SPECTRE: What would you have done differently?

1111214161721

Comments

  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    GBF wrote: »
    I would not say that there are no links between Skyfall and Spectre. The cinematography, the score, the spectacular PTS, the more prominant role of M and the other mi6 staff, the focus on London as a location. I even find that the first half of Spectre is very much in the tradition of Skyfall and is pretty fine whereas the second half goes into a completely different direction. This is where a solid Bond film turns into a big mess.

    I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.

    You are probably right. What reminded me of Skyfall was probably not the "cinematography" itself but more the overall "visual atmosphere" in the first half of the film. I find SP to be a relatively dark film (Sciarra's house, SP meeting, Mr. White's house), similar to the overall tone of Skyfall.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I personally enjoyed the look and feel of SP.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    I personally enjoyed the look and feel of SP.

    As did I! It looks very sophisticated, and Bond ought to look sophisticated.
    GBF wrote: »
    I would not say that there are no links between Skyfall and Spectre. The cinematography, the score, the spectacular PTS, the more prominant role of M and the other mi6 staff, the focus on London as a location. I even find that the first half of Spectre is very much in the tradition of Skyfall and is pretty fine whereas the second half goes into a completely different direction. This is where a solid Bond film turns into a big mess.

    I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.
    bondjames wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    I would not say that there are no links between Skyfall and Spectre. The cinematography, the score, the spectacular PTS, the more prominant role of M and the other mi6 staff, the focus on London as a location. I even find that the first half of Spectre is very much in the tradition of Skyfall and is pretty fine whereas the second half goes into a completely different direction. This is where a solid Bond film turns into a big mess.

    I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.
    100% in agreement @MadeleineSwann. The cinematography in SF enhanced that film immeasurably. The cinematography in SP on the other hand did the opposite. I thought the 'shot framing' was done very well though (many scenes were filmed at distance), and gave a Lean'esque scale last seen in TSWLM or MR, but the colours were horrid. Everything had a monotonous flavour which is not a Bondian attribute. Bond films must have strong colour contrast imho.

    Yes, I did notice that Craig and Madeline in particular looked 'wierd' in the control room. She almost looked CGI (I couldn't help staring at her when I saw the film again a couple of weeks back wondering what was up).

    Were the colours really that bad? I think the monochrome makes sense given that the theme of the film is death. The cinematography gives the film a sense of cohesiveness and a greater atmospheric quality in my opinion.
  • Posts: 676
    Let's not forget who was right here all along, after all. Throughout the entire film Bond is the one with the decisive leads connecting the dots between the attacks worldwide, the proposed bombing in Mexico and the organization of SPECTRE, amongst other threads. And he does all this with barely any help, so much so that at one point M even says in no uncertain terms that Bond has to do this mission all on his own, which he of course does before they all come together for the finale and get Blofeld in chains.
    Is Bond right to behave the way he does, though? That's a major issue I have with Spectre - I find it hard to be on Bond's side throughout. He doesn't share intelligence with his boss; he selfishly pursues his own mission; he endangers Madeleine's life (the film even acknowledges that, which feels very icky to me); he puts Q's and Moneypenny's jobs at risk; he doesn't kill Blofeld. He is generally a dick to people and makes poor decisions. He only learns about the attacks from a news report that Q shows him. Only later does he learn that the attacks are related to Oberhauser.

    Yeah, Bond does some good in the end, but only through contrivance. The film could have concluded the same way - Nine Eyes shut down and Blofeld arrested - through several other sequences of events. Story could have started with Bond sharing Dench video and Spectre ring with M, M asking Bond to investigate C... Maybe some tension between them on which is more important. Bond follows his gut, tracks the ring to Rome and hears mention of Nine Eyes at the Spectre meeting - and so on.

    Anyway...

    What I wanted to talk about in this post: I don't think Spectre's ending works. It's all heavily staged, of course: Bond shoots down a helicopter, it lands neatly on the bridge, Blofeld's stuck crawling on the bridge, Bond meets him, then M and Madeleine take their places on either side of Bond to symbolize his two choices. I think the real error here is giving Bond a choice. Or at least dramatizing his choice this way.

