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
Absolutely.
Spectre really wanted to try to be everything in all directions and it sort of was. But it never nailed down either the humor nor the serious.
Perhaps advertising Craig being in a funny-Bond film from the start, would'nt have been good for marketing.
Plot mostly is at fault. It's a well-expected twist you can't take seriously. Had it been something good, perhaps the cryptic nature of the trailer would've been better appreciated.
The teaser trailer got our attention. That was the point. It's a teaser trailer. The full trailers captured I believe the mood and tone of the film. The only difference is that the trailers were actually entertaining.
The trailors do provide a consistant tone and give the impression of SF2 in terms of the character of Bond and the overall feel. Plus the visual feel of all the scenes look to be spot on. So the trailers do allow us to apply a filter to the movie and see what worked and IMHO, not ony the things that didn't but what actually spoiled it and tried to spoil the other movies. (When I watch SF now, I have to pretend SP does not exist)
PS does Mendes need to re-record his SF commentary as he mentions that the story is about personal revenge etc but no mention that the bad guy was part of a bigger pitcure and under orders from Spectre. What a mess SP has left us
Luckily it turned out SP is nothing like SF.
+1
I agree.
For Christ's sake, it's a movie where Bond has to stop people from blowing up a stadium of thousands, faces an organization that he has been seeing signs of for years as they killed, terrorized, extorted and manipulated their way to power, reunites with an old enemy who he makes peace with before the man gives himself mercy as the end of a gun barrel, where he faces a villain that wants to burn his life down and who nearly tortures his brains out and almost kills him his friend by blowing up the old building he used to work in as a spy while it's rigged for demolition. Add to that Hinx gouging a man's eyes out, the innocents that accidentally die in Mexico City, the hits on Lucia's life, Madeleine's traumatic and complicated past, how Blofeld orchestrates terrorism to get nations on the Nine Eyes side, and all the sick stuff SPECTRE are involved in (controlling HIV vaccines, exploiting women as sex slaves in leisure markets) and this is not a light film. Far from it.
It's dark, ominous, haunting, dangerous. Yes, we get a moment where an Italian guy is pushed in his car by Bond's Aston and Q says some funny things about his cats, but we also have Bond calling Vesper "Miss Stephanie Broadchest" in CR, Bond and Mathis running a two man stand up show for Fields in QoS and Bond showing off for Moneypenny in amusing ways in SF, but all these films are very earnest, and their contents show that, despite these light moments that come around once in a while.
In conclusion:
(Overarching plots about terrorism, extortion, manipulation by villains) + (mild humor told dryly)= The Craig era
(Heavy use of frivolity and eye-brow raising) + (mild to small earnestness)= The Moore era
The two don't exactly equate, especially when SP is somehow argued to be the Moore Bond film of the Craig era. It's far closer to a Young movie than a Gilbert or Hamilton.
All of the Craig films are very inherently serious and often deal with complex and pressing real world threats that aren't at all frivolous. Terrorism, ecological control of resources, the death of spy craft/destruction of privacy and the use of terrorism to create global control? Not exactly Benny Hill.
Don't get me wrong, I like Dalton, Brosnan and Craig when they are doing what they do best, but attempting to pull off the one liners is not their forte. Even Bruce Willis (the best since Moore imho) and Arnie did a far better job of it. This is not just an SP criticism mind you. The horrendous 'Circle of Life' quip in SF was the first sign of it - not only was the line bad but Craig's delivery of it was awful to me. It's just that SP's lighter concept and more derivative elements (in the unexciting action sequences & convoluted plot) in combination with the one liners made me think of a poor man's Moore. SF had more charismatic performances (particularly from Bardem, Dench and Marlohe) which focused my attention.
My advice for Craig if he returns is this. Don't do 'glib'. Focus on 'intense' or 'sarcastic'. It's where you're strongest.
