THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH script review

The World Is Not Enough, despite numerous changes in differing drafts, stays fairly faithful to the first draft turned in by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade on June 18, 1998.

In the film, Bond goes to Bilbao, Spain to retreive King`s money. In the first draft, it was Havana. Most everything else in this scene stays faithful to the original script, except the name of the middle man is Karoush and he`s not a Swiss banker. Cigar Girl escapes in the same fashion, by knifing Karoush in the neck. Bond is not shot at nor saved by Renard as he is in the movie.

In Dana Stevens "polish" treatment, Cigar Girl hides out in an apartment across the street and tells Renard that the British Secret Service Agent was named James Bond, to which Renard replies: "One of MI6`s more accomplished tin men." This scene was filmed, but eventually edited out of the finished product.

Bond eventually gets back to London with King`s money, and he presents Moneypenny with a cigar holder, only in the film, the dialogue is a bit more witty, if distasteful. The money is wired to explode in both the film and first two drafts of the film, only in the original script, Bond chases Cigar Girl down the Thames in a jet pack, not a Q Boat. The Q Boat doesn`t show up until Dana Steven`s treatment. There is no Millenium Dome or hot air balloon in the first draft. Bond lands the jet pack on a boat directly opposite Cigar Girl and shoots her to death.

The focus then shifts to the Scottish countryside where MI6 has now taken up residence in the wake of the explosion at their London headquarters. Purvis and Wade put in a scene with the Aston Martin DB5 pulling up to the castle, but it`s dropped by the second draft and is never filmed.

Bond immediately goes to see Dr. Greatrex, later to be dubbed Molly Warmflash by the time Bruce Fierstein does the third and final draft. In the original script, Bond goes to the castle and then goes straight to the doctor for his physical, whom he manages to seduce. In the film, he`s left off the Elektra case because of health concerns, so he then sees the doctor in an effort to get him passed and cleared for duty. The dialogue is more or less the same.

In the film, Tanner and Charles Robinson (Chief of Staff) discuss the methods used to kill Robert King. In the first draft, that job was left up to Q. In fact, there was no "R" in the first draft, nor was there an exit scene for "Q".

In the debreifing scene in the first draft, we learn that Cigar Girl`s real name is Sashenka Firo, a fact never disclosed in the film. `Renard, the Fox` gets a name change from Claude Serrault in the first draft to Victor Zokas by the time the film opens.

The scene where Renard`s physical health is being discussed, i.e his inability to feel pain due to the bullet in his brain, in the first draft was left up to Tanner and M. In subsequent drafts and in the film, Dr. Molly Warmflash gives the medical breakdown on Renard.

In the first draft, "M" assigns Bond to infiltrate the King organization as a PR consultant. In the film, "M" sends Bond in as a known agent of Her Majesty`s Secret Service. Bond goes undercover in the original draft as David Somerset. Apparently Elektra had not noticed Bond at her father`s funeral.

In the first draft Elektra takes Bond by jeep through the oil fields along the Caspian Sea, rather than him driving in on his own with the BMW. In this scene she refers to Devil`s Breath, natural gas that`s been burning since before mankind. Bruce Fierstein later wrote in our first meeting with Renard by having him hold a meeting at Devil`s Breath, a meeting that was not scripted in the first draft.

The jeep takes Bond and Elektra up to the mountains for them to ski along the pipeline in the first draft, rather than a helicopter. The Parahawks give chase in the first draft pretty much as they do in the film, with the key difference being that when Elektra and Bond collapse into the avalanche, Bond does not have an inflatable ski jacket.

In the first draft, Elektra addresses a gathering of oil tycoons later that evening at Valentine Zukovsky`s casino. In the film, she simply shows up to gamble, running into Bond who has asked Zukovsky for some help.

In the first draft, Renard has a hawk that plucks out the eyeballs of his enemies. In the script, "Blue Eyes" refers to someone who had failed to kill Bond on the ski run. Renard whispers into the hawk`s ear and it lunges for "Blue Eyes", plucking out the eyeball. The talons of the Hawk draw blood on Renard`s hand, but he`s unable to feel it. This sequence, and the entire concept, were abandoned by the second draft. Look for it to show up in a future Bond film.

