Disagree on LTK. Patti Labelle's if you ask me to is like saying good bye to an era of the first 16 'classic' Bond movies. It leaves me with a major smile
Sorry, I disagree. The winking fish and that song are a terrible end to Cubby's Bond films.
The Bond film endings that make me smile -
Always loved the endings to TSWLM and MR - both with well timed puns.
Have a soft spot for the heartfelt ending to TLD plus it's great to see John Barry conducting the orchestra.
Skyfall's ending is a spine tingling moment which I love. -{
Disagree on LTK. Patti Labelle's if you ask me to is like saying good bye to an era of the first 16 'classic' Bond movies. It leaves me with a major smile
DAF (1971)
V: Ernst Stavro Blofeld In his Battle Sub as it crashes into the side of an oil rig (but does he die?)
B: With Tiffany Case on a yacht
Excellent work on the list (but here it should be a 'Bathosub' and a cruise liner rather than a yacht).
Cheers
With the vintage movies, my favourite endings are the ones which give a 'surprise' piece of bonus action, just at a point when lazier members of the original audience might have supposed that the movie was finished and got up to leave the cinema. FRWL played this 'trick' first... GF, OHMSS, DAF, LLD and TMWTGG all followed suit.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Disagree on LTK. Patti Labelle's if you ask me to is like saying good bye to an era of the first 16 'classic' Bond movies. It leaves me with a major smile
Sorry, I disagree. The winking fish and that song are a terrible end to Cubby's Bond films.
Agreed. The winking fish is tacky and incongruous in tone.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I like the ending of GoldenEye "Yo marines!" up and until the moment Eric Serra starts his.... well, let's call it a song. The endings of TSWLM, MR, TLD are great as well. But I think my favorite has to be the ending of YOLT where Monneypenny is very happy to tell Bond he has to "come below and report". I love the look on Lois Maxwell's face, it is one of my favorite Monneypenny moments in the entire franchise.
I've never understood the issue some have with the winking fish at the end of LTK. Is it belivable? Absolutely! Why wouldn't a drug lord have a fish statue by the pool with a winking mecanism? The winking can be switches on for parties. The winking suggests fun, secrets, romance. All very apropriate. The rest of the scene is really good (not counting the horrible phone call with Felix). Lupe comes on to Bond who suggests the fitting partner of El Presidente. Lupe's main goal was after all financial stability, a way out of poverty. Pam spots the pair and leaves in years. A second woman pining for Bond. 007 hands the drinks to Q and jumps in the pool, then drags Pam in with him. As pointed out above, water symbolizes sex. All very Bondian. "If I knew a man" is one of the better end of movie songs.
Nice handy table. Reminds me of one Kingsley Amis included in the James Bond Dossier.
...but I gotta point out, Renard is not the villain of tWiNE, Elektra is. Renard belongs in that category of henchmen like Wint & Kidd, Teehee, NickNack, and Jaws who Bond has to fight after killing the main villain.
also, if le Chiffre is the villain of Casino Royale, he is shot some twenty minutes before the end, so that's not the ending of the film. I think these more recent films vary from the formula so much that they confound the intent of such a table. Whereas those examples I listed where the henchmen gets killed last were the most structurally formulaic in all the series.
Am I the only one to consider Orlov as the main villain in OP ? I noticed Kamal Khan is often mentioned while Orlov isn't (probably because he's killed before Kahn and by his "own side") which is sad because I like this character. I think he's even much more complex and interesting than Kahn.
It's the same for Koskov in TLD (which is my favourite Bond film with FRWL and OHMSS). A lot of people seem to forget he's the real mastermind of this consipracy and quote Whitaker as the main villain, while he's some kind of associate (fully involved of course, but not a "direct" adversary).
Kamal is the main villain of OP. He and Bond have a relationship (they know each other, and spar both verbally and at a game which- of course- Bond wins), they both are after the same woman (guess who she picks), and the story ends when Kamal is killed, not Orlov.
