Do Bond films have a problem with third Acts?

Having revisited a number of Bond films recently, a thought I'd once had about the Bond films reoccured. That being the trouble Eon seemingly has with Act III. For example, it's well documented that the writers of Skyfall had issues with coming up with the final Act, and there are several fan reviews of a number of Bond films that reflect similar perspectives of even the most lauded Bond films. Here's a summary below:

FRWL: tacked on set pieces. The ripped off Hitchcockian helicopter sequence or the boat chase, or both, are superfluous.

TB: the underwater battle drags and the Disco Volante fight is technically dodgy.

DAF: the oil rig set piece is unremarkable or worse, forgettable.

MR: Bond shouldn't be in space.

OP: Too many endings. Octopussy's assault on Khan's palace, plus the plane sequence is too much after the circus bomb sequence, which is the true climax of the film.

TLD: The whole Afghan sequence is too convoluted, rushed and/or boring compared to the rest of the film.

TND: It's too action heavy.

TWINE: Not exciting enough.

DAD: Too CGI/sci fi heavy.

CR: Too bloated/sensationalised.

QOS: The fuel tanks are too convenient.

SP: Home alone.

SP: Scooby gang, Bond shooting down a helicopter with a pistol, CGI MI6 demolition, Madeline in London... need I say more.

NTTD: Need I say anything?



I don't agree with all of the list above. Naturally, there's much to be said about the setup of the individual stories and the Act III pay off usually depends on what came before. But it's curious that as a seemingly prevalent issue within the series, after 60 years, it's not something that's been addressed. A writer I know once said, 'you should always begin with the end in mind'. If you know how it ends you have something to work towards. I just rewatched Skyfall and it occurred to me that the whole childhood home backstory bears no real weight on Bond throughout the film, aside from that psychologist scene. So was it the wisest choice to end the film there?

On the flip side, what are your top 5 finales of a Bond film?

Very much agree that the end stretch is often the weakest part of Bond films. It goes for many other films as well, it is not exclusive to Bond. One reason may be the notion that one has to come up with a particular sort of formulaic climax, and that inhibits creativity and narrows down the options.

Best finales for me- DN, GF, OHMSS, QOS, SF.

Phantom Commander wrote:

Very much agree that the end stretch is often the weakest part of Bond films. It goes for many other films as well, it is not exclusive to Bond. One reason may be the notion that one has to come up with a particular sort of formulaic climax, and that inhibits creativity and narrows down the options.

That’s true, in terms of wider cinema. In the case of Bond, specifically the Craig era, this was the most experimental the series has ever been. So in theory they’d dispense with the formula for the climax to try different things. One of the biggest letdowns in CR06 is not aligning the film version of Vesper’s death with its literary counterpart for a more intimate, low key ending. In a similar way, the original ending for TWINE showed Bond visiting Elektra in hospital which is an interesting thought.

Phantom Commander wrote:

Best finales for me- DN, GF, OHMSS, QOS, SF.

Hard to narrow it down or order them but I’d say in terms of lair battles, YOLT, OHMSS, TSWLM, AVTAK, GE and TND are a lot of fun and feel the most complete. For those that go against the grain, FRWL and OP are up there.

Thought-provoking thread here. Now that I think about it, there are indeed a whole raft of Bond films where the third act falls way short of the rest of the picture (some examples have been well-documented above). Some of my favourites - FRWL, TLD, TB- are among them.

On the flipside, you have films like TMWTGG which are fairly middling overall but have a third act that actually makes it worth watching.

Once saw it said that OP has more climaxes than a porno. Hehehe.

What exactly is the third act? How can we tell when it begins?

CJB wrote:

Thought-provoking thread here. Now that I think about it, there are indeed a whole raft of Bond films where the third act falls way short of the rest of the picture (some examples have been well-documented above). Some of my favourites - FRWL, TLD, TB- are among them.

On the flipside, you have films like TMWTGG which are fairly middling overall but have a third act that actually makes it worth watching.

Striking observation about TMWTGG! MR may even in the same boat. It meanders somewhat until Bond gets to space but it does come together and Bond shooting down the globes is quite intense.

PK wrote:

What exactly is the third act? How can we tell when it begins?

Usually in a thriller, the third act is when the protagonist is at their lowest/most vulnerable/isolated/alone but the stakes in the story are highest. While the former is not always true in a 007 film, the latter are usually is, in that Bond has one last chance of stopping the villain. In simpler terms, the last 20-30 minutes when Bond is infiltrates the villain’s lair to disrupt their main goal (GF, OHMSS, GE) or more uncharacteristic, the villain tries to sabotage Bond (FRWL - helicopter/boat chases, Klebb’s attempt or SF, when Bond and M arrive in Scotland and Raoul tracks them down).

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Once saw it said that OP has more climaxes than a porno. Hehehe.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

CJB wrote:

Thought-provoking thread here. Now that I think about it, there are indeed a whole raft of Bond films where the third act falls way short of the rest of the picture (some examples have been well-documented above). Some of my favourites - FRWL, TLD, TB- are among them.

On the flipside, you have films like TMWTGG which are fairly middling overall but have a third act that actually makes it worth watching.

Striking observation about TMWTGG! MR may even in the same boat. It meanders somewhat until Bond gets to space but it does come together and Bond shooting down the globes is quite intense.

PK wrote:

What exactly is the third act? How can we tell when it begins?

Usually in a thriller, the third act is when the protagonist is at their lowest/most vulnerable/isolated/alone but the stakes in the story are highest. While the former is not always true in a 007 film, the latter are usually is, in that Bond has one last chance of stopping the villain. In simpler terms, the last 20-30 minutes when Bond is infiltrates the villain’s lair to disrupt their main goal (GF, OHMSS, GE) or more uncharacteristic, the villain tries to sabotage Bond (FRWL - helicopter/boat chases, Klebb’s attempt or SF, when Bond and M arrive in Scotland and Raoul tracks them down).

Makes sense.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Once saw it said that OP has more climaxes than a porno. Hehehe.

Knew there was a reason I always felt like a cigarette after watching OP.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Striking observation about TMWTGG! MR may even in the same boat. It meanders somewhat until Bond gets to space but it does come together and Bond shooting down the globes is quite intense.

There are some excellent bits in the first and second act of MR, but they're few and far between and I get what you mean.

Golden Gun is on telly here this week and (appropriately for this thread) my TV listings mag of choice reckons that the climax effectively being a retread of the pre-credits sequence is actually one of its flaws.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Golden Gun is on telly here this week and (appropriately for this thread) my TV listings mag of choice reckons that the climax effectively being a retread of the pre-credits sequence is actually one of its flaws.  

Hm. Not quite sure I agree with that. Blowing the fingers off a manequin is one thing. Facing off against the real McCoy is something else entirely. At any rate, the circularity never bothered me.