At the casino, in both film and script, Elektra plays her hand against Zukovsky`s bank. But in the original draft, she ups the ante, so to speak, and plays several rounds. In the film, she lays down a million dollars all at once and loses everything.

The film follows the script in that Bond and Elektra leave the casino for a night of passion together. Where the film has Bond and Elektra going back to her mansion in Baku, the Purvis/Wade draft has Bond and Elektra going to her yacht.

In the Purvis/Wade draft, Bond tells Elektra in bed that the amount of money Sir King paid for the stolen reports was the same amount as the ransom for Elektra when she was kidnapped. She then pulls out some papers of her father that show King Industries was involved in supplying equipment to move nuclear warheads for the Chechnyans. This is a major plot point in the movie that was not adequately clarified.

In the Purvis/Wade draft, Christmas Jones is a French Polynesian nuclear scientist. She`s also not quite as antagonistic towards Bond as she is in the movie. Bond goes into the decommissioning site as himself, not as a Russian scientist like in the film.

Later, when Bond enters the underground chamber, it is Renard that finds Bond and grabs him, not the other way around, as in the film. "Blue Eyes" helps Renard grab Bond, and "Blue Eyes" now has an eye patch. Renard headbutts Bond, breaking the skin and revealing the metal plate in his forehead. This scene was not filmed for the movie and much of the dialogue was subsequently changed.

A firefight breaks out in the Purvis/Wade draft in the underground test facility, but in this draft, as opposed to the film, Christmas and Colonel Akakievich are above ground. Bond manages to get into an elevator cage just seconds before a bomb goes off, but the ensuing blast forces the elevator up through the shaft like a rocket. In the film, the Colonel is killed underground and Bond and Christmas escape the madness by taking an elevator ride out of the facility.

In the Purvis/Wade draft, Christmas, the Colonel and Bond survey the damage to the underground facility by using a robot like spider capable of surveing damaged areas humans couldn`t get into. They realize from using the spider that Renard stole a warhead. None of this sequence made it into the film.

The theft of the warhead was also intended to humiliate British intelligence, as they helped broker the deal to have the warheads moved to France. Hence the connection to Christmas Jones being French Polynesian. In any case, this whole line of plotting was dropped in subsequent drafts.

Bond leaves a briefing with M. Christmas demands to know where he`s heading, but Bond refuses to tell her. She`s concerned the loss of the warhead will cause her program to destroy the nuclear arsenals of the world to be shut down and instead, taken over by the military, who will insist on keeping the nukes alive. She wants to team up with Bond, but he wants to work alone. He takes off in his car, and she calls a friend who uses a spy satellite to track Bond`s movements. Christmas follows Bond. Bond has gone to Zukovsky`s caviar factory. In the film, Bond and Christmas have teamed up and gone to the factory. But in the Purvis/Wade draft, Bond goes alone.

Bond sees a shadow and punches his hand through some dead wood in the wall, yanking the intruder through the wall and into the room, then delivering a blow to the chin before realizing it`s Christmas. Wisely, this scene was dropped in Dana Stephens draft and was reworked in the film. The helicopters then bear down on the caviar factory as they did in the film. The key difference in this set of events is that in the film, Bond and Christmas already know that Elektra is working against them and have already defused the bomb in the pipeline. After leaving the caviar factory and getting information from Zukovsky, Bond and Christmas head back to the terminus, which by this point, have been hit by Renard`s men. The bomb is in the pipeline.

This sequence is different from the film because in the film, the caviar factory sequence comes after the defusal of the bomb in the pipeline. Also, in the film, M and Charles fly out to Kazakstahn to help Elektra, upon which Elektra kidnaps M. The kidnapping of M, nor her flying out to Asia happens in the first draft. Only in subsequent drafts is this role expanded.

Bond, Christmas and Zukovsky all end up in Istanbul trying to find the sub, Valentine`s nephew, Elektra and Renard. In this draft, Valentine`s nephew is named Yevgeny. He insists to Bond that if anything has happened to Yevgeny that he must be allowed to kill Elektra, not Bond.

