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
AVTAK borrows from GF, TSWLM is a rerun of YOLT, MR does it again.
So yes, definitely, nearly everything in life has been done somewhere before. The trick imho is to do it better. That's what really takes effort and skill.
Jackson copied Brown, but he improved on it. Timberlake and numerous others copy Jackson, but can't hold a candle to him, imho.
At minimum, the PTS and the Tangier sequence are new. They don't remind me of any sequences in any other Bond film.
SP recycled arguably more than any previous Bond film. It recycles so much that you can attribute almost every part of the film to something that has come before. Probably the only truly unique thing it has to its name is the opening tracking shot, which is quite innovative. Otherwise, there is no creativity to anything it does.
The other films at least are willing to do some things that are unique, even if the plotlines are recycled. AVTAK has a steeplechase, two unique car chases, a brutal massacre, a blimp, a fight on the Golden Gate bridge, a henchwoman with super strength, a psychotic 'physiological freak', among other things. Those are things no other Bond movie has. Meanwhile TND has a unique focus on the media, an inventive car chase, an interesting setup for the sacrificial Bond girl, an action Bond girl who was unprecedented at the time, and Dr. Kaufman. What does SP have? As far as I can see, nothing much.
I'm looking forward to B25 for redemption.
Don't get me wrong. I don't mind SP. I just don't rank it as a classic. Tolerable and run of the mill to me, but not upper tier.
I suspect those who are clamouring for a quicker B25 release (myself included) may be ones who weren't so impressed with SP, and are still waiting to get our 'Bond fix' that was denied us in full glory in 2015.
I'm sorry. I'm all for criticising SP where it's due but your argument is without any logic.
You dismiss SP as being shockingly derivative then just go on to list unique attributes from two other films to prove your point that they aren't.
SP has an original scenario with MI6 being taken over and a traitor at the top of the service, the Bond girl is the daughter of a villain - something we have never seen before, there is a unique car chase, there's a plane crash sequence, there's the villain's unique personal connection to Bond. I could go on just stating random facts that make SP 'unique' but that would be without merit, rather like your argument.
I mean how the hell is 'Dr Kaufman' so groundbreakingly unique?
He's a villain - we've had a few of those.
He's a Dr - see DN.
He has a moustache - Oddjob, Mr Osato, Chang.
Presume you consider the gadget car lacking in creativity and an example of recycling in SP but in TND it's the epitome of originality?
By all means criticise but try and cobble together a coherent argument at least.
My coherent argument is that I enjoy the Hell out of TND.
That is all. :D
OK, OK. What's going on? What's with all the recent aggression I'm getting from you lately, @TheWizardOfIce? Seriously? I mean, what did I even do? I mean that more out of curiosity than anything else. If it's because my posts make me seem like I have a below-average IQ or something you can at least not be so hostile.
The reason I delved into AVTAK and TND in such - as you see it - 'non-sequitur' fashion, was just because those were two films mentioned in the quoted post as being derivative. I didn't agree that they were quite as derivative as SP so I laid examples of areas of uniqueness in both as means of supporting those two films.
If you want me to write an essay on the topic then I will be pleased to do so in order for my post to have the necessary coherence to satisfy your standards.
SP has almost no identity of its own, and this is because the film is actively trying to evoke prior Bond themes in nearly everything it does. For example the Day of the Dead is trying to evoke themes of previous street parades like the Junkanoo and the Christmas parade. And onto the examples you have mentioned. MI6's state of affairs are ripped straight from Skyfall, and they don't even try to hide it. The constant jibes of MI6 being useless are found in both movies. This is again the case with two other examples of yours - which I can't quite tell if you mean legitimately or not - the car chase, which is basically the GF car chase with a bit of ill humour thrown in, and the crash sequence, which was done previously in GE and to a lesser extent LALD (but in an admittedly different vein).
So the two examples left of yours are the two scenarios wherein the Bond girl is the daughter of a villain, and that the villain has a unique connection to Bond. I could argue that both scenarios are thematically similar to previous scenarios (setup to relationship with Madeleine is arguably similar to Kara's, and how many villains have had a personal connection to Bond LTK onwards?) but technically it is all grasping at the straws. You are totally correct that these are innovations in the Bond canon, and I know when I am beaten.
But the thing here is that nowhere in SP (after the PTS) did I at least think to myself "wow, that was original", or "wow, that's something I wasn't expecting". Everything in SP you can predict or see coming from a mile away, and that takes away from the enjoyment of the film. They get on a train. You know there will be a train fight. Madeleine leaves Bond. You know she will be kidnapped. C appears. You know he is a villain. All those gadgets in the car. You can predict immediately that they will hilariously (or, rather, not hilariously at all) fail. What is the enjoyment out of seeing a movie for which every beat in the story you can predict?