    I have no issue with Bond's decision to walk away from the service - I mean, it's not properly set up (only suggested to him in passing by Moneypenny and Madeleine) and it's nothing I ever wanted to see in a Bond film, but fine. But why dramatize it through a decision to kill or not kill Blofeld? Sorry, but after Blofeld takes credit for all Bond's pain and so much terror worldwide, Bond choosing not to kill him just turns Bond into an idiot. And the implications are really queasy - Blofeld will get another chance at terrorizing the world, and Madeleine is still not safe, all thanks to Bond!

    The solution here, I think, is to take the decision out of Bond's hands. The police surround Bond on the bridge and tell him to lower his weapon - the police don't know who he is, and Bond's not going to just execute a criminal in the street. M could even tell Bond that if he pulls the trigger, he'll be charged with murder ("00 program" was shut down). Bond decides that the authorities can handle Blofeld and then leaves the spy game for good.

    Not that I would find any of this more engaging. But at least Bond's decision wouldn't be so hard to stomach.
  • Milovy wrote: »
    Let's not forget who was right here all along, after all. Throughout the entire film Bond is the one with the decisive leads connecting the dots between the attacks worldwide, the proposed bombing in Mexico and the organization of SPECTRE, amongst other threads. And he does all this with barely any help, so much so that at one point M even says in no uncertain terms that Bond has to do this mission all on his own, which he of course does before they all come together for the finale and get Blofeld in chains.
    Is Bond right to behave the way he does, though? That's a major issue I have with Spectre - I find it hard to be on Bond's side throughout. He doesn't share intelligence with his boss; he selfishly pursues his own mission; he endangers Madeleine's life (the film even acknowledges that, which feels very icky to me); he puts Q's and Moneypenny's jobs at risk; he doesn't kill Blofeld. He is generally a dick to people and makes poor decisions. He only learns about the attacks from a news report that Q shows him. Only later does he learn that the attacks are related to Oberhauser.

    Yeah, Bond does some good in the end, but only through contrivance. The film could have concluded the same way - Nine Eyes shut down and Blofeld arrested - through several other sequences of events. Story could have started with Bond sharing Dench video and Spectre ring with M, M asking Bond to investigate C... Maybe some tension between them on which is more important. Bond follows his gut, tracks the ring to Rome and hears mention of Nine Eyes at the Spectre meeting - and so on.

    Anyway...

    What I wanted to talk about in this post: I don't think Spectre's ending works. It's all heavily staged, of course: Bond shoots down a helicopter, it lands neatly on the bridge, Blofeld's stuck crawling on the bridge, Bond meets him, then M and Madeleine take their places on either side of Bond to symbolize his two choices. I think the real error here is giving Bond a choice. Or at least dramatizing his choice this way.

    I have no issue with Bond's decision to walk away from the service - I mean, it's not properly set up (only suggested to him in passing by Moneypenny and Madeleine) and it's nothing I ever wanted to see in a Bond film, but fine. But why dramatize it through a decision to kill or not kill Blofeld? Sorry, but after Blofeld takes credit for all Bond's pain and so much terror worldwide, Bond choosing not to kill him just turns Bond into an idiot. And the implications are really queasy - Blofeld will get another chance at terrorizing the world, and Madeleine is still not safe, all thanks to Bond!

    The solution here, I think, is to take the decision out of Bond's hands. The police surround Bond on the bridge and tell him to lower his weapon - the police don't know who he is, and Bond's not going to just execute a criminal in the street. M could even tell Bond that if he pulls the trigger, he'll be charged with murder ("00 program" was shut down). Bond decides that the authorities can handle Blofeld and then leaves the spy game for good.

    Not that I would find any of this more engaging. But at least Bond's decision wouldn't be so hard to stomach.