A bomb goes off in both the Purvis/Wade draft and in the film. However, where the chase ends as it begins in the film, in the script, Bond gives chase through a Turkish steam bath. The Dana Stevens draft had Bond and a thug fighting it out on top of an electric cable car running through downtown Istanbul. Both sequences were cut from all drafts and the film takes us from the dye factory to the Maiden`s Tower in one transition.

Christmas gets taken to Renard, while Bond is strapped into the Garotte.

ELEKTRA (to Bond): "Cure me. Tell me why I should relent. Talk me out of it. Tell me the calvary`s on its way. All I see is one spy and a foolish girl, floundering in a city they don`t understand. You don`t know what i`m up to...and neither does M."

BOND: "One thing M knows is what your father told her about you."

ELEKTRA:"And what did my father tell M?"

BOND: "That his little girl was insane."

Zukovsky limps in, is shot by Elektra, and then he frees Bond by blowing off the clamps on his wrists. Bond chases Elektra upstairs and kills her. She doesn`t tell Renard to "Dive" like the film shows her.

The submarine sequence comes off in the film almost identically to the first draft. In the end, Bond and Christmas have a tryst in a fishing boat. It was changed to a Turkish rooftop by the time filming began.

Quote :

ELEKTRA (to Bond): "Cure me. Tell me why I should relent. Talk me out of it. Tell me the calvary`s on its way. All I see is one spy and a foolish girl, floundering in a city they don`t understand. You don`t know what i`m up to...and neither does M."

M_Balje, is that you?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Christmas gets taken to Renard, while Bond is strapped into the Garotte.

ELEKTRA (to Bond): "Cure me. Tell me why I should relent. Talk me out of it. Tell me the calvary`s on its way. All I see is one spy and a foolish girl, floundering in a city they don`t understand. You don`t know what i`m up to...and neither does M."

BOND: "One thing M knows is what your father told her about you."

ELEKTRA:"And what did my father tell M?"

BOND: "That his little girl was insane."

Zukovsky limps in, is shot by Elektra, and then he frees Bond by blowing off the clamps on his wrists. Bond chases Elektra upstairs and kills her. She doesn`t tell Renard to "Dive" like the film shows her.

Why on Earth didn't they just stick with that (well, all of it except the bolded part)...? And I assume the "bring it to me" nonsense with Zukovsky doesn't exist here either. TWINE would actually come across as far less retarded had that whole torture chair scene not been such a horrendously bad embarrassment. Sure, the film would still be sh*te, but just less sh*te. Every little helps.

Lazenby. wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Christmas gets taken to Renard, while Bond is strapped into the Garotte.

ELEKTRA (to Bond): "Cure me. Tell me why I should relent. Talk me out of it. Tell me the calvary`s on its way. All I see is one spy and a foolish girl, floundering in a city they don`t understand. You don`t know what i`m up to...and neither does M."

BOND: "One thing M knows is what your father told her about you."

ELEKTRA:"And what did my father tell M?"

BOND: "That his little girl was insane."

Zukovsky limps in, is shot by Elektra, and then he frees Bond by blowing off the clamps on his wrists. Bond chases Elektra upstairs and kills her. She doesn`t tell Renard to "Dive" like the film shows her.

Why on Earth didn't they just stick with that (well, all of it except the bolded part)...? And I assume the "bring it to me" nonsense with Zukovsky doesn't exist here either. TWINE would actually come across as far less retarded had that whole torture chair scene not been such a horrendously bad embarrassment. Sure, the film would still be sh*te, but just less sh*te. Every little helps.

This. I also like that the emphasis on Bond falling in love is very toned down at least from what I'm reading here. Bond knows Elektra is insane and shows has no emotional baggage. She's a psychotic that needs to be taken down as far as he's concerned. This is how I think Bond would properly approach things instead of being pussy whipped like he is in the film all hot and bothered over a one night stand.

I think there is a good idea in Bond falling hard for a woman who turns out to be the villain but it was not explored enough and as a result Bond comes off like a chump. Like haphazardstuff pointed out we never see the moment Bond lets his guard down and makes the big mistake of giving into the temptations. Instead he just tells Elektra "this is a game I can't afford to play" keeping his composure in the Casino only for the next scene with him and Elektra already in bed. Out of nowhere.

