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
Plenty of bad ass females out there who would tear most of us a new one.
PS women tend to handle pain much better
I don't doubt it. Just that for every strong female, there is a stronger male. A higher ceiling for males if you will.
Take your meds people :))
They'll have to wait a while before doing it otherwise it will just be too similar, not that this has stopped them before mind you.
You should work in recruitment.
I disagree. The leaks didn't have anything to do with that.
I never read the leaks, but right from the film's announcement I was very confident Waltz was playing Blofeld. It seemed pretty obvious that a film named SPECTRE would feature Blofeld and Waltz seemed a great choice for the role. You don't really need a leaked script to figure it out.
I tend to agree. They made it pretty obvious, but just didn't state it explicitly. I think they wanted the 'Blofeld' discussion to take place, and the name 'Spectre' is more proof of this. I'd hazard the majority of audience members would either not know Blofeld, or not really care. We like to think he's on a par with the Joker, but he isn't. They needed the press surrounding 'is he, isn't he?' to remind many viewers of his existence and relevance to the canon. The idea of a mere Blofeld twist would only resonate perfectly with the fans, hence the brother angle functioning as the twist for the general audience.
Yes and she is absolutely stunning.
Exactly.
Precisely. It all seems pretty obvious to us Bond fans, but I was surprised when I told my friends "I bet Waltz is Blofeld" and they didn't know what on earth I was talking about. We tend to forget how ordinary cinema-goers see things.
PS: For anyone interested, I had to say "You know, the bald one with the cat... The one Dr Evil parodies" to get a response like "ah, it does ring a bell"...
And yes Craig has fully arrived as Bond. He plays the part so well in this movie.Relaxed, at ease and dangerous as ever.
All the casting works real well I think. SP is great Bond adventure!
Hope it makes 2 billion at box office.
At some point I might nit-pick a few things, but more along lines of what could have made it even better.
I am really quite satisfied with this entry and would like Eon to get cracking on next film asap.
Suffering withdrawal. Haven't seen movie since Friday. Hope to squeeze in Tue and Wed viewings
===
A general observation here, regarding the brother thing. I don't find the childhood connection to be very interesting and based on the film,neither does Bond, however I think it's important not to overstate it.
They were not brothers. Not even foster brothers.
Bond was raised by his actual parents until they died in the climbing accident, and then his aunt took over his upbringing age 12.
She turned him over for a brief time to the great Hannes Oberhauser, who played father figure and mentor to the young Bond for a short time.
Poor Hannes happened to have older son Franz, who turned out to be very bad seed.
Can't blame Hannes for mentoring the young Bond considering what a blight on humanity his son turned out to be.
Perhaps it's akin to how some of you feel about SF. Even though it's a well made film, there are some crucial flaws/lapses in logic that just proved to be too much for you to take. I can easily look past the flaws of SF because I'm enjoying myself immensely but with SP I find myself far less forgiving. The childhood connection, the C subplot, awkward references to the past, trying too hard to tie all the films together and the ending in London all take their toll on me. The film just kind of collapses into itself.
Also, I freely admit my bias. I was annoyed that we had to wait a year to accommodate Mendes. I was never big on the idea of bringing Blofeld or SPECTRE back in the first place. When the trailer hinted at Bond having a personal connection to the villain, my heart sank. So, while I tried to enter the theater with an open mind, in some respects the damage had already been done. Shame.
Perhaps my perspective could change over time. I suppose it will depend on if DC does another one or not. Speaking of Craig, last night I got the feeling (for the first time in his tenure) that he was really trying to channel his inner Connery and sometimes Moore during this film. It felt a little inauthentic. I don't know. There is certainly something different about his performance in SP but it's been hard to put my finger on exactly what it is.
Interesting article. And I agree 100%
good article @dragonsky they should have left whites description of franz oberhouser's past in the leagions from the earlier draft intact. that way it would have made sense to the general public more.
This.
SP and SF both have similar irritations regarding Bond canon and plot sink holes. SP however has flair, balls and real BOND appeal.
This, too (though I've still seen SP only once and was too excited to notice much wrong with it). Where's that 'Like' button?
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109?page=3
I fully agree @pachazo. It's not sitting well with me either. He doesn't do glib as well as the Moore/Connery, and so there is a Brosnan 'me too' element to it from my perspective as well. He is much better when he's doing what he does best, which is giving his authentic Bondian representation (like in the torture scenes and in the one-on-one with Madeleine).
I found the seduction of Lucia a little forced (literally) and a bit disturbing first time around to be honest.....nothing like Moore's finesse with Corinne in MR. Hopefully I have a better impression on my highly anticipated 2nd viewing tomorrow.
Hey! It's great to see people that fell like I do! With all the "This was Craig's best showing as Bond!!!" comments I thought I was losing my mind :D
You mention Moore and Corinne. Do you mean the way he abandoned her to her fate?
No, @Scaramanga12, I'm referring to the way he seduced her in her bedroom in MR after getting the requisite information. That was smoother than silk. Same went for that Sophia Loren lookalike in TSWLM ("Well, I had lunch.....but I seemed to have missed dessert"]). I found the Lucia one a little bit heavy handed to be honest, but only in comparison to Moore's silky moves.
I agree that Bond was far more considerate of his conquest after sex in SP than he was in MR.
Some good points made there.
"The scene where Oberhauser finally says the name Ernst Stavro Blofeld proceeds in almost exactly the same way. Bond just stares back at him because there’s no reason he would care if Oberhauser changed his name to Blofeld, because Daniel Craig’s Bond has never met Blofeld. Both the Spectre and Into Darkness twists only make sense on a metatextual level. Within the narrative, they’re totally worthless. And yet they are the focal points of all the energy within these movies; energy that builds to revelations that have no meaning to any of the characters, and are only of interest to a small percentage of the audience that knows enough about the property to guess what’s being hinted at hours (if not weeks or months) ago."
*sigh*
agreed with @mnhettia and i want that back too. To go further,