir Miles said, this is a film - it's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary or training film. It's strange how there's a fixation on how Bond cycles his weapon, but large glaringly obvious faults are missed: how about why the plane didn't burst into flames when the wings were severed, therefore rupturing the fuel tanks?
And as to downing a chopper from 200 metres (it was probably closer to 100 in reality) - it's not unreasonable to suggest that a round enters the engine from the rear and causes a fire is it? At that range (even 100m), a 7.65mm round would not puncture the skin of the aircraft, true, but it could quite easily enter an open port and act as FOD.

Asp9mm

The_Commander wrote:

If we start getting into the minutiae of weapon capability and etiquette, then we're losing the plo

The_Commander wrote:

If we start getting into the minutiae of weapon capability and etiquette, then we're losing the plot. As Sir Miles said, this is a film - it's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary or training film. It's strange how there's a fixation on how Bond cycles his weapon, but large glaringly obvious faults are missed: how about why the plane didn't burst into flames when the wings were severed, therefore rupturing the fuel tanks?
And as to downing a chopper from 200 metres (it was probably closer to 100 in reality) - it's not unreasonable to suggest that a round enters the engine from the rear and causes a fire is it? At that range (even 100m), a 7.65mm round would not puncture the skin of the aircraft, true, but it could quite easily enter an open port and act as FOD.

As Sir Miles said, this is a film - it's a piece of entertainment, not a documentary or training film. It's strange how there's a fixt. ation on how Bond cycles his weapon, but large glaringly obvious faults are missed: how about why the plane didn't burst into flames when the wings were severed, therefore rupturing the fuel tanks?
And as to downing a chopper from 200 metres (it was probably closer to 100 in reality) - it's not unreasonable to suggest that a round enters the engine from the rear and causes a fire is it? At that range (even 100m), a 7.65mm round would not puncture the skin of the aircraft, true, but it could quite easily enter an open port and act as FOD.

It's a discussion forum. We discuss stuff. People are discussing everything from Bond's flat, surviving falls, the fit of Bond's suits and everything else, so why can't we discuss weapon use too if it interests a couple of us. As someone whose job it was to actually use a PPK and train extensively with them, then SniperUK and I are going to discuss these things. It doesn't stop me from enjoying the films, but we are going to notice them. Casino Royale set the standards for correct use and it was refreshing to see this.

And now you're doing it too anyway )

sniperUK

The_Commander wrote:

If we start getting into the minutiae of weapon capability and etiquette, then we're losing the plot.

Actually I think the screenwriters lost the plot after they watched Goldmember too many times.

ppw3o6r

sniperUK wrote:

The_Commander wrote:

If we start getting into the minutiae of weapon capability and etiquette, then we're losing the plot.

Actually I think the screenwriters lost the plot after they watched Goldmember too many times.

Yes I too was waiting for "sharks with fricking laser beams on their heads" but we did get the dentists chair which with the correct comedy music could have been a homage to the other unofficial Casino Royale sped up sequence torture chair? but getting back to the subject in hand, when the slide is pulled back & a round is chambered unless ejected, the application of the safety catch does just that makes the weapon safe so no need to keep racking the thing when the round is still in the chamber. In Casino Royale 2006 in the DBS Bond either chambers a round or pulls back the slide on his P99 to see if it is loaded? He then releases the internal striker making the weapon safe which is correct weapons procedure & that I believe is the point ASP was trying to make. In this one we have Bond firing a 7.65mm close contact weapon on choppy seas, up hill in the dark & successfully striking the engine exhaust ports of a speeding helicopter. If he is that bloody great a marksman he certainly would not have required an LRC-1 or KPOS carbine conversion to take out targets in the PTS in the building opposite in perfect weather conditions! At least when the joker pulled off a similar night shot in Batman he had the foresight to be standing on solid ground & to have his revolver fitted with a telescopic barrel

Robbo88

It's a pity Blofeld didn't ask for a ransom in this movie. Then it would of been Austin powers .

The_Commander

Whilst I get what you're saying ASP9mm, we have to remember this inescapable but somewhat disappointing truth: Bond is fiction.

The films are purely entertainment and whilst they're based on plausible scenarios, we can't pull each thread that's hanging loose within the story or very soon, the entire tightly woven article will fall apart and we would soon lose our enjoyment in Bond.

The Craig-era films have a more gritty and realistic feel about them, but they're still only entertainment and not a factual documentary. Your point about constantly carrying around 1 round less than the max is very true and I don't doubt your experience with sidearms - I have more experience with weapons such as the SLR and SA80, but my favourite still remains the Lee-Enfield 303.

However, whether the Thames was choppy or not, the bad guy is getting away in a chopper and you're in a boat - what do you do? Of course you take a pot shot and hope for the best.

And yes, you've got me discussing the minutiae now - git!

sniperUK

The_Commander wrote:

However, whether the Thames was choppy or not, the bad guy is getting away in a chopper and you're in a boat - what do you do? Of course you take a pot shot and hope for the best.

And yes, you've got me discussing the minutiae now - git!

Scramble Southern QRA , Typhoon and ASRAAM would have made a better ending :v

IanT

Now whereas I also thought that it was stretching the truth to do a chopper with a 7.65 round etc. etc. I also allow myself to accept it and enjoy the film.

If we argue about this, the shall we argue about the lack of Bond's forensic awareness when he kills someone, ejector seats in cars, how quickly he can get from one country to another?

Nahhhh, coz it's Bond and it just happens.

Asp9mm

We aren't arguing about it. It's just a point we are discussing. We aren't going to write to Babs about it, well... probably not.

You should see the threads on Bond's flat, his ability to fall from heights and live etc. We know it's just a film, but people with common interests in some minutiae, will discuss that minutiae. Pistol handling was my profession for many years when I was younger, so flaws like that are going to annoy me as much as ill fitting suits and fashion faux pas will annoy Matt S.

zaphod99

Dutchfinger wrote:

Robbo88 wrote:

He wants to cause Bond as much harm as possible. At the end where Blofeld looks up at Bond, Bond then looks at Swann and looks back at Blofeld and says something along the lines of "I've got better things to do now."

The look that Blofeld gives them as Bond walks away is almost like "I've going to make you wish you had killed me."

Yes! Exactly that! This just has to continue in the next Bond movie, and hopefully with Craig still as Bond!

Please no. Not another revenge movie, and please, please, no rogue Bond I beg of you.

Sir Miles

Asp9mm wrote:

We aren't arguing about it. It's just a point we are discussing. We aren't going to write to Babs about it, well... probably not.

You should see the threads on Bond's flat, his ability to fall from heights and live etc. We know it's just a film, but people with common interests in some minutiae, will discuss that minutiae. Pistol handling was my profession for many years when I was younger, so flaws like that are going to annoy me as much as ill fitting suits and fashion faux pas will annoy Matt S.

I totally understand your viewpoint...as a numpty, I wouldn't notice this as 'not being correct procedure' in the movie...but I'm happy to learn...although I've a fair idea the pistol shot wouldn't down the helicopter...do either of these 'inconsistencies' bother me ? No.

But I am happy to read and learn -{

HatThrowingHenchman

I want to finally see the film X-(