There was no surprise in SP. And maybe you think that this sort of thing has happened before. But it was never of this magnitude, and I did believe in my previous post that that went without saying because it is simply so obvious to me. Every other Bond film made clear innovations in some areas. TND probably did the least next to SP, but it still did far more.
First I will defend the scene with Dr. Kaufman. OK ha-ha you're right, we've had doctors before, and yes he has a moustache. Wow, surely this scene can't be deemed to be original by any standards. You must be joking? Name a character that is similar to Dr. Kaufman? His intent to kill Bond and make it look like a murder-suicide does scream Red Grant, but the two characters are entirely dissimilar. But the character wasn't what I meant, it was the sole scene featuring him. Bond has mourned lovers before, but at that time, never a past conquest, for whose death Bond appears to feel at least partly responsible for. This scene, including the subsequent confrontation with and killing of Dr. Kaufman is something that is not necessarily 'groundbreakingly unique' (which I never said) but stands on its own.
And now the car chase. Yes it is a gadget car chase. But what makes this one unique compared to the SP one is that Bond, firstly, isn't even at the wheel, and secondly, its basic premise is something that clearly took creativity to think of. SP's premise did not take creativity to think of and Bond deploys his gadgets in the most formulaic way possible, by flicking switches, as ripped from GF. I am not claiming TND's is the 'epitome of creativity' but the TND car chase has a sense of identity that SP's does not.
Given that it is the longest Bond film, and for that matter beating out TND in that respect by about 40 minutes, you would think that the film might offer more creative ideas instead of devolving into so much cliche. And indeed that is the problem with SP. I can't have been the only one groaning when SP ended on the most cliche finale ever (die saving the girl or live with the regret, mwahahahahahaha). There is just less and less thought being put into the movie as it goes on, which is like quite a few others, but by the end, it seems the writers just switched their brains off. It just seemed to want to walk founded territory way too often, and in the wake of SF it didn't help at all.
That is what I am arguing, that SP is far more derivative than anything that came before it, and that is my reasoning.
I cannot disagree here.
But isn't that always gonna be the case?
Seriously. And being as ancient as I am, I'm pretty much okay with it.
Call me Tropey.
:))
Hear, hear. You took the words right off of my keyboard.
Brevity being the soul of wit...
Wasn't trying to be witty, was trying to form a cohesive argument, but thanks for the snark, @Perilagu_Khan, I see we're already the best of friends!
Brevity being the soul of wit...
[/quote]
Wasn't trying to be witty, was trying to form a cohesive argument, but thanks for the snark, @Perilagu_Khan, I see we're already the best of friends![/quote]
Take it as constructive criticism. Nobody looks at a message board to read a dissertation.
They CAN be quite interesting though. Just sayin'.
Couldn't have said it better. Yes Bond films have always recyceled ideas, not always in a very good way. But Spectre was the first film where I had the impression that they just intended to copy older Bond sequeneces. I mean often Bond films have some kind of similarity but I don't think that filmmakers in 1977 said: OK let's give the viewers a copy of YOLT and just don't even hide our intention. At least TSWLM or AVTAK - even though these films recyceled heavily from older Bond films - brought these ideas into a new context, they invented new and interesting characters (Jaws, Mayday, Zorin) and subplots. They chose different and beautifull locations, unique set pieces (lisparus, Stromberg's underwater lair, the mine) and invented memorable action sequneces (parachute, Lotus submarine, horse chase, Golden Gate fight). What except for the PTS is really memorable in Spectre?
It's as true for SF as for SP.
And the Scotland stuff is the only thing that is truly good in SF it saves the movie from being a total mess.
Agreession? You need to toughen up old son and not take things so personally. If you post drivel I'll tell you about it and I went pretty easy on you back there.
I agree with you that SP is not very original and a crushing disappointment but you can't just cherry pick a random scene like Dr Kaufman as evidence that other Bond films are creative.
I can just totally reverse your argument by saying we have never seen a scene where the Bond girl leaves Bond before but the use of the DB5 in TND is shockingly unoriginal.
I love this line 'Bond deploys his gadgets in the most formulaic way possible, by flicking switches'!!!
How is he supposed to deploy his gadgets exactly? By using The Force? Via an anal probe and he clenches once for flamethrowers, twice for ejector seat?
But TND is oh so original because Bond flicks switches on his phone see? It's like totally creative. And it's in a car park not on the street so it's even more original. Well that might be true but which is more Bondian - driving round Brent Cross shopping centre looking for the exit like a gormless middle class mother in her Chelsea tractor with the kids screaming in the back or power sliding past St Peters?
