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 is too short (potential spoilers)
Just to get the ball rolling on this topic, my point is this.
People have made much about the fact that the running time for the film was long at 150 mins or so.
Also, those who have seen the film and are critical of it say that the relationships between the key characters progress too quickly and without full enough explanation, that some of the plot points are too contrived in order to drive the story on, and that the main plot 'maguffins' aren't compelling enough because we don't have long enough to understand their significance.
So, if you look at it my way, the story we see in 150 minutes in a single film should have been TWO films, the first called SPECTRE and the second called NINE-EYES, which would have provided 4 hours to build the necessary characterisations, relationships and let the plot unfold at a more natural pace.
I think the producers bottled it, for fear Mendes and Craig wouldn't stay the course.
People have made much about the fact that the running time for the film was long at 150 mins or so.
Also, those who have seen the film and are critical of it say that the relationships between the key characters progress too quickly and without full enough explanation, that some of the plot points are too contrived in order to drive the story on, and that the main plot 'maguffins' aren't compelling enough because we don't have long enough to understand their significance.
So, if you look at it my way, the story we see in 150 minutes in a single film should have been TWO films, the first called SPECTRE and the second called NINE-EYES, which would have provided 4 hours to build the necessary characterisations, relationships and let the plot unfold at a more natural pace.
I think the producers bottled it, for fear Mendes and Craig wouldn't stay the course.
^ 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
The film tried to do way too much. Why not have one really good finale instead of two rather poor ones?
Vespa Lynd was and remains the only convincing romantic relationship in the Craig era. That's probably the way it should be tbh.
I personally found the pacing of the film quite odd. As with Skyfall I once again felt that Mendes just isn't very good at action or suspense.
Having said that, overall, I think this is a better movie than SF. It's a reasonable mid ranker for me. I'd rank it third in the Craig era.
So by process of deduction you rate QOS higher than both SF and SP? (I seriously hope not higher than CR also?)
I find this curious because although SF and SP are both flawed QOS is just as guilty at being poorly written (although at least QOS has a genuine excuse in this regard).
Might I enquire as to your reasoning?
Did people genuinely fall asleep, or is that bollocks?
QoS was personally the most enjoyable Bond cinema experience I'd had since TLD. While flawed, I felt that in spirit it was much closer to the early Bonds than all the Brosnan films and even the overlong CR. The pacing seemed about right for me. Despite being a fast paced movie I actually found the dramatic scenes and the dialogue a lot more satisfying than most other recent Bonds - the meeting with Mathis, Greene's party, Felix in the bar and on the plane, the chat in the cavern with Camille etc. And for me, the Tosca sequence is probably the best in a Bond movie since TLD.
QOS definitely suffers from a glut of superfluous action sequences (particualrly the boat and plane sequences). Having said that, I personally think the car chase and Sienna chase are pretty good. It also has a decent little fight scene in Haiti.
Although it seems to be received wisdom that QOS is profoundly flawed in terms of plot and script, I don't buy this. The plot is perfectly serviceable IMO, unlike in SF.
I think Arnold also really hit his stride during the Craig era. CR and QoS are the best Bond scores since Barry.
Add to this that Craig is still on the same excellent form that he showed in CR, great cinematography, the clear revenge element, better than usual production design, a satisfying baddy base denouement and its a very solid entry. I even think Mathieu Maleric as Greene is really good.
100% honestly, there were two people asleep, only a few seats away from me. The reason i saw them is because one of them was snoring a bit. I figured he was taking the piss out of the film, looked over to see who it was and he and his female accomplice were both fast asleep.
What a tool.
I can't agree that the dramatic scenes were satisfying in QOS. The film had plenty of potential but sacrificed drama and character for, as you state, superfluous action scenes.
The Mr White interrogation scene should be good but just as I'm settling down to enjoy it it's over within about 2 minutes of talking and we're thrust into another action scene. And this occurs repeatedly throughout the film.
CR gets the balance of action and drama just right, although of course it is rather unbalanced with an action heavy first half before we get to to the actual plot of the book. That said the airport sequence is also largely superfluous as an action scene but CR comes closest for me to the balance achieved by OHMSS which is pretty much action free for the first half before layering it on in spades in the second half.
For me the action in SF really isn't up to scratch for a Bond film. Apart from the PTS there isn't a lot to get excited about. SP does better in this regard and gets close to the CR/OHMSS balance of drama/action.
QOS is just too breathless and action packed to give the good dramatic scenes (and it does have lots of good scenes) a chance to breath at all so, flawed as all the last 3 Craig films are, I would still have QOS bottom. Need to see SP a few more times to decide if it's better than SF but CR still indubitably Craig's best.
There has been plenty of excellent mass-market 3-hour films on the past - Titanic, JFK, the Hobbit films etc.
How does the finished film compare to the leaked script?? Are any notable scenes absent from the finished product?
The airport chase sequence in CR always felt totally superfluous to me, although I realise it plays a convoluted role in the plot. At least the pointless action in QOS is over relatively quickly. The Miami airport section of CR feels like it goes on for 20-30 minutes.
I'm not going to die in a ditch for QOS though. I just think it's an underrated Bond film and definitely better than SF. While I appreciate CR and think it's a really good entry I might be more inclined to actually watch QOS - flawed as it is, it contains more elements that I find genuinely enjoyable than CR.
As someone who detested the Brosnan era in pretty much every conceivable way, the arrival of DC offered a way back into a series that I felt I might have fallen out of love with permanently. Craig has failed to deliver on his early promise IMO, but he's still a good Bond. And I think in terms of his performance I would agree that CR remains his best film.
There were plans (or rumours?) to make two back-to-back films but Craig said no. He felt it would be too hard to make. That would be a 13/14 months filming schedule?! That's pretty long! Craig would have no social life for a year or more. Craig would never agree to that. He'd be completely exhausted.
Maybe they had been up all the previous night making sweet luuurve. In which case you would fall asleep watching any film.
Only ever once nodded off, it was a Harry potter film. It wasn't the film's fault, I was just knackered from a hard day...doing something I've long forgotten
This 'falling asleep in cinemas' sounds like an urban myth to me. ;)
Have genuinely only done it once. Went for a second viewing of The Phantom Menace as I was convinced it couldn't be as bad as I thought.
It was.
I dropped off during one of the interminable trade dispute scenes. Imagine my disappointment when I woke up and realised I'd only been out for about 10 minutes.
I didn't make the same mistake with episodes 2 & 3. One viewing was more than enough!
You should go to the cinema with my father. I swear the guy has got a medical condition that causes him to pass out at the movies. I can think of 4 movies, from the top of my head, that my father has fallen asleep in.
waits to catch them on bluray. :)
2 people actually fell asleep in my second viewing and it was a 18:30 showing.