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
There were two aspects of SPECTRE that always puzzled me:
1. Why introduce Blofeld in one film and then not kill him or have him escape, but instead incarcerated?
2. If you call your film SPECTRE, featuring the famous organisation and its even more famous leader, why introduce a love plot that distracts from these classic returning aspects of the franchise?
The more I think about it, the more I understand that these are very deliberate and conscious decisions. EON used Craigs last outing to introduce and then deliberately incarcerate Blofeld, so that at some point in the rocky road ahead without Craig, if things get desperate, they have an emergency panic button, with Blofeld sat in his jail cell just waiting to wreck havok with another ingenious scheme.
And its quite clear to me now why EON spent so long with this love plot when they could have been showing us more of SPECTRE's evil tentacles at work. They wanted to give the Craig era some symmertery by having the love of a women be his out, the same way Vesper was a big reason why he got in.
To me you just have to watch the ending of SPECTRE to see that Craig, Mendes and EON knew exactly what they were. How those final screens wind down can only be interpreted as a purposeful conclusion to the Craig era, and I for one can't wait to see what Aidan does with the role.
Good point. I agree.
And after his disappointment with SF I am glad @BondJasonBond006 enjoyed SP so much.
Couldn't DISAGREE more. Blofeld is out there, waiting for Craig to finish him off. His films have made over 3 billion dollars for EON. Craig isn't going anywhere.
And you just, what? Know for a fact Aidan Whatshisname is being cast as Bond? How exactly do you know this?
I am the supposed SF lover and I'll admit it is one of my favourites but I'll acknowledge it's plot holes but what Skyfall has that is severely lacking in SP is a sense of danger, Bond feels threatened, it has an atmosphere and that climatic Scotland sequence whether you dislike the idea of Bond ancestral home being exploited it leaves that redundant generic Thames chase looking pale and uneventful.
I know why you like SP so much as it's the most Brosnan like film from Craig, throw in all the cliches and the homages and you'll lap it up.
Look I make no secret of disliking the PB era but your dislike of Craig's era is most ambiguious, yes you worship SP but can't but help but take a pop at the rest this is just not typical of this era, it's like Craig was grafted onto one of Pierces films and I think that is why I dislike it as much as I do and you love it, it's not really the film that is going to define his era when all said and done, that will be CR then SF.
It's not about character it's about hitting you over the head with a sledge hammer with all the cliches and elements screaming look at me I'm a James Bond film, pretty much a defintion of the Brosnan era, that is why you shoot your pants over it as much as you do.
I've got OHMSS and CR before we get to SF and I certainly don't gush over them like you do SP, no Bond film is a masterpiece, maybe if they'd made an entry that levels ROTLA but they haven't they are all flawed and that includes Blofeld's Childhood Issues sorry I mean SPECTRE.
Agree to disagree, then, as none of those pertain to Roger Moore, which is what I'm talking about: the more his era goes on, the more comedic he gets, with the nods/head tilts and the smiling and the constant innuendos. Not that I'm complaining, I love his work in the series, just that I wish we had seen more of the Bond from his first two installments. The way he interacts with his superiors and treats the other characters seems a lot less cheerful and more serious/cold. He has his moments in other movies (killing Locque, executing the soldier in OP) but none are as consistent as his first two, in my opinion.
I so agree with you @Creasy47
I can vaguely see your point, although it's quite a fine distinction you're making given such quips as 'Same time tomorrow Mrs Bell' and juvenile jokes about Scaramanga's nipples.
I think the difference is in the first two no one was quite sure about the tone of Rog's portrayal and whether he would be accepted as Bond. From TSWLM everything was tailored to his strengths and he was able to relax more and personally I much prefer Rog at the top of his game serving up classic Moore romps in MR and OP than him trying to be the hard man by slapping Maud Adams about.
However, I'm not so sure that Turner is the next Bond.
that whole bit at the ruins of old MI6 feels tacked on - they easily could've written everything that goes on there into one big blow off finale at Blofeld's crater lair in the desert - meanwhile, M and team MI6 could still be in London and together take down C...
but leaving it as it is.. 2 things could've made that whole ending better than it was..
1.) While Bond is running through the ruins of old MI6 - have one last brawl with Hinx... his exit from the film was underwhelming, and i think he deserved a comeback for one last fight during the climax.
2.) When Bond and Madeline come storming out of the rubble of the collapsing MI6 building - PERFECT MOMENT to blast the Bond theme, and use it as Bond is chasing Blofeld's helicopter down the river.. it's a pure Bond moment that deserved the Bond theme in all it's glory, and they whized it down their leg.
this is exactly why i think Craig ultimately will return for one last film then hang it up...