The SP gadget car chase is actually the most original twist on that particular part of the formula since the Lotus blowing up and Bond being forced into a 2CV in FYEO as half the gadgets don't work. Do I think it's a great action sequence? Not really but at least it tries to something slightly different compared to the Brosnan films repetitive gadget chases where Bond deployed his gadgets 'in the most formulaic way, by flicking switches' (TND and a bit of TWINE excepted obviously).
I'm not disagreeing with you that large swathes of SP weren't recycled from other Bond films but give me a film since the end of the 60s that hasn't in some way? Just quoting original moments from other films your point does not prove as all the films have individual original moments - even SP.
But as @Perilagu_khan quite rightly states 'brevity is the soul of wit' and as I'm far wittier than you I guess I should not really carry on any further.
YES!!!!! Nice to see some love for LIVE WIRE! Great comparison. I still have yet to get SPECTRE on blu-ray or DVD. This is the longest I've gone without buying a new Bond film upon it's home video release since AVTAK. My birthday is coming up so I'm hoping to get it then.
That being said, I still give it a fairly solid ranking- around 11 or 12 somewhere in the middle.
The thing you need to realise is that when I write on these forums I am not trying to write for the Pulitzer. That's why all my posts are so awful and badly written, it's because I don't put too much thought into them. You can say my posts are terrible all you want. They are. I'm just here to discuss my opinions with others. I'm sorry if my posts are so badly written that they somehow register as blatantly offensive to your eyes.
Whether or not you see it, your comments towards me are easily read as condescending. Telling me that Dr. Kaufman is unoriginal because he is a doctor, he has a moustache, and is a villain, and then telling me to try and cobble together an argument. It does not help that @Perilagu_khan has to quote you and write 'hear hear' in a completely unappreciated sideways jibe.
I said 'by flicking switches, as ripped from GF', with 'as ripped from GF' being the critical clause which you have so conveniently omitted in your post. Bond flicking the switches in SP is meant to evoke memories of the original GF car chase by the similarity of the activation of the car's gadgets. That's why it does not feel original, because it piggy backs on something that came before it so readily. TND's car chase does not do that - there is not one Bond film where you can immediately say 'TND's car chase comes from there'.
You are clearly misreading and or misinterpreting me. I did not say TND's was 'oh so original' I said it was more original and that it stood on its own. In fact, I clearly said that TND was the second most derivative next to SP, so cut it out with making me look like I tried to say it was the most original ever.
And you are flat out wrong by the way regarding a Bond girl leaving Bond (Camille...) But that is not important.
Perhaps in future you can just turn the other cheek and avoid my posts because they're just not going to work for you. Because - and I would like to know - why is it such a big problem for you that you have to actively go out of your way to try and viciously scrutinise me? Can't you do it nicely?
A train fight in Spectre is derivative. Did anyone say that about TSWLM or LALD? If we rule out each mode of transport or each fight scene/type then there will soon be little left to be filmed.
I think parts of Spectre (the recycled parts) were intended as homages. I think some people find them to be unsuccessful. I don't find them that bothersome. In DAD the homages were much more obvious and clunky. But I can understand that they might seem a repetition of previous Bond events.
However, a complete rerun of an entire story/plot seems to me to be more derivative and less entertaining. Wouldn't it seem odd if this year they remade Casino Royale or Skyfall? In TSWLM I think the rerun works better in that YOLT isn't the greatest Bond so they were able to produce something a step up, but then the story comes out again in MR.
Compared to that sort of rehash I don't mind the Spectre nods, though I wouldn't want them to keep doing that.
I also think that we are looking at the Bond movies from a different perspective to most people. We are Bond maniacs, and spend (too) much time analysing the movies. Ordinary cinema goers probably aren't going to notice or care about nods and reruns.
The spy genre (and other genres for that matter) have evolved, Bond more than most primarily due to the Craig era itself, ironically.
I believe films like the Austin Powers trilogy a while back, Kingsman & Spy most recently, and even EON's own DAD have made viewers less open to blatant tributes. DAD is mainly ridiculed these days on account of it (and the way it was done), and EON itself poked fun at their own legendary tropes during the early Craig days ("Not exactly Christmas", "Do I look like I give a damn!" etc.)
So I think viewers these days are less sympathetic to things that they could have been more open to during the early Brosnan era for instance (pre-Powers) like TND.
That's my take on why SP's tropes didn't go down well with some (myself included) and seemed too predictable & derivative, even if they actually weren't.
I think you are right and probably opinions will always vary on that forever. Of course most Bond fans have got used to the problems that other films have. Spectre is relatively new and certainly expectations on it had been higher so that we complain about things that we actually don't care for in other Bond films.
Having that in mind I still don't like Spectre very much :-)