Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
SPECTRE: Can it receive universal praise?
My first discussion post here is something that has been in my thoughts for some time now. James Bond evokes so many preconceived ideas that are crafted in each individual from previous entries in the film series, as well as the source material in the Fleming novels. No two Bond fans are the same, making the art of crafting a new adventure difficult to please everyone. SPECTRE is the most ambitious production of this generation. It is taking cues from the worldwide success of Skyfall, in addition to reintroducing classic elements back into an era that has primarily diverged from the long held standards. In all likelihood, the upcoming SPECTRE will be quite a thrill in its own right; however, being under the blanket of James Bond subjects it to a particular set of opinions. There is an attention to detail in SPECTRE to attempt to check all of the right boxes for a smash hit Bond title.
The questions I am posing in this discussion is this: Could the focus on widespread appeal be its ultimate undoing? Is it even possible for a Bond film to achieve a universal level of acclaim?
The questions I am posing in this discussion is this: Could the focus on widespread appeal be its ultimate undoing? Is it even possible for a Bond film to achieve a universal level of acclaim?
^ 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
Skyfall without the 50th anniversary marketing coup, the London Olympics and the best marketing campaign ever would not have made a billion, it would have made 800 to 850 million tops.
Everyone was dazed by the marketing and hype, so much, many believed Skyfall was that good, even before seeing it.
Having said this, Skyfall achieved to be the most seen Bond of them all. In the German-language regions it surpassed 8 million ticket sales.
Before that it was mostly between 4.5 to 6 million ticket sales from GE to QOS.
Ticket sales numbers are the only way to truly measure the level of success. Before Skyfall, the Brosnan era was as successful as the Craig era ticket sales wise.
What does it mean for Spectre?
The widespread appeal focus did work wonders for Skyfall, so it will too for Spectre.
There will be enough people buying tickets for Spectre that have seen Skyfall, certainly never the same number as Skyfall got, but Spectre will be successful nonetheless.
But if Spectre should disappoint people in general, then Bond 25 will take the hit, no matter how good it will be.
My theory is that the Bond franchise was hurt in the long run by the billion dollars Skyfall made.
Star Trek luckily never got to such heights, Into Darkness did about the same box office than the 2009 movie and it practically guarantees the franchise to get going indefinitely.
A billion dollar movie could change all that for Star Trek too.
Bond movies now will always be compared to Skyfall's success and therefore treated unfairly by the press if they don't deliver the same numbers.
The real topic I wanted to discuss was if all of the attention going into making this the biggest Bond yet, will it succeed in becoming appreciated and viewed favorable by the entire audience?
Some may say Skyfall was that film, but it's clear just by talking to casual fans (let alone diehard Bond fans) that there were elements they did not like in Skyfall. For a more agreeable answer, Casino Royale is praised by most people with the exception of a small minority. However, Casino Royale is an adapted screenplay from the original Fleming novel and therefore has a strong baseline narrative with which to follow. It wasn't without risk, though, as it was modernized substantially. I think it was for the better, but some purists might disagree.
Since SPECTRE is looking to top the series, it appears to have a lot going on. There are both modern and retro vibes from the officially released content. There appears to be more action set pieces that are presumed to blend into the emphasis on characterization Sam Mendes made a focal point in Skyfall. There is a lighter tone to the dialogue in the trailers in addition to the continued journey into Bond's past, which will probably prove to take a serious tone. It appears the series is expanding in all areas with this latest entry.
The concern and question is whether it can all work to be a cohesive film. Additionally, if it is a cohesive film, will there be enough for every type of Bond fan to appreciate it. Is that even a possible thing for an original Bond screenplay?
I believe every Bond movie since TLD was planned as to be the biggest yet.
It certainly worked since Goldeneye if you look at production quality, budget and box office.
The pressure to deliver another Skyfall is enormous. Having Mendes back certainly helps the matter quite a bit, it seems they take the "safe" route and do not take many risks creatively.
I'm even certain Adele will belt out the Bond tune again, which would confirm this even more.
The funny thing is, imo, it is not that difficult to top Skyfall artistically and creatively.
The best cinematography ever has hidden many flaws that Skyfall has. It is one of Mendes weaker works as director. And the writing...awful.
I expect Spectre to be much better than Skyfall, which would ironically put Skyfall in its proper place in general opinion, that is to say it is quite mediocre.