By following the formula the scripts of these films also saddle their very different and uniquely skilled actors with doing or saying things that really don't suit them, all because they are expected to do it as Sean did, or amp up one of those elements of his performance. Moore couldn't have fought Grant like Sean, Sean couldn't have gotten into a clown suit and credibly created the tension Moore does (somehow), Timothy couldn't carry the charm of Pierce, Pierce couldn't display the high intensity and anger of Timothy, and Daniel can't wink at the camera and do wit outside of his dry wheelhouse.
Each Bond and Bond actor is different, so I think the scripts, writers and producers should realize the strengths each man has and play to those instead of trying to make them into something they're not. It's why CR and QoS really work, as they are films where Dan does what he does best, the blunt instrument with heavy drama. SF and SP still have that, but the feeling is there that Dan was being pushed to do more wit that he was comfortable with, and in places it shows. I personally think SP is a big step up from SF in this way, however, as nothing in the former is as cringey as "put it on red"/"circle of life" in the latter.
When you think about it, Moore is the only Bond actor that was allowed to play always to his strengths, for better or worse. In YOLT Sean was given stuff to do as Bond you could see he wasn't down with (Hey Sean, in this next scene you're going to play a Japanese fisherman, okay?), Timothy (like Dan now) experienced light moments and one-liners being forced on him, and Pierce could play what he was dictated to by the script most of the time, but in moments one-liners didn't work and on top of that, he deserved a hell of a lot more material-wise. In Moore's case the scripts suited his strengths and were written very much for him, never giving him stuff he couldn't pull off.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but that's how I stand now on all this.
SP is the one Craig film that has brought back pure entertainment and fun to Bond.
After my third watch I was more or less able to recite the whole dialogue it is so memorable and well written.
And there are no such utterly cringe-worthy things like the rat speech or mommy phrases in SF.
All the actors since then have played to certain aspects of Connery's original that suit them best. I personally like Moore's interpretation 2nd best, and others have different opinions. The reason Moore was best with the one liners is because that's just how he is in real life. His wit is similar to what he played to as Bond, and it's in most of his other film performances as well. So it is entirely natural. Unfortunately, it also became a huge part of the filmic Bond persona (since Connery and Moore combined had a near 25 year run) and in a way has 'burdened' the actors since, who aren't quite as comfortable with it as they were.
So yes, I agree that the script must suit the actor's strength. To an extent, that is why I would prefer a new actor in the role sooner rather than later and why I'm leaning towards Hiddleston. It's because I think he could pull off the lighter touch convincingly, and I really miss that these days (I've enjoyed Craig's intensity, but think it's time for a change).
@bondjames, I am often haunted by the image of Sean playing out Tracy's death scene. It pains me we didn't get it, but George did immaculately too (though many would never give him the credit). Sean just has that massive range, and I'd do anything to see him throw his hat to Moneypenny (instant tears) or react to Tracy's death. We could be talking about that as his greatest performance if it went down as planned.
You have a point about Connery and Moore. Because George gets lost in the shuffle, it's like Connery and Moore were the first two Bonds, and because of that there's the expectation that all the rest after them have to be them, especially the former.
It'll be interesting to see what post-Craig Bond reverts back to. I personally think we'll see:
*Standalone missions/loose continuity with a more blank slate Bond you get to know as the film plays.
*Return to the 60s way of doing things with a better balance in wit and earnestness, with more escapism. I'd also like to see a modern Bond film that takes place in one location, with set design that evokes Adam. And of course, we need a good replacement for Barry if we can't have Arnold back.
If we can get films like DN and FRWL again, I'd be okay with some formula coming back, as long as Bond was kept a fascinating study and presence, the gadgets used weren't too out there and the film delivered interesting spy thriller content that didn't parody itself. I just don't look forward to a time when Dan isn't Bond; I guess I've got attached. Ever since I've been a serious fan he's been Bond, so I feel that a big withdrawal will come down the line as I deal with his departure, whenever it comes.