I don't buy Mendes' comments about "giving Dan the perfect out should he decide he's done." (from a story perspective)... if anything, this leaves Bond in a much larger state of ambiguity than before... yes Craig's Bond finally got the girl at the end - but it's an ending that implies "and they lived happily ever after"... if Dan does truly respect the character of Bond as he says he does, he knows for Bond - there are no happy endings... Blofeld may be in custody, but it's not like Spectre as an organization has been dealt with - what is stopping them from launching a full scale retaliation on MI6 and Bond?.... while there is this illusion of everything being tied up into a nice red bow at the end of SP - i feel like it's ending created even more loose ends..
i feel like there needs to be at least one more film - one that sees Bond and Madeline either split up - or she turns out to be a Spectre sleeper agent - or she gets killed - and we also need Blofeld to either make a clean escape, or "disappear".. simply leaving him incarcerated in some prison isn't good enough..
let all be settled in the next film - then Dan get on with his life - and it perfectly sets the table for someone new - no more drama/relationship issues, as losing Swann would (IMO) force this new Bond to officially swear off relationships (his Tracy moment) - it brings Bond to place where we've been expecting him to be at both the ends of QOS, and at SF - and it leaves Blofeld and Spectre out there to return, eventually, but not right away.
The Joker was not killed at the end of TDK either so he can come back again with a new actor (as he will shortly in Suicide Squad) and the same applies to Blofeld. Spectre can easily be dealt with by a new actor as well in the future, precisely because it's a loose end now. All that needs to be said in the future is that he was 'sprung' from jail, or it doesn't even need to be mentioned - the audience can work that one out for themselves. As long as he's not dead, he can come back again..
This was a 'happy get the girl' ending for this iteration of James Bond, like with Bale's Bat..
had TDK been the last in the trilogy, i would agree with you - but we got the TDKR.. Bane is dead, Talia is dead - theoretically, there was nothing else for this version of Batman to do, because that is how Nolan wanted it..
had TDKR returns ended with Bane being arrested, and giving Batman a sinister looks (with sinister music in the background) - i would agree with you.
but much in the way i hated the ending to TDKR (and most of Nolan's trilogy - because it flies in the face of what Batman really is) - so do i dislike the ending of SP.... Bond and Batman are both similarly cut from the same cloth - in that would like to dimply drop everything and live a normal life? Yes - but they know a normal life isn't for them... Bond is a spy/killer - not a homemaker.... it's an open ending that should be remedied by one last outing for Craig - and not leaving it up to the next guy..
because a backlash to not doing that, is that we (as fans) have to put up with more nonsense about the James Bond codename theory.... AGAIN.
Mendes has tried to play it both ways. He's set it up so Craig can walk if he wants (using the Nolan playbook for inspiration), or come back if he wants. That's why this debate is ongoing here about whether he's coming back or not. That's exactly how they wanted it - so he could in fact return if he wanted to and if it worked out in terms of the studio deal, imho.
I still believe EON or Barbara asked Craig if we go down the road with SP/Blofeld can you conclude with B25 or will this be your last. & the creative decisions were made accordingly.
I think Giacchino is truly one of the best composers of all time. I'm a movie score fan, but what Giacchino brings to his scores truly surpases the likes of even John Barry. I don't think any score can choke me up like his do. I personally think he's just too good for Bond, but clearly his Incredibles score shows how amazing he'd be for Bond.
He has been getting lots of warm reception.
A category in which you comfortably reside in. As you don't know the next best thing for you is to, at the very least have a modicum of an idea :)
According to Deadline, the film needs to generate revenue between $925 - $930 million before it starts to make any profit on in its theatrical run alone (before any ancillaries such as TV syndication, DVD sales etc).
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a6961156.html
And that's from the independent. A paper that does it's homework and due diligence before printing its stories/articles, presenting a non-partisan position in their reporting.
On top of that, people need to bare in mind that studios don't keep every dollar a movie makes at the BO. The cinema/theatre chains take a cut circa 50% domestically and 65% internationally. Plus WB isn't the only production company involved with BvS. Ratner's RatPac and 2 other companies will take their profits first from the movie before WB finally gets theirs.
What on earth are you drivelling on about?
How does Craig leaving suddenly open up a debate about the bullshit codename theory?
In any event there is no codename theory for 'us fans to put up with' except in your own head.
The general public know nothing about it and just accept each new actor as Bond and the only time I've ever heard anyone representing EON ever mention the idea was Tamahori and we all know what happened to him.
The only place this theory exists is on these boards and universally everyone thinks it is complete bollocks.
You took the words right out of my mouth @TheWizardOfIce
People have quite often raised the codename theory with me, usually people who know nothing about Bond films and see me as the "Bond guy". It's an absurd theory but it's gained a bit of traction among non-fans across the internet, especially since Cracked did a video on it.
You just nag anybody, don't you? Why are you making such a big deal of his annoyance with that stupid theory?
Because it's nonsensical to think that changing the actor suddenly gives credence to this crappy theory.
Anyway why are you making such a big deal of my annoyance with his annoyance?
Or do you just like nagging anybody?
No just you :D
I'm just kidding but was surprised that you responded to that.
It appeared in a red top paper which meant Joe Public took it as fact and it somehow refused to go away.
I wish it would go away, but I guess it does no damage. It's a minor irritant, much like Idris Elba.