The media will more or less decide if Spectre rises to stardom or if it becomes just another Bond movie. The media likes to have something to bash and bury and after the universal praise for Skyfall it could be time for the other way around.
As for the audience we will see. There are so many factors that will play a role.
Spectre will get compared to Skyfall and Skyfall only, logically.
If the movie truly is one of the best, I'm talking FRWL, CR level here, then it will be enough for every type of Bond fan and go into the hall of fame, no matter how much money it makes.
If Spectre is "just another Bond movie" then the general opinion might shift into the negative overall and if the revenue doesn't satisfy EON/MGM/Sony then this era could effectively be over.
They sure try to check all the right boxes to make Spectre a smash hit. They already have done that more or less with Skyfall. Attracted older people with the nostalgia, attracted the young female target audience with casting Harris for Moneypenny, had at the same time their token-black actress in the ensemble cast.
Have cast the young nerd hipster computer freak as Q. A bit of soap opera in the story.
Adele was THE artist of 2012. It just can't get more mainstreamed.
Will that be Spectre's undoing? Not if, as I said, the movie itself is truly fabulous.
Yes, the film has provoked a lot of discussion, especially on the MI6-forums. Fact is that like "Casino Royale", also "Skyfall" was almost unanimously received with critically acclaimed reviews. People write off that fact quite easily, but if even the general audience votes "Skyfall" a big fat 7.8 on IMDB ("Casino Royale" has an 8.0), then it's not just a simple calculation of marketing efforts.
Nor do we know that without the Olympics, without Adele, without the 50th anniversary, without Javier Bardem and Sam Mendes, "Skyfall" would have scored considerably less money.
I know that many people in here dislike the film, but I do think it's important to note that the vast majority of people who saw "Skyfall" really liked the film and found it to be a huge....yes, huge...improvement on "Quantum Of Solace".
Now I'm not that nervous on what "SPECTRE" will do as compared to "Skyfall". Yes, obviously pressure is insanely high among the Bond production crew. But that's also the charm of it no? I prefer to be in this situation.....than a situation were it's almost a guaranteed fact that a Bond film will critically outperform its predecessor. It keeps the people sharp, and it maintains a more serious zest for doing better.
The same goes for Rotten Tomatoes.
Those are not representative at all and newer movies will always get higher votes.
If you go deeper into the votes on IMDB you'll see how ridiculously high people under 25 have rated Skyfall. If you look only at the votes of middle-aged people the picture changes drastically.
As for critics, since when do they know anything??
With all due respect, but if you check the topics from "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.", "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" and "Kingsman: The Secret Service" it seems 'we' unilaterally embrace reviews, from both critics and us self-proclaimed MI6community-critics.
And sometimes it seems that once a movie has received bad reviews, we use those same reviews to explain possible box office flops. But when a movie receives good reviews, it's suddenly....nonsense??
When it concerns a Bond film 'we' start shivering and trembling about those same reviews. And we are not only talking about critics reviews here, but also about audience reviews.
I did not say that people don't look at critics or take the ratings on sites like RT or IMDB seriously. Those things just are not representative.
Personally I give a damn about critics. I decide on my own if I like a movie or not.
And why would any sane person explain a box office flop with bad critics?? If anything then bad word-to-mouth can kill a movie or limit its box office success.
My parents, for example, are huge fans, and got me into Bond as a kid. They couldn't follow QoS and had to watch it a couple of times to understand what was going on.....the pace was just too fast for them. I much preferred it to them.
They loved SF though.....felt it was a throwback to the old Bond films, although I personally think it was because of the emphasis on senior citizen Dench, as well as wayward 'sons' James Bond and Silva, all of whom they could relate to, as well as the fact that they could make out what was happening on the screen.
I think the best chance they have of making a Bond film that will be loved critically, by the masses and the ardent fan base, is to focus on the following:
1. make sure the money is up on the screen
2. cast charismatic actors who know how to act
3. get a great performance out of their James Bond
4. ensure the plot is coherent (and limit the amount of visible holes in it)
5. film it the Bond way (wide angles, sweeping vistas, focus on the locations/glamour)
6. ensure their leading lady has brains and shows it
7. make sure the villain is a suitable foil for Bond, has brilliant lines, and is magnetic
8. the dialogue has to be up to snuff - limit the corniness & give us more like the Silva/Bond or Vesper/Bond intro
From what I can see in the trailers, SP has potentially hit all the above. The biggest question mark is DC. He has to really give a superb performance and own the part convincingly, since it is now his fourth.
In terms of it being compared to SF - it will be, and inevitably it will fall short for many. I say inevitably because it is following the biggest Bond financial success in decades, and one of the biggest financial surprises of the decade (outside of perhaps Jurassic World). SF is the Thriller of James Bond, and SP will most likely be the BAD, which is not to say bad, just that it will not be able to live up to many people's expectations creatively because they are too high, and nostalgia will unavoidably cloud perceptions unfairly. The same thing happened with TDKR following TDK. It will be an uphill struggle, sadly.
Firstly, this may affect the reviews IMO, the leaks. The reviews and reactions to that early script, followed by the Mexico rewrite news brought a sizeable amount of negative buzz about the film. Thankfully it seems as though with each new piece of marketing released that buzz is dying down.
Secondly, the formulaicness. Unlike CR to SF which ended up changing the formula in some way - instead the approach is (according to Mendes) is changing the context of elements in said formula, which is something they couldn't really give away in the trailers, hence some critics and casual fans saying it looks "like a typical Bond movie"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/22/spectre-trailer-007-gets-generic-formulaic-tease/
Hopefully the twisting of these individual elements will be fresh enough for audiences....personally, I love that approach.
Wonderful post and I really like how you added your parent's perspective to recent entries because it emphasizes just how unique and diverse each of our interests and concepts are for the franchise.
"4. ensure the plot is coherent (and limit the amount of visible holes in it)"
This is the greatest unknown in my mind. As @antovolk pointed out in his post, the leaks had a more significant effect than recent interviews would suggest. I haven't read the leaked script or any of the spoiler discussions in the discussions here. For the portion of people who did, it will have an impact on how they perceive the film (for better or worse). Even for those of us who haven't, it is unusual how we are going into the release without knowing much about the villain. Perhaps Blofeld is the elephant in the room because everyone knows his significance to a plot of this nature, fueling wonder and speculation.
The one thing about Skyfall, whether you liked it or not, it focuses on a very linear concept of M's connection with Bond and Silva. Plot holes are a given in a Bond flick, to varying degrees. Skyfall is a big example of that, but through those issues it maintains a coherent concept. It doesn't change its tone halfway through.
For SPECTRE that is very unclear. The official content sends mixed signals as to the type of film it will be. It seems like they are trying to make this outing one that recalls most, if not all, of the things people expect out of Bond (something that is established to be diverse). I think this approach is high risk, high reward. The Craig era has tried to stay away from being contrived. This is something I think they are aware of, recalling one of the recent interviews in which they said in effect: People know what they are getting in a Bond film and where to expect it. Their job has been to keep those familiar elements, but to implement them in unfamiliar situations.
I think there is a fine line in this kind of approach. While it will attempt to tick all of the right boxes and interest the viewing audience enough to be a box office success, its reception among critics and fans will likely be varied. If it falls off the line, it will miss out on the opportunity to use this material for an instant classic Bond. There is a chance for it to receive universal praise, but only if it can connect all of the dots of the positive qualities it has exhibited into a polished final package.
The risk I see is if it is a film that tries to do too much. How much can they tell in a single story? We don't yet know if this entry is a standalone story. If it is part of a large story arc, will they rely on the past three films to fill in parts of the story or possibly even be only the beginning of a two part entry or middle of a trilogy. Of course if it is part of a broader storyline, it doesn't risk telling too much as much as it does segmenting what is actually told. The trouble there becomes leaving an appropriate cliffhanger as well as leaving enough meat on the bone for an appropriate follow-up.
I think if anything the ones who actually read it won't be affected as much - it's the negative reviews/reactions from attention-seeking sites like Gawker that's the issue.
Regarding SP, I agree with your points definitely. There is certainly a risk in trying to do too much and in trying to box check which could become obvious to the viewer (in a way, the car introduction in the latest trailer does look like a box check to me....with Q standing in the background and all....how many times have we seen that? It doesn't seem as creative as the Q intro scene in SF).
