›

Who do you prefer to die last?

Dr_RobertsDr_Roberts
edited March 2014 in Bond Movies Posts: 13
The main villain, or the chief henchman? I ask because I'm not really sure myself. The head minion is typically a greater physical threat, and thus makes for a more exciting action climax, but on the other hand we're usually more emotionally invested in the main villain, meaning saving them for last arguably works better as a conclusion.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • 4662089264869540287846620892648695402878
    edited March 2014 Posts: 60
    I prefer the main supporter of the last to die, as in this way it's more emotional for them- losing their boss to the tide of time. Rosa Klebb as an example.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited March 2014 Posts: 14,680
    I don't really have a preference. There are excellent cases for both, as we have seen. However, it's always fun to have Bond dispose of the despicable villain- only to be surprised by the reappearance of the henchman you completely forgot about. I guess having the henchman reappear to fight with Bond builds his reputation of being loyal to his master. They could've just walked away admitting defeat, but no- this is for Carver, and Kaufmann etc.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Since DAF there have been several films where the henchman died after the principal villain.
    I think a good argument can be made for and against. However, I am of the belief that Renaud should have died before Electra.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    I really really hate when the chief henchman dies after the villain. Main villain should be the last one.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    QBranch wrote:
    I don't really have a preference.
    Me neither. I would like for them to keep mixing it up to keep me guessing.
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    How about when they don't die? I've found that films where they don't die have aged better i.e. FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, QoS.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    How about when they don't die? I've found that films where they don't die have aged better i.e. FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, QoS.

    Isn't FRWL's henchman Grant? And he does die...
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    edited March 2014 Posts: 2,629
    The one who can put up the better fight.
  • dramaticscenesofQOSdramaticscenesofQOS
    Posts: 1,282
    Walecs wrote:
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    How about when they don't die? I've found that films where they don't die have aged better i.e. FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, QoS.

    Isn't FRWL's henchman Grant? And he does die...

    In the grand plot it's Blofeld....it's Blofeld! It's alright though. It's quite alright really, if you don't agree.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    Walecs wrote:
    dramaticscenesofQOS wrote:
    How about when they don't die? I've found that films where they don't die have aged better i.e. FRWL, OHMSS, LALD, QoS.

    Isn't FRWL's henchman Grant? And he does die...

    In the grand plot it's Blofeld....it's Blofeld! It's alright though. It's quite alright really, if you don't agree.

    Blofeld is not the main antagonist in the movie though. When the end credits roll, Bond does not even know he exists! It is debatable who is the main villain between Grant and Klebb, IMO they share the spotlight as main antagonism, maybe with a slight edge on Grant as he is the most personally involved against Bond. Rosa Klebb is doing her job, while Grant has a personal, downright fetishist hatred against Bond. And yes, he is a henchman, but you can be the henchman AND the main villain.

    Anyway, regarding the OP, I think it really depends of the story and characters. A resilient henchman who shows at the end after his master died or was defeated simply out of contempt for Bond and loyalty for his departed master can have a powerful impact, but so can a main villain who until the very end tries to have his plan go through and succeed. Not to mention that many of them can be worthy physical adversary for Bond in their own right!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    QBranch wrote:
    I don't really have a preference. There are excellent cases for both, as we have seen. However, it's always fun to have Bond dispose of the despicable villain- only to be surprised by the reappearance of the henchman you completely forgot about. I guess having the henchman reappear to fight with Bond builds his reputation of being loyal to his master. They could've just walked away admitting defeat, but no- this is for Carver, and Kaufmann etc.

    And this is a notable feature of three of the Guy Hamilton Bond films - DAF, LALD and TMWTGG - I never thought of the loyalty factor before, @QBranch, but you're spot on there!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    pachazo wrote:
    QBranch wrote:
    I don't really have a preference.
    Me neither. I would like for them to keep mixing it up to keep me guessing.

    Bang on. The Bond films are predictable enough as they are.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    Thunderfinger wrote:
    pachazo wrote:
    QBranch wrote:
    I don't really have a preference.
    Me neither. I would like for them to keep mixing it up to keep me guessing.

    Bang on. The Bond films are predictable enough as they are.

    Yes, agreed. Better to keep the audience on their toes as it were.
Sign In or Register to comment.