5

Episodes like this raise controversy in me every time I encounter them. But, in Spectre, why would James Bond not finish off Mr. Hinx after the crash? It is obvious that Hinx will remain a deadly threat to him and the lady.

Considering the amount off killing James Bond does, there should be no moral or ethical aspects involved I believe.

  • 2
    I don't know if this is a legit answer or not, so I'll put it in a comment, but Bond has always tended to kill out of necessity or in the "heat of the battle". Bond is compassionate, Bond has never killed a defenseless person (that I recall), and I believe it would go against his ethics to do so. – Johnny Bones Jan 25 '16 at 14:13
5

Bond is trying to escape from Mr. Hinx during the car chase. He attends a Spectre meeting, is outed by Blofeld and then escapes to his Aston Martin under pretty heavy gunfire.

Whilst in the car, he tries to enable several gadgets to aid him in defeating (and potentially killing) Mr. Hinx. However, none of the gadgets work as Bond took the car before it had been fully configured (as it was intended for agent 009, not 007). The only gadget that works is his ejector seat, so he leaves his car and makes his escape.

Whilst you correctly say Hinx will remain a deadly threat to him, so will everyone else at the meeting he encountered (and there were easily a hundred people there). After escaping his car, it plunged into the canal (and no doubt gathered a crowd). It wouldn't have made sense for Bond to return to the scene to shoot Mr. Hinx, likely amidst a crowd of on-watchers, and try to escape. It would be unnecesarily reckless, so he instead chooses to focus on his mission.

One final comment as an aside is related to your final line and what @Johnny Bones says in his comment. Bond in the films is an unusual character. He is usually portrayed as being quite a moral individual, only killing when he has little choice. There are some notable exceptions to this, the most famous of which is his killing of Professor Dent in Dr. No, where he shoots an unarmed man in cold blood.

However, in the novels on which the films are based Bond frequently remarks how extremely uncomfortable he is killing in cold blood.

For example, from Goldfinger:

It was part of his profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix—the licence to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional—worse, it was a death-watch beetle in the soul.

  • 1
    You misinterpreted the question. We are discussing an entirely different chase scene which takes place a little further along in the movie (~1:10:00 - 1:14:30) Mr. Hinx's vehicle is immobilized after hitting the wreckage from a collision between Bond's airplane and the lead SPECTRE jeep. Bond runs over to Hinx's vehicle, and after dispatching the driver with a single bullet, he dismisses Hinx's unconscious body in order to tend to Dr. Swann. Later in the movie, Hinx almost kills Bond and Swann. The original question is why doesn't Bond finish off Hinx after killing all the other – user31161 Feb 15 '16 at 1:13
  • 1
    @zxmatt: You could be right, but the OP really isn't clear. It's a pretty vague question, which applies to either part of the film. – Andrew Martin Feb 15 '16 at 8:34
  • @zxmatt I agree. I believe the question is about the later scene as well (evident in the usage of 'crash', 'finish (him) off' and particularly 'will remain a deadly threat to him and the lady', which Bond didn't even know yet when he was in Rome). So I'm pretty sure the first half of this answer is about the wrong scene. But since the second half provides another explanation anyway and the OP approves, I guess it doesn't matter all that much. – Walt Aug 15 '16 at 22:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .