It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I do enjoy Spectre as a "greatest hits" entry in the Bond series, but as a film and storyline in a whole, it's tad too weak. If Craig isn't really committed to being the driving force in the lead, then he should have been given his one more standalone film and be done with it. We could have had Quantum dismantled as Greene told 007 everything he wanted to know about them and boom, The Vesper Chronicles is done with. I love how Spectre was conducted as a dark, gothic and sadistic organization, but their operations are interpreted extremely weak, especially with its ties to the other incidents in Bond's activities and assignments. EON has the rights to Spectre, they shouldn't have gone with it and make it all "quite revealing" (as Moore would say) in one film. Things like these work with at least two or three films per once. There has to be a build up to detect the beauty of the horror. Like one of the posters above said, EON hasn't intended to make it look like one organization was there in every film they made in Craig's run prior to the 24th, there's no trace of it. That's why, in that three year lengthy development, the entire crew just dropped the ball.
And what the hell P&W are thinking with Goldfinger? Retconning an established material that already had its run from a continuity that is already discarded? For all we know, he was SMERSH's treasurer in the novel, but he was completely independent and in it for himself in the film and that was made clear. So, off you go you two. Next.
But didn't this production thread show that those with "insider sources" here were far most often right than wrong :) ?
'You thought you had forgotten your past life to the point where it seemed it was a different person? No James, Dr No, Goldfinger, that was all you..... and me. The 'Blofelds' you met? All Puppets operated by me. I have been the author of all your pain from the very beginning'.
Back in M's office.
'Good grief 007, are you really telling me your entire Career is a direct result of your cuckolding antics back when you were a young lad? '
'I'm afraid so sir'.
That's Spectre in a nutshell!
I wonder where does Major Dexter Smythe's role go... Does it die in the heart of the books? or was Smythe actually OberBlofeld?
Given it was Franz's father's love Bond stole I do hope you're not suggesting Hannes was noncing Bond up?
But given Craig's Bond was born in 1968 it would have been what we now know was the paedo heyday of the late 70s. If it turns out that Hannes Oberhauser once presented Top Of The Pops I think the case is closed.
Wouldn't put even this past P&W as a story line at this stage.
Was there was a document in SPECTRE that showed Bond was born in 1971?
They made a complete cock up of it, fans of the film can try say that's not what was meant but I'm afraid outside of the film's defenders that is what the majority of people took from it, Goldmember rip off.
I've not seen the last 2 MI films, I have no desire to see anything with the Cruiser in so please don't try to tell me I'm missing anything. Though with that aside from what I understand it SP nicked plot points from that.
It appears to me the biggest culprits in this are P&W, Logan comes in for allot of flak but he didn't come up with this lazy retconning they employed.
I'm sure someone with talent could have made it work but there efforts make the the idea of doing it a seriously bad idea, so trying to suggest it was a good idea like I think it was initially was is pointless.
If they could get on with one more Craig, I'm guessing the ESB factor will need to be addressed and DC will insist that it is and here in lies one of the biggest problems of his era.
I greatly admire Craig as an actor and his tennure for the most has been a pleasure but his ideas and agreeing to the points they covered in SP have to make me think that giving some artistic control to the lead actor is not a good idea.
Craig when all said and done is no Ben Affleck. Craig is an actor and that is what he should stay, not some consultant on storylines and direction of the series, leave that to the professionals.
I think Mendes wanted to walk away from SP because he realised the mess it was in and wasn't keen on begging P&W back. Though his contract made it very difficult to walk away and due to BB & MGW's power within the industry they could have made it very difficult for him if he'd wanted to throw the towel in.
One thing that could come out of Mendes experience with his second stab at Bond he'll not want to do another one, here's hoping anyway.
This film was plagued with issues, the script is a jolly big one but also Craig's injury did not help things. I wouldn't mind betting they'll be a quite juicy behind the scenes exposay at what when wrong with SPECTRE in the future, even though EON's dirty laundry got washed in public enough with the Sony leaks.
I've really not much confidence going forward in EON after their last film. You might say a bit alarming but I've seen other members do as much as an assasination of Skyfall as I've done here, yes SF wasn't perfect but it was nowhere as badly received as this film or ridiculed.
You could say who cares what others think but Bond doesn't want to be seen plagerising series that belong to a genre that at one time it was the king of. Bond playing catch up with the likes of MI is a serious issue. I heard some saying it lifts plot points from F&F films, I mean seriously car chase porn is where you are stealing from now?
P&W gone and try someone who doesn't just know about Fleming but someone who can apply that to a decent script and actually make a film that isn't a greatest hits show. The Craig era did a good job of dispensing with everything that had turned Bond into a joke and in a space of one film they undid all that.
Bond can be a few years younger than Craig.
Some still haven't realised that. Only because Spectre doesn't fit the world view that Skyfall built for some, it doesn't mean the world has stopped turning.
Here are the facts:
Spectre was almost as successful as Skyfall. Ticket sales wise the gap is quite small. BO wise a bit wider mainly because of a very different USD-EUR exchange situation.
Spectre wouldn't have made that much money or sold that many tickets if the movie wouldn't have been considered good by most. In many countries Spectre was the most successful US movie by far, outdoing Jurassic World or Age of Ultron by a large margin.
That doesn't mean you have to like Spectre. By no means. Many dislike Skyfall, the second most successful Bond movie of all time (Thunderball still is No 1).
It's a matter of taste.
But to claim, Spectre was a failure is simply stupid.
Again, EON did everything right. And congratulations for that, it surely wasn't that simple to achieve another success like Spectre has become.
Having said all this, of course I hope, P+W+L are now history. Time to bring in some new people with fresh ideas.
Mendes and Craig can return in my opinion. I wouldn't mind. But as of now, I have regained all faith in EON and I'm sure whatever they will bring us next will be fine.
Well if EON did everything so right why get rid of the geniuses who brought us SP's script?
I've got to say I disagree wholly. First of all, i think that the retcon AND the brother angle are both upplayed with fans rather than downplayed. Spectre has a less than pervect script, fine, and should have been less dependent on the previous films, but the "retcon" itself I dont find problematic at all actually. I believe someone else commented that it was especially lazy because the previous craig films were never intended to be part of a "larger conspiracy". This just isn't true. Casino royale and quantum of solace were obviusly setting up a spectre- esque organization. Call it "quantum" or make it a branch of spectre I dobt see how that matters. As for silva, as I understood it silva was a former spectre agent who went rouge in a crazy personal vendetta, a pawn in the game so to speak as vesper was. As for the brother angle, I agree that this was poorly concieved (amazing professionals can make such stupid errors sometimes), but bond just kind of passes it off during the reveal/ torture scene. There isn't a big deal made out of it and therefore has a small bearing on the plot. The issues I have with spectre are that, and the amount of exposition the film relies on (still a better script that the world is not enough which I also like) and how its soo dependent on the other craig films. Also you are completely wrong about the film's public perception, it was recieved well enough by the public, and by me.
Good lad. Agreed.
The retcon was unnecessary, but if they wanted to give some significance to the angst and pain driven Craig era before it was all said and done with...some deeper meaning...then what better way to do it than with Bond's arch nemesis. Better this way, they may have thought, than with a Blofeld who comes up only with some dull surveillance plan. That just doesn't have the same weight, they may have concluded.
After all, this is the Bond who lost the love of his life, the mother of his life, the friends of his life, etc. etc. This is the Bond actor who has been giving signals that he's about had enough with the character, even dismissively calling him a misogynist etc. So if you're going to shoot your wad by introducing Blofeld now (rather than wait for the next actor), why not tie everything together for Craig so that there is added gravitas to all his authored pain.
So I get why they did it. I was willing to accept it, even if it wasn't my preference.
The issue I have with it is the way they went about it. The execution, in my view, was terrible. It was done in a 'by the numbers' way, and didn't appear to have any significance to the man who it was intended for (Craig Bond).
That's my take.
Very well said.
I could have tolerated it, embraced it even, had it been done well but the way it was cobbled together was very poor (although the stepbrother thing would be bollocks however they did it).
Bond doesn't even seem at all bothered in the slightest that this guy who he knew and lived with has been deliberately killing off three people he loved.
His confrontations with Blofeld are nowhere near at the level of Bond and Sanchez despite the former only having authored the leg of his mate being bitten off and the topping of his wife who we are told is a friend of Bond but do you really think Dalton's Bond has the slightest thing in common with Della?
Yet he seems far more upset with Sanchez than he does with Franz.
They did also bring SF's script just in case you forgot. And in bold the answer, in case you overlooked that.
That's pretty much what I was saying, unfortunately P&W made such a hash of it that trying to get those who didn't like it convinced that it could've of worked done properly is pointless because their lazy retconning has made the idea look so bad.
No one can tell me that scanning the ring and those rather convenient graphics that appear on Q's lap top with the tentacles of the octopus leading to Blofeld was good thing can they?
To me that sequence was spelling things out to us as we are idiots, as soon as we realise that Mr White is the Pale King isn't it obvious?
Rather that write script that incorporates Bond investigating the connection himself, also Moneypenny says that White was last seen at a certain location and then in no time Bond has found this out in the middle of nowhere.
This is Craig's most Brosnanesque film, making Craig traditional Bond robs him of his edge.
The way this dropped off goes to show it was nowhere as well received as SF and any number of reviews said it was a let down after that film. No it wasn't a flop by a long stretch but I think more was expected and it's reviews were nowhere as positive as SF.
To take the idea of bringing Bond into the 21st Century after the AP movies parodied the series to death and then prove that Bond could be successful in a post 9/11 world and then to take a beat from that film series and use it in this era is unforgivable.
I'm sorry so many people whether you the fans don't think it did saw Bond's foe come across as someone who became who he is because his Daddy didn't like him as much as Bond his foster brother.
It doesn't matter you thought it was subtle and that Bond played it down, the public perception is this and I'm pretty sure SP will be tarnished with this for sometime to come.
I guarantee the first bout of reviews for Bond 25 will reference this element like they bitched about QOS in the SF reviews, this element isn't going to be forgotten anytime soon.
Paving the way for a new actor to carry on the Spectre arc?
You're right, depending on the source and the way it's calculated either Thunderball or Skyfall top the list. Goldfinger is third, Spectre fourth, You Only Live Twice fifth.
In any case those four movies are the "flukes" as they are sometimes called by the media. Meaning those are outside the "normal" gross growth that happened more or less with every new Bond movie.
The much more interesting picture is the ticket sales evolution over the decades. If you look at that it becomes clear that Skyfall and Spectre both have reached the heights of the golden days of Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice.
I just find it irritating how some people try to convince the rest that Spectre was a failure, when it so clearly is not.
In fact it's only the fifth movie in the franchise that reached beyond usual ticket sales and BO.
Not quite sure what your point is? I was just retorting to your assertion that EON did everything right making SP but then saying you hope P&W go. Why, if SP is the triumph you would have us believe, would you want them to go?
Havent we all?
You seem to be mistaken over what we are discussing old chap.
I think most of us are talking about SP's hash of a script. It's box office in terms of both monetary gross or ticket sales is an utter irrelevance. Plenty of shite films have been box office successes.
As I don't have money invested in EON or the studio the actual figure is of little interest to me as long as it's enough to make another Bond film. What does interest me is not having a script written by the proverbial room of infinite monkeys trying to knock out the complete works of Shakespeare.
Absolutely agree.
But even after they delivered a back to form Bond movie with SP I want P+W gone. The risk of them redoing TWINE SF a third rime is too high.
Considering its the most control they've ever had with a script SP seems to have been there baby yet you think its better?
Butterworth only polished the dialogue, all the lazy retconning was them, how this makes SF worse is beyond me.
For all its plotholes SP has nothing as dumb as the ESB origin, quite frankly one of the worse crimes in the series history.