I just don't agree. The big plot is Orlov's idea and the way he's introduced shows him as the real threat, the mastermind. Kamal is a smuggler and the partnership with Orlov doesn't make him more important than the Soviet general in my mind.
When there's a couple of villains, having Bond killing one of them does not necessarily means the other is not the most important in the plot (Koskov is the main villain of TLD, and if you still don't agree with that then it simply proves we don't see things the same way).
The world is saved after Bond disarms the bomb. The big part of the finale takes place in Germany. By the way, this last part in India is not clear. Is Bond ordered by M to kill Kamal for his involvement or is it more about having Octopussy taking her revenge after Kamal's betrayal ? Does Bond know she's the one who plans to kill Kamal ? Is he ok with that ?
These examples are all more complex, less formulaic plots. The villains are not simply big baddy with henchman and minions, but individuals with their own agendas who are collaborating for some shared purpose. @Barbel points out Bond's personal relationship with Kamal Khan makes Khan the main villain of the story, regardless of which villain holds higher rank in his own respective field. Structurally, the story begins with Bond spotting Khan at the auction and is resolved when the villain he has been pursuing since the beginning is defeated. It just happens Khan is entangled with a web of coconspirators who we are introduced to along the way. Barbel argues the true villain of a plot is the one the hero has the closest relationship to.
For this reason I think Vesper is arguably the real villain in Casino Royale, especially if we look at Fleming's novel. le Chiffre is written out awful early, and not even killed by the good guy with the License to Kill, his death is more frustrating than satisfying. But there's something deeper going on Bond has not noticed yet. Bond has to recognise Vesper's treachery and respond to it before this story is resolved. Thus the real story is about Bond's deception by Vesper, rather than winning that card game. I think that's more apparant in the book, since there isn't all the action padding in the first half, and we get more of Bond's internal monolog as he recovers from his torture. But the film improves on what Fleming wrote, in that there's evidence throughout that Vesper is actively undermining Bond from the moment they meet (she has the opportunity, as her role is to provide the money), whereas in the book she is just assigned to the mission as arm-candy and I don't think she actually betrays Bond but simply has a guilty secret.
These films where we are able to argue which is the real villain are the more inventive plot structures, starting from when Glenn began directing and Wilson writing. But the first six or so are also more complex, perhaps because all but one stick close to Fleming's plot structures. Note that if we're talking rank, Blofeld is the real villain in From Russia with Love and Thunderball. Its the stretch of films from Diamonds are Forever through to Moonraker that really stick close to the narrow predictable formula.
So according to you, Koskov and Kamal play the same role in the respective plots of TLD and OP ?
I always considered Kamal as a minor villain compared to Orlov. Furthermore, I'd like to have your opinion about the questions I asked because I never understood the last part in India. Why does Octopussy threatens Kamal with a gun while Bond is supposed to be the only authorized person to kill him ?
I didn't say they played the same role in the plots; I say that they are the major villain of their respective movies which isn't the same thing.
For example, Scaramanga doesn't play the same role in the plot of his film as Goldfinger does in his, but they are both the major villains of their stories.
As to your other questions, those aren't the points I was addressing.
Don't forget we are specifically talking about the movies featuring a couple of villains, like OP, TLD and TWINE for instance (of course, all the movies dealing with SPECTRE don't belong to this category).
Concerning OP, I just consider Orlov is the main one and I was only asking if some people here thought the same about the character and his role in the plot. I understand your answer, I just don't agree with it considering the main villain is not necessarily the one who faces (and gets killed by) Bond at the end. But don't worry, I'm aware it's a personal approach (it's all a matter of perspective to quote Bond in Sp).
Now about the the ending of Op, I can create a topic but given I already asked some questions in this thread, I think you (or somebody else who reads it) can answer here. Do you have any idea why Octopussy is the one who tries to kill Kamal while Bond has probably been assigned by M to do the job? Does Bond know what Octopussy plans to do? Octopussy was there when he disarmed the bomb so why didn't he ask her to stay in Germany for her safety? She actually takes a tremendous risk facing Kamal who's stronger than her. I don't think her presence helps Bond (she's kidnapped by Kamal and then it becomes more difficult for Bond who has to save her first). Do you see what I mean?
Yes, I do see what you mean. However, we're at the end of the movie here. After Bond disarms the bomb there's, what, 10 minutes till the end? This isn't the time to drop in exposition, the film should be charging towards the finish line. Yes, a quick line or two wouldn't have hurt but the writers and/or director decided not to go that way.
Octopussy is a criminal, it doesnt matter if some official authority figure assigns someone else to kill Khan. By definition a criminal does what she likes, and does not defer to official authority. She would be motivated by Khan's massive betrayal of their partnership: he was conspiring to blow up her circus tent with all her young ladies and herself inside. I'd be pissed too.
The Octopussy girls do most of the work of defeating Khan's men, Bond and Q show up at the last minute after all the real work's done. Magda is especially effective in this sequence, kicking the crap out of bigger men: circus performers are in very good shape.
And Bond has opted to team up with criminals before to defeat a bigger baddie. His father-in-law Draco for example! I think deputizing others to help save the world must be part of his job description.
Oddjob is the main villain in Goldfinger, not the titular hero - it's misdirection. Why else would OJ agree to stay behind to watch the countdown to the bomb in Fort Knox? So he can himself defuse it with the key and claim the credit, perhaps bagging legal residency in the US and his own chat show in due course. Bond's intervention wrecks all this of course, because he is the one who claims the credit. The bomb was never due to go off. Just a theory, of course.
I see what you mean but don't forget Bond and Q coming to the palace precisely at that moment is supposed to prove they knew what Octopussy was planning to do, and the fact the circus girls are getting involved goes that way.
But in that case, wasn't Bond able to anticipate the risk Octopussy was taking facing Kamal alone with Gobinda around ? Wouldn't it have been much more clever and careful to communicate before the attack to make sure every useless risk wouldn't be taken by anyone ? I guess Octopussy being kidnapped by Kamal wasn't really what Bond expected...
Comments
Sorry, I disagree. The winking fish and that song are a terrible end to Cubby's Bond films.
Always loved the endings to TSWLM and MR - both with well timed puns.
Have a soft spot for the heartfelt ending to TLD plus it's great to see John Barry conducting the orchestra.
Skyfall's ending is a spine tingling moment which I love. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Excellent work on the list (but here it should be a 'Bathosub' and a cruise liner rather than a yacht).
Cheers
With the vintage movies, my favourite endings are the ones which give a 'surprise' piece of bonus action, just at a point when lazier members of the original audience might have supposed that the movie was finished and got up to leave the cinema. FRWL played this 'trick' first... GF, OHMSS, DAF, LLD and TMWTGG all followed suit.
Agreed. The winking fish is tacky and incongruous in tone.
Thanks, I've now edited the DAF ending.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
A pleasure.
Now updated to included NTTD (which I saw in the cinema last night).
Sorry for the delay, NTTD was only released here in Australia on Thursday 11th Nov.
Independent, one-shot comic books from the outskirts of Melbourne, Australia.
twitter.com/DrawnOutDad
I've never understood the issue some have with the winking fish at the end of LTK. Is it belivable? Absolutely! Why wouldn't a drug lord have a fish statue by the pool with a winking mecanism? The winking can be switches on for parties. The winking suggests fun, secrets, romance. All very apropriate. The rest of the scene is really good (not counting the horrible phone call with Felix). Lupe comes on to Bond who suggests the fitting partner of El Presidente. Lupe's main goal was after all financial stability, a way out of poverty. Pam spots the pair and leaves in years. A second woman pining for Bond. 007 hands the drinks to Q and jumps in the pool, then drags Pam in with him. As pointed out above, water symbolizes sex. All very Bondian. "If I knew a man" is one of the better end of movie songs.