Quote :

ELEKTRA (to Bond): "Cure me. Tell me why I should relent. Talk me out of it. Tell me the calvary`s on its way. All I see is one spy and a foolish girl, floundering in a city they don`t understand. You don`t know what i`m up to...and neither does M."

BOND: "One thing M knows is what your father told her about you."

ELEKTRA:"And what did my father tell M?"

BOND: "That his little girl was insane."

+1 to P&W. Knowing you were not responsible for 'EEet is my oil! My!" renews my faith in humanity.

Cheers for the great post's G.S. 007Forever was a great site and I'm glad to see more of it resurface here :)

I've always given P&W this - they know how to come up with an intriguing Bond plot. Their main problem comes with dialogue and their reliance on action to tell stories.

I agree with what most of you guys have already said. The love story aspect of the movie was just stupid, and I like that it was toned down in early drafts. From reading this, the movie might have turned out better had more of the earlier concepts made it into the final product.

From the looks of things, for everything the film got right, it got something wrong. Like the subplot about the Chechens; the documents were never explained in the film, and nor was it explained why King thought that a report bu the Russian Atomic Energy Agency would contain details about Elektra's whereabouts. Especially since Elektra makes it clear that she thinks her father stole oil from Azerbaijan, suggesting that King would have some knowledge of the Russian language, given his age (as Azerbaijan was in the USSR at the time). But it would make way more sense if he was passing nuclear technology onto the Chechens in exchange for access to the mountains.

At the same time, the original script says Bond was stood down for "health concerns", which sounds suspiciously like "the story calls for this, but we can't think of how to explain it". So kudos to whoever saw that and wrote the chase scene in such a way that it ends with Bond getting injured. Likewise the casino scene - trimming it down to Elektra betting everything and losing it on one card makes way more sense since she was paying Zukovsky off.

But I think what I like most about the original drafts is the way Bond does not realise Elektra is guilty until much later than he does in the film.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

At the same time, the original script says Bond was stood down for "health concerns", which sounds suspiciously like "the story calls for this, but we can't think of how to explain it". So kudos to whoever saw that and wrote the chase scene in such a way that it ends with Bond getting injured.

They could have easily given Bond the injury from the explosion given how close he was to it. Much more simple than the elaborate boat chase which ultimately served no purpose, especially since Bond's injury was barely acknowledged by the film save for the one scene where Renard presses it. Otherwise Bond is able to keep doing what he normally would do without an injury, it's never an obstacle for him.

Well, yes, they could have - but the original script never called for Bond to be injured at all. Even if there was a better way of writing Bond's injury into the script, the way the film ultimately did it was better than not showing the injury at all. It's always better to show the audience something happening rather than simply telling them after the fact.

And although there was only one scene where Bond's injury came up, were there really any other scenes where his injury might have impeded him? If anything, Renard was exploiting the residual tenderness in Bond's shoulder and Brosnan was over-acting. The only scene I can think of would be when Bond and Christmas bailed in the pipeline.

Looking at the idea, one would expect the dynamic being Bond has an injury that can put him in agony while Renard feels no pain. Bond would eventually have to overcome it like Renard in order to prevent nuclear disaster. I wonder if that was intended but somehow got lost along the way because there's no point in Bond's injury as shown in the film. Take the version that got released, cut any scene referencing Bond's injury and it would literally have no effect on the plot. Bond can still suspect Elektra for being in league with Renard with just the "no point in living" line.

Yeah, but that line was circumstantial evidence at best. Elektra was kidnapped by Renard, so she could have easily overheard him say the line and decided she liked it. Even if she had Stockholm Syndrome, it does not prove her guilty - Bond believed she was in love with Renard, so she may have romanticised him and adopted his little motto for herself. But Bond hid his injury from MI6 so that he could be let back into the field. Elektra and Dr. Molly Warmflash were the only two people who knew about his shoulder, so when Renard incapacitated him, it had to have come from either Elektra or Molly. Because of the circumstantial evidence tying Elektra to Renard, it was the proof that they were in cahoots. Otherwise, Elektra could reasonably explain away her motto as coincidence; that she heard it when Renard said it during her captivity.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

And although there was only one scene where Bond's injury came up, were there really any other scenes where his injury might have impeded him?