However, I really think a focus on fully formed, real personalities, and characterizations will overcome any other flaws & mistakes. I felt QoS fell a little flat on that front, although it was very good on the plot front. SF excelled here becase it's Mendes specialty, and with the actors they've got for this film, I don't think they can fail to give us something spellbinding on that front.
How it's viewed overall by the general public is a different matter.....that's where I think there may be some disappointments, because the general public has a somewhat rosy memory of SF - it touched something in them and that may have been a one time thing - characters like Blofeld are not that meaningful to them (which is why his importance has to be reestablished in a way), although the hardcore fans will love it.
Which is why it's interesting what Mendes said in his interview with Empire - "context is everything, you won't get [these familiar box-check elements] in the way you think you'll get them". I love this approach personally, whether the general audiences and Bond fans will like it is another question.
"Skyfall times 10!" ?? Oh dear, that doesn't sound good. I've always suspected Spectre just being Skyfall Part 2.
My feeling is, Spectre should and could be the last movie of this era. And it doesn't depend on success or critical acclaim. If it is mediocre then Craig's era is over.
If it is the high point, then they should stop. The fifth movie would be another QOS disaster.
then what quantifies a good movie then, beyond just your own opinion? - because not everyone is going to agree... you've already ruled out IMDB ratings, Box Office Revenue, RottenTomatoes, and Critics - as neither one of those is representative of what films really are.... by what other gauge is there to determine whether a film is good or not?..
CR was more the original.... like Batman Begins, or Terminator, or Godfather - an origins story
SF was TDK...... or T2...... or Godfather 2
SP could likely be TDKR or Godfather 3.... the conclusion
1. Bond decides he can make a break from espionage, ending the film with closure to the character's struggles of the previous films. If Craig wants to come back to do a 5th title, they can use his departure as a plot device for the next film.
2. Bond finds his solace two movies after he was supposed to (I love the Craig era but I had to throw that in there lol), making all future entries in the series available for general standalone missions like many people have been clamoring for. In this case, it does not matter if Craig chooses to return or not since some resolution has been reached.
I'm not going to put too much more thought into it since I don't want to build up too many expectations for when I go to see it.
my guess, is that much like how the events of SF lead into what eventually transpires in SP (with the whole recovery of personal property from the burnt remains of the house).. so will the events of SP lead into Bond 25... meaning, this movie will have an ending as any other - but something will happen in SP that will eventually end up being the catalyst for the next film..
just my take..
All those critics who praised Skyfall will go about Spectre much more levelheaded as this time there is no hype at all surrounding the Bond movie.
Critically acclaimed universally will not happen.
Unless Spectre is in fact as good as FRWL which is highly unlikely.
i admire your absolute confidence..
while i agree that universal praise is something that will not happen, i do believe there will be a middle ground..
and if i may be so primitive to use RottenTomatoes ratings as my barometer.. i believe SP will end up sitting somewhere close to an 85% overall rating.
but like you've said before, who cares - doesn't really reflect the film itself.
I'm 100% in agreement with you @Mansfield. They've likely set it up nicely so that they can go any route they want depending on the resolution to several possible issues (including Studio/DC/Mendes etc. etc).
Even Bale and Nolan could have come back after TDKR if you think about it....and the rumour was there for a while.
:) yes, stick it to me, I have earned it :))
You made me re-read that my original statements about critics, IMDB and RT. I realise I overdid it somewhat. Therefore I apologise.
Those numbers just don't do anything for me. I can't comprehend for example why OHMSS and QOS get the same rating on IMDB, when those two movies are lightyears apart.
Rotten Tomatoes is in fact a more helpful site.
As for guessing where SP will end up on RT and IMDB I am certain it will surpass CR on IMDB and get somewhere in the vicinity of 8.3 which will make it the best rated Bond there, because there will be thousands of people who will give it a 10 just as a principle.
On RT it will top SF easily too and will end up the best rated Bond too.
And I don't have to see SP to know that.
that does annoy me as well... i try to be honest in my film assessments, and it bugs to see people 10 vote a film - either "just because" or to "combat trolling" or for whatever other flippant reason.. doing that is just as bad as trolling a good movie by giving it a 1, because of fanboys... so i hear what you mean.... i thought that would've been the case for SF though - i think at the time of release, it was right around 8.1 - 8.0... but since it has dropped to 7.8
it'll be hard to top the critical praise that both CR and SF got.. which is why i honestly feel that SP may be a little less.... but we shall see.