@Number24 I think you are getting your TLD confused with your LTK. Been in The Silencer & Black Garter again ?
I don't know what you're talking about and I absolutely haven't changed my above post after you made med aware of any mistakes. 😉
🤔 haha, sneaky...
😁😁😁
Nice handy table. Reminds me of one Kingsley Amis included in the James Bond Dossier.
...but I gotta point out, Renard is not the villain of tWiNE, Elektra is. Renard belongs in that category of henchmen like Wint & Kidd, Teehee, NickNack, and Jaws who Bond has to fight after killing the main villain.
also, if le Chiffre is the villain of Casino Royale, he is shot some twenty minutes before the end, so that's not the ending of the film. I think these more recent films vary from the formula so much that they confound the intent of such a table. Whereas those examples I listed where the henchmen gets killed last were the most structurally formulaic in all the series.
Am I the only one to consider Orlov as the main villain in OP ? I noticed Kamal Khan is often mentioned while Orlov isn't (probably because he's killed before Kahn and by his "own side") which is sad because I like this character. I think he's even much more complex and interesting than Kahn.
It's the same for Koskov in TLD (which is my favourite Bond film with FRWL and OHMSS). A lot of people seem to forget he's the real mastermind of this consipracy and quote Whitaker as the main villain, while he's some kind of associate (fully involved of course, but not a "direct" adversary).
Kamal is the main villain of OP. He and Bond have a relationship (they know each other, and spar both verbally and at a game which- of course- Bond wins), they both are after the same woman (guess who she picks), and the story ends when Kamal is killed, not Orlov.
I just don't agree. The big plot is Orlov's idea and the way he's introduced shows him as the real threat, the mastermind. Kamal is a smuggler and the partnership with Orlov doesn't make him more important than the Soviet general in my mind.
When there's a couple of villains, having Bond killing one of them does not necessarily means the other is not the most important in the plot (Koskov is the main villain of TLD, and if you still don't agree with that then it simply proves we don't see things the same way).
The world is saved after Bond disarms the bomb. The big part of the finale takes place in Germany. By the way, this last part in India is not clear. Is Bond ordered by M to kill Kamal for his involvement or is it more about having Octopussy taking her revenge after Kamal's betrayal ? Does Bond know she's the one who plans to kill Kamal ? Is he ok with that ?
Koskov is certainly the main villain of TLD, for similar reasons to Kamal being that in OP. I didn't say otherwise!
These examples are all more complex, less formulaic plots. The villains are not simply big baddy with henchman and minions, but individuals with their own agendas who are collaborating for some shared purpose. @Barbel points out Bond's personal relationship with Kamal Khan makes Khan the main villain of the story, regardless of which villain holds higher rank in his own respective field. Structurally, the story begins with Bond spotting Khan at the auction and is resolved when the villain he has been pursuing since the beginning is defeated. It just happens Khan is entangled with a web of coconspirators who we are introduced to along the way. Barbel argues the true villain of a plot is the one the hero has the closest relationship to.
For this reason I think Vesper is arguably the real villain in Casino Royale, especially if we look at Fleming's novel. le Chiffre is written out awful early, and not even killed by the good guy with the License to Kill, his death is more frustrating than satisfying. But there's something deeper going on Bond has not noticed yet. Bond has to recognise Vesper's treachery and respond to it before this story is resolved. Thus the real story is about Bond's deception by Vesper, rather than winning that card game. I think that's more apparant in the book, since there isn't all the action padding in the first half, and we get more of Bond's internal monolog as he recovers from his torture. But the film improves on what Fleming wrote, in that there's evidence throughout that Vesper is actively undermining Bond from the moment they meet (she has the opportunity, as her role is to provide the money), whereas in the book she is just assigned to the mission as arm-candy and I don't think she actually betrays Bond but simply has a guilty secret.