Well, yeah. The love scenes. With Bond's shoulder injury I just don't see how he could have made love to Elektra in the traditional missionary position; it would have put too much weight on his upper torso. Would have been much more realistic if she was riding him in the cowgirl or reverse Cowgirl position, not to mention doggy style.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Looking at the idea, one would expect the dynamic being Bond has an injury that can put him in agony while Renard feels no pain. Bond would eventually have to overcome it like Renard in order to prevent nuclear disaster. I wonder if that was intended but somehow got lost along the way because there's no point in Bond's injury as shown in the film. Take the version that got released, cut any scene referencing Bond's injury and it would literally have no effect on the plot. Bond can still suspect Elektra for being in league with Renard with just the "no point in living" line.

That's a huge problem for me, too. The movie made a big point of showing Bond getting injured, and a good 15 minutes of the film revolved around him getting medical clearance and convincing M to allow him to operate.

But once he's out of Scotland, aside from the bit with Renard pinching him in the shoulder, the movie makes no further references to the injury. I mean, the guy was caught in an avalanche with a supposedly badly dislocated shoulder and was fine.

Bond being injured against a man that can feel no pain is a very interesting - probably more interesting than the entire Bond-Elektra on-screen relationship that was meant to be special but turned out cheesy.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Yeah, but that line was circumstantial evidence at best. Elektra was kidnapped by Renard, so she could have easily overheard him say the line and decided she liked it. Even if she had Stockholm Syndrome, it does not prove her guilty - Bond believed she was in love with Renard, so she may have romanticised him and adopted his little motto for herself. But Bond hid his injury from MI6 so that he could be let back into the field. Elektra and Dr. Molly Warmflash were the only two people who knew about his shoulder, so when Renard incapacitated him, it had to have come from either Elektra or Molly. Because of the circumstantial evidence tying Elektra to Renard, it was the proof that they were in cahoots. Otherwise, Elektra could reasonably explain away her motto as coincidence; that she heard it when Renard said it during her captivity.

But as Elektra pointed out, Bond wore a sling at a public funeral, so it's hard to believe only two people would have known about the injury. Even Elektra points this out.

But it's not just Renard's knowledge of Bond's injury that convinces Bond of Elektra's guilt. It's Renard's knowledge, plus the little motto, plus the way members of Elektra's staff were Renard's accomplices, plus his personal connection to Elektra that stir suspicion in Bond. Taken individually, they are all circumstantial, but when you pile them all up, there's just a few too many coincidences to ignore. Even Elektra's early behaviour foreshadows her guilt - she re-routes the pipeline at great expense despite her father approving the original route. When Bond describes the pipeline as her father's legacy, she corrects him and says that it is her family's legacy. And the money used to kill Robert King was the same amount asked as a ransom - although it's implied that Renard was toying with King and MI6, it's fairly obvious that this was Elektra's idea given that she orchestrated the bombing and clearly had some daddy issues.

Maybe the film didn't have time to explain all of these. Maybe it would have been a stronger film if it had shown Bond realising these things. But the point is that although most of the evidence presented is circumstantial, the important part is that what is presented is enough for Bond to re-examine Elektra's role in everything.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

But it's not just Renard's knowledge of Bond's injury that convinces Bond of Elektra's guilt. It's Renard's knowledge, plus the little motto, plus the way members of Elektra's staff were Renard's accomplices, plus his personal connection to Elektra that stir suspicion in Bond. Taken individually, they are all circumstantial, but when you pile them all up, there's just a few too many coincidences to ignore. Even Elektra's early behaviour foreshadows her guilt - she re-routes the pipeline at great expense despite her father approving the original route. When Bond describes the pipeline as her father's legacy, she corrects him and says that it is her family's legacy. And the money used to kill Robert King was the same amount asked as a ransom - although it's implied that Renard was toying with King and MI6, it's fairly obvious that this was Elektra's idea given that she orchestrated the bombing and clearly had some daddy issues.

Maybe the film didn't have time to explain all of these. Maybe it would have been a stronger film if it had shown Bond realising these things. But the point is that although most of the evidence presented is circumstantial, the important part is that what is presented is enough for Bond to re-examine Elektra's role in everything.

Interesting points. However, my main gripe with the film was always that 007 didn't seem to figure it out until Renard happened to use a phrase that Elektra had used, and it wasn't even a particularly noteworthy or specialized quote; it was a generic, philosophical platitude that just about anyone could have come up with. And yet it was presented to the viewer as if Bond suddenly connected the dots with one quote from Renard. ****THEN**** that mistake is compounded by the audience being let in on Bond's suspicion that Elektra is the mastermind behind this terrorist plot rather than let the audience be shocked and surprised when Elektra reveals herself to M and shoots her bodyguards. The scene between Dench and Marceau is brilliant and well-acted; the slap feels real and genuine. Too bad the entire scene is somewhat let down by the fact that the audience now knows Elektra is behind the whole thing. There had to be a better way to unveil this plot twist.

I'm bumping this thread because I just caught part of TWINE on television, and a major problem with the script leapt out at me - about a third of it is missing. Worse, it's the first third.

Of all the Bond films, TWINE has the most complicated backstory. By the time we join the film, a lot of important things have happened, but we don't see any of it. Elektra has been kidnapped, MI6 launched a failed rescue attempt, she has escaped, her father has attempted to purchase reports from the Russian Atomic Energy Commission, and 009 has tried and failed to kill Renard. All of this is probably something that should have been shown, at least in the pre-titles, with Bond rescuing Elektra and shooting Renard before going to Spain months later to follow up on a loose end.

The problem in all of this is that the film makes the mistake of thinking secrecy and confusion equal mystery. A big part of writing mysteries is knowing what to reveal to the audience and when, but TWINE refuses to give the audience anything to work with. I've always felt that the best mysteries are the ones with enough evidence scattered throughout that the audience can solve it a page (or in this case, a scene) before the characters. Any sooner and the mystery is too obvious; any later and the mystery is too obscure. As it is, TWINE is fifteen years old, and there are still elements - like the Russian reports - that defy explanation. The film really needed to do the legwork and show us the kidnapping and rescue, if only to bed the characters in. Of course, something would have to be cut to make this work. I nominate Jones.

But I still love the film. It was my first Bond film, after all.

I just read that TWINE originally ended with Elektra surviving her gunshot wound, and that Bond visits her in hospital. Supposedly it was changed because it was too downbeat an ending.

I suppose the scene may have inspired Only Myself to Blame in some way... Perhaps Elektra wanted to reconcile her sins. Anyone else know more about this?

A downbeat ending is what this film needed, whether she lived or died. With so many allusions to OHMSS, it feels false for TWINE to try ending on a Roger Moore era gag and it undermines Bond's arc.

Seems that by a certain point EON was not comfortable with downbeat endings. LTK showing an inexplicably peaceful Leiter at the end. QOS trying to liven up audiences with the gun barrel at the end after a pretty somber scene with Bond and M. You can even say the same for CR, though I think the execution was better handled as I interpreted Bond's capture of White as an expansion of Bond's newfound determination from the CR novel (only for QOS to undermine it).

Should've ended with Bond and Xmas Jones getting down to it in Elektra's hospital room while she's in a coma.

Only then the camera slowly pans to Eleketra's still face and zooms in as her eyes suddenly open. CREDITS ROLL. JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.

Makeshift Python wrote:

A downbeat ending is what this film needed, whether she lived or died. With so many allusions to OHMSS, it feels false for TWINE to try ending on a Roger Moore era gag and it undermines Bond's arc.

Not necessarily. I think it cements the idea that he didn't fall in love with Elektra.

CJB wrote:

Should've ended with Bond and Xmas Jones getting down to it in Elektra's hospital room while she's in a coma.

Only then the camera slowly pans to Eleketra's still face and zooms in as her eyes suddenly open. CREDITS ROLL. JAMES BOND WILL RETURN.

Perhaps Dr Warmflash appears to check in on things, too.

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

A downbeat ending is what this film needed, whether she lived or died. With so many allusions to OHMSS, it feels false for TWINE to try ending on a Roger Moore era gag and it undermines Bond's arc.