It's all down to casting, casting, casting. EON have to get a good actor to follow Dan up to credibly shoulder the weight of whatever tone they want to explore in the movies next. I figure that after a lot more continuity focused Bond films they'll want to have a return to more standalone films next that won't back them into such difficult corners where they feel forced to follow up the last film with another interconnected story (CR-QoS, SF-SP). I think that will end up giving them a lot more freedom and ability to just make the current movie the best product possible, instead of worrying how that story has to carry into the next one.
That Spectre trailer should have had the following Health Warning at the beginning:
Contents may differ from this trailer due to settling...
A compromise between both approaches will probably, or hopefully, come next. A better approach to story with not as much a need to be connected with a more 60s style balance in all the Bond elements with the restraint and good sense of the Craig era in not taking any of those elements too far. Play to the Bond actor's strengths, and try to mix up and freshen the movies by telling stories we haven't seen for a long, long time while exploring new things. Give us films that take place at one major location, or use just one central Bond girl or a female villain. Even explore more untouched Fleming, etc.
Exactly. Outside of a moment or two in the car chase in Rome, I wouldn't say it's a Moore style film.
Maybe some are painting Spectre with the brush of the Heineken promotional tie in ad? That felt the most like Craig channeling his inner Moore.
The dialogue is excellent. I don't think the witty humour will ever match GF and TB again, but humour and plot aside the script is fine
The use of humour in a Bond movie is crucial for individual fans to decide if they actually like/enjoy the film. As with music, we all have different tastes so to have a debate on that is pretty meaningless but we can discuss context and what humour brings to the movie.
We are drifting here but, imagine if the humour had been put into the trailers, how different our expectations would have been - higher for some, lower for others.
Personally, when I pay to see a new Bond movie, I look forward to experiencing many emotions but joy/laughter is very low on the list. I was so, so looking forward to SP and was loving it up to one point. It was in the PTS when Bond falls through the roof onto the sofa. At that point , I thought "uh-oh".
Of all the types of humour, for me, the visual gags can be the worst, (is it a childish type of humour? pie in the face, clown humour?), especially when badly timed within the context of the movie. What exact emotions is the Director trying to get the audience to feel at that time?
By contrast, humour via dialogue can be great but, IMHO, the pun is the lowest form. I can buy a copy of The Sun, Star etc almost everyday and find a pun in the headline. This, to me, sums up how lowbrow a pun is and it really is not clever.
I'm biased as dry, sarcasm is my type of humour but it can also perform multiple roles. So, for example, in SF, when Bond says "Not exactly Christmas", its a great line IMHO as its funny (not ha-ha but it is nice and dry), it shows Bond's frame of mind at that point in the movie, it expresseses the fact that he had higher expectations (and, reflects the audiences, sending us a message of the type of adventure we are about to get), it tells us that Bond is relaxed enought with Q (even though they have only just met) to be sarcastic about the services Q branch are offering.
Q replies with the "exploiding pen" comment. By also using sarcasm, he is telling Bond (and us) that they share a common sense of humour (contrast that with Cleese) and that this type of banter is acceptable to him so they already have a connection. Plus, it references a previous Bond movie which is fun for us fans.
Just to balance, even with SF, I wince slighly with the humour there. Bond jokes about wing mirrors 20-30 seconds after seeing his colleague shot and bleeding to death. It cheapens/undermines the moment IMHO. Plus the "health and safety" line on the tube. I would have had Bond punch through the glass (showing how determined he was ), cut his hand and open the door but thats just me.
Sorry for blabbing, had a few beers :-)
Roger Moore territory examples include the hilarious Italian man singing, who then has an airbag go off in his face, to gales of laughter; the New York New York 'gag'; bond shagging sciarra after a brief poorly scripted tit for tat seduction; the q DNA scanner....
Spectre isn't terrible. There are some good lines
"Can't u see I'm grieving?"
"No"
I love for example
But it's biggest crime is it's largely, well, boring which is criminal given the talent working on it.
Just my twopenneth
no wonder they wanted to close the 00 section with this guy in charge.