These films where we are able to argue which is the real villain are the more inventive plot structures, starting from when Glenn began directing and Wilson writing. But the first six or so are also more complex, perhaps because all but one stick close to Fleming's plot structures. Note that if we're talking rank, Blofeld is the real villain in From Russia with Love and Thunderball. Its the stretch of films from Diamonds are Forever through to Moonraker that really stick close to the narrow predictable formula.
So according to you, Koskov and Kamal play the same role in the respective plots of TLD and OP ?
I always considered Kamal as a minor villain compared to Orlov. Furthermore, I'd like to have your opinion about the questions I asked because I never understood the last part in India. Why does Octopussy threatens Kamal with a gun while Bond is supposed to be the only authorized person to kill him ?
I didn't say they played the same role in the plots; I say that they are the major villain of their respective movies which isn't the same thing.
For example, Scaramanga doesn't play the same role in the plot of his film as Goldfinger does in his, but they are both the major villains of their stories.
As to your other questions, those aren't the points I was addressing.
Don't forget we are specifically talking about the movies featuring a couple of villains, like OP, TLD and TWINE for instance (of course, all the movies dealing with SPECTRE don't belong to this category).
Concerning OP, I just consider Orlov is the main one and I was only asking if some people here thought the same about the character and his role in the plot. I understand your answer, I just don't agree with it considering the main villain is not necessarily the one who faces (and gets killed by) Bond at the end. But don't worry, I'm aware it's a personal approach (it's all a matter of perspective to quote Bond in Sp).
Now about the the ending of Op, I can create a topic but given I already asked some questions in this thread, I think you (or somebody else who reads it) can answer here. Do you have any idea why Octopussy is the one who tries to kill Kamal while Bond has probably been assigned by M to do the job? Does Bond know what Octopussy plans to do? Octopussy was there when he disarmed the bomb so why didn't he ask her to stay in Germany for her safety? She actually takes a tremendous risk facing Kamal who's stronger than her. I don't think her presence helps Bond (she's kidnapped by Kamal and then it becomes more difficult for Bond who has to save her first). Do you see what I mean?
Yes, I do see what you mean. However, we're at the end of the movie here. After Bond disarms the bomb there's, what, 10 minutes till the end? This isn't the time to drop in exposition, the film should be charging towards the finish line. Yes, a quick line or two wouldn't have hurt but the writers and/or director decided not to go that way.
I forget specifically how it plays out, but...
Octopussy is a criminal, it doesnt matter if some official authority figure assigns someone else to kill Khan. By definition a criminal does what she likes, and does not defer to official authority. She would be motivated by Khan's massive betrayal of their partnership: he was conspiring to blow up her circus tent with all her young ladies and herself inside. I'd be pissed too.
The Octopussy girls do most of the work of defeating Khan's men, Bond and Q show up at the last minute after all the real work's done. Magda is especially effective in this sequence, kicking the crap out of bigger men: circus performers are in very good shape.
And Bond has opted to team up with criminals before to defeat a bigger baddie. His father-in-law Draco for example! I think deputizing others to help save the world must be part of his job description.
Oddjob is the main villain in Goldfinger, not the titular hero - it's misdirection. Why else would OJ agree to stay behind to watch the countdown to the bomb in Fort Knox? So he can himself defuse it with the key and claim the credit, perhaps bagging legal residency in the US and his own chat show in due course. Bond's intervention wrecks all this of course, because he is the one who claims the credit. The bomb was never due to go off. Just a theory, of course.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I see what you mean but don't forget Bond and Q coming to the palace precisely at that moment is supposed to prove they knew what Octopussy was planning to do, and the fact the circus girls are getting involved goes that way.
But in that case, wasn't Bond able to anticipate the risk Octopussy was taking facing Kamal alone with Gobinda around ? Wouldn't it have been much more clever and careful to communicate before the attack to make sure every useless risk wouldn't be taken by anyone ? I guess Octopussy being kidnapped by Kamal wasn't really what Bond expected...
Do you get my point ?