Not necessarily. I think it cements the idea that he didn't fall in love with Elektra.

It merely cements that the filmmakers were not fully committed to the premise out of fear of turning off audiences (as your previous post acknowledged with the changed ending). In short, they chickened out. If Bond isn't supposed to have fallen in love with Elektra at any point, then why even bother with all the OHMSS allusions RIGHT DOWN TO THE TITLE OF THE FILM??? I know you have an affinity for this film and Brosnan in general, but come on.

I always imagined a proper ending would be a bit more downbeat, but now learning of the hospital scene confirms that's at least that's what was in mind in writing the film and is what would have been more tonally appropriate. If they wanted to end with a Roger Moore gag, they should have dropped all of the emotional conflict Bond had over Elektra. He'd be written more in the vein of Connery where he's far more in control and secure of his emotions, disregarding Elektra's treachery no differently than Fiona in THUNDERBALL. When Connery said "I did it for queen and country", you can believe it, he's a cold son of bitch, as that bathtub scene demonstrates. When Brosnan says "you meant nothing to me", it's not necessarily true, as his behavior throughout the film suggests otherwise. Because he let her in emotionally and when he found out she used him it incensed him. Bond isn't the type that opens up easily to others, so when it happens it's significant for him. Elektra exploited that, hence his anger.

I used to criticize the film for Bond's behavior throughout the film in the past, like the scene with him confronting her in her room or his first encounter with Renard. I've turned around on that, I actually like the ideas that TWINE has going on. I now realize my issues were with how they were executed. This film has the spark of an idea that could have made it into a cherished Bond classic like OHMSS or SKYFALL, but its one step forward two steps back approach prevents it from reaching those heights, and now it's among the lowest ranked among fans.

The Brosnan era is a tale of half-cockedness.

It started with TND with the non-event of a character that was Paris Carver who Bond forgets as soon as she's dead despite all the build up around her backstory with Bond.

Then TWINE with, as MP says, emotional conflict over Elektra which fizzles out like a Christmas Jones orgasm.

Finally we have DAD where Bond is tortured by the Norks for over a year but comes out fine, dandy, and perpetually erect as soon as he's free.

Makeshift Python wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

A downbeat ending is what this film needed, whether she lived or died. With so many allusions to OHMSS, it feels false for TWINE to try ending on a Roger Moore era gag and it undermines Bond's arc.

Not necessarily. I think it cements the idea that he didn't fall in love with Elektra.

It merely cements that the filmmakers were not fully committed to the premise out of fear of turning off audiences (as your previous post acknowledged with the changed ending). In short, they chickened out. If Bond isn't supposed to have fallen in love with Elektra at any point, then why even bother with all the OHMSS allusions RIGHT DOWN TO THE TITLE OF THE FILM??? I know you have an affinity for this film and Brosnan in general, but come on.

I always imagined a proper ending would be a bit more downbeat, but now learning of the hospital scene confirms that's at least that's what was in mind in writing the film and is what would have been more tonally appropriate. If they wanted to end with a Roger Moore gag, they should have dropped all of the emotional conflict Bond had over Elektra. He'd be written more in the vein of Connery where he's far more in control and secure of his emotions, disregarding Elektra's treachery no differently than Fiona in THUNDERBALL. When Connery said "I did it for queen and country", you can believe it, he's a cold son of bitch, as that bathtub scene demonstrates. When Brosnan says "you meant nothing to me", it's not necessarily true, as his behavior throughout the film suggests otherwise. Because he let her in emotionally and when he found out she used him it incensed him. Bond isn't the type that opens up easily to others, so when it happens it's significant for him. Elektra exploited that, hence his anger.

It's true that Barbara liked the idea of Bond thinking he may have met a Tracy, but he in fact met a Blofeld in Elektra. However, given Elektra's scheme isn't as grandiose as Blofeld, it's safe to say that it's hyperbole when suggesting Bond has met another love of his life. Bond sleeps with Elektra after the casino as it's a way of turning the women who refuse to let down their guard - it happened with Pussy, Paris, etc. He knew that Elektra wasn't all she seemed after the card game so he resorted back to the one tool he has relied on - sex. So in that sense, he too did it for Queen and country. You're right, Bond doesn't open up that easily, and at not any point does he tell her how he feels about it (hence this conversation, I imagine) unlike Tracy or Vesper, despite the latter not selling the idea of true/first love at all.

Besides, Goldeneye was the name of Fleming's Jamaican retreat. The film didn't visit Jamaica to allude to its namesake.

There has always been elements of bizarre and humour in Bond films and novels, even in the most serious. YOLT springs to mind immediately, with a rather inward, grief-stricken Bond tackling the 'impossible mission' which leads to some serious geopolitical discussion between Bond and Tiger. That doesn't stop Bond from encountering the murderer of his wife in battle armour in the comicbook-esque garden of death. The Moore-era gag doesn't seem all that out of place. The hospital scene could have been a great ending, but this works too.  

MP wrote:

and now it's among the lowest ranked among fans.

So because it's the lowest ranked amongst [some] fans, then you must think the same of it?

Quote :

Bond sleeps with Elektra after the casino as it's a way of turning the women who refuse to let down their guard - it happened with Pussy, Paris, etc. He knew that Elektra wasn't all she seemed after the card game so he resorted back to the one tool he has relied on - sex. So in that sense, he too did it for Queen and country. You're right, Bond doesn't open up that easily, and at not any point does he tell her how he feels about it (hence this conversation, I imagine) unlike Tracy or Vesper, despite the latter not selling the idea of true/first love at all.

I think you're very confused about what happened in TWINE. Bond isn't turning Elektra to let her guard down in the same manner as Pussy Galore, in fact it's the very opposite. Prior to their bed scene it's Elektra that is courting Bond, as it's her way of trying to keep him in control after her men failed to kill him in the snowfield. There's no indication that Bond is just using her for information, as all he ever asks is how she survived being a hostage. This isn't even played as standard operating procedure sex like in the films of the past.

Quote :

Besides, Goldeneye was the name of Fleming's Jamaican retreat. The film didn't visit Jamaica to allude to its namesake.

You'd have a point of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH just being an incidental title like GOLDENEYE, however...

Bond initially being lead to believe that the villain happens to be bald is not incidental. Bond looking emotional and tapping that video of Elektra as if to wipe her tear is not incidental (a callback to Fleming Bond usually falling for "a bird with a wing down"). Elektra asking Bond if he had ever lost a loved one, and him brushing that aside was not incidental. Bond and Elektra skiing together with lush music by Arnold, then followed by an action sequence that concludes with an avalanche was not incidental. Arnold scoring their tenderly portrayed bedtime together with a very lush and romantic rendition of "Only Myself to Blame" was not incidental. His behavior regarding his conflicting feelings over Elektra is not incidental. His mourning over her dead body after killing was not incidental.

Purvis & Wade knew what they were doing along with the rest of the filmmakers. As much as you want to try painting TWINE as just another non-personal mission like GOLDFINGER or THUNDERBALL, that's not what this film's objection was. If it was, most of the film would have been entirely different and probably have that Roger Moore ending fit in. I don't even have a problem with the ending on its own terms, I just think it's used in the wrong film. It probably would have been more fitting for DIE ANOTHER DAY with M and Falco looking at the screen.

Quote :

There has always been elements of bizarre and humour in Bond films and novels, even in the most serious. YOLT springs to mind immediately, with a rather inward, grief-stricken Bond tackling the 'impossible mission' which leads to some serious geopolitical discussion between Bond and Tiger. That doesn't stop Bond from encountering the murderer of his wife in battle armour in the comicbook-esque garden of death. The Moore-era gag doesn't seem all that out of place. The hospital scene could have been a great ending, but this works too.  

I'm not sure I'm supposed to take YOLT's sequence of events as humorous on the level of Moore-era gags. It's more like a delirious fever dream with Bond going off to slay the dragon. TWINE's ending doesn't even fit that tone.

MP wrote:

and now it's among the lowest ranked among fans.

So because it's the lowest ranked amongst [some] fans, then you must think the same of it?

I don't blame them for having the same feelings I do of this being a very underwhelming entry in the Bond canon. Even viewers that never gave OHMSS the light of day find it mostly forgettable because it is so tame.