    I really didn't like that moment on the bridge either. When he says 'finish it' I want to groan it's so cliche. He should have just flew away in his helicopter, it would have been fine then and he wouldn't need to escape the next film.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 676
    Milovy wrote: »
    Let's not forget who was right here all along, after all. Throughout the entire film Bond is the one with the decisive leads connecting the dots between the attacks worldwide, the proposed bombing in Mexico and the organization of SPECTRE, amongst other threads. And he does all this with barely any help, so much so that at one point M even says in no uncertain terms that Bond has to do this mission all on his own, which he of course does before they all come together for the finale and get Blofeld in chains.
    Is Bond right to behave the way he does, though? That's a major issue I have with Spectre - I find it hard to be on Bond's side throughout. He doesn't share intelligence with his boss; he selfishly pursues his own mission; he endangers Madeleine's life (the film even acknowledges that, which feels very icky to me); he puts Q's and Moneypenny's jobs at risk; he doesn't kill Blofeld. He is generally a dick to people and makes poor decisions. He only learns about the attacks from a news report that Q shows him. Only later does he learn that the attacks are related to Oberhauser.

    Yeah, Bond does some good in the end, but only through contrivance. The film could have concluded the same way - Nine Eyes shut down and Blofeld arrested - through several other sequences of events. Story could have started with Bond sharing Dench video and Spectre ring with M, M asking Bond to investigate C... Maybe some tension between them on which is more important. Bond follows his gut, tracks the ring to Rome and hears mention of Nine Eyes at the Spectre meeting - and so on.

    Anyway...

    What I wanted to talk about in this post: I don't think Spectre's ending works. It's all heavily staged, of course: Bond shoots down a helicopter, it lands neatly on the bridge, Blofeld's stuck crawling on the bridge, Bond meets him, then M and Madeleine take their places on either side of Bond to symbolize his two choices. I think the real error here is giving Bond a choice. Or at least dramatizing his choice this way.

    I have no issue with Bond's decision to walk away from the service - I mean, it's not properly set up (only suggested to him in passing by Moneypenny and Madeleine) and it's nothing I ever wanted to see in a Bond film, but fine. But why dramatize it through a decision to kill or not kill Blofeld? Sorry, but after Blofeld takes credit for all Bond's pain and so much terror worldwide, Bond choosing not to kill him just turns Bond into an idiot. And the implications are really queasy - Blofeld will get another chance at terrorizing the world, and Madeleine is still not safe, all thanks to Bond!

    The solution here, I think, is to take the decision out of Bond's hands. The police surround Bond on the bridge and tell him to lower his weapon - the police don't know who he is, and Bond's not going to just execute a criminal in the street. M could even tell Bond that if he pulls the trigger, he'll be charged with murder ("00 program" was shut down). Bond decides that the authorities can handle Blofeld and then leaves the spy game for good.

    Not that I would find any of this more engaging. But at least Bond's decision wouldn't be so hard to stomach.

    I really didn't like that moment on the bridge either. When he says 'finish it' I want to groan it's so cliche. He should have just flew away in his helicopter, it would have been fine then and he wouldn't need to escape the next film.
    That could have worked, too. Personally, I think the climax should have been in Morocco - Madeleine held hostage, big gunfight between Spectre goons and British agents, have the much-ballyhooed explosion as the climax. Blofeld escapes.

    Blofeld destroying the condemned MI6 building is just more contrived writing that serves symbolism before anything else.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 4,617
    I genuinely beleive that, if someone had published a fan fiction script that portrayed Bond shooting down a twin engined helicopter from a speedboat at speed down the Thames (at night) with a pistol (we should also remember that MS is driving the speedboat), it would have been questioned, surely? I must add the IMHO as I know the SP bashing is becoming sensitive, but, sorry, it just does not work for me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited September 2016 Posts: 9,117
    patb wrote: »
    I genuinely beleive that, if someone had published a fan fiction script that portrayed Bond shooting down a twin engined helicopter from a speedboat at speed down the Thames (at night) with a pistol (we should also remember that MS is driving the speedboat), it would have been questioned, surely? I must add the IMHO as I know the SP bashing is becoming sensitive, but, sorry, it just does not work for me.

    You are absolutely right.

    I know I perhaps have a reputation amongst the SP lovers as a hater but to be honest I find about 80% of the film to be fantastic.

    But if someone came on here and said 'I've written a great script where Blofeld is going to turn out to be Bond's stepbrother and the finale will see the heroine tied to a ticking bomb and Bond taking out a helicopter with (in Brad Whitaker's accurate words in this case) a pop gun' they would've been, to paraphrase Keys and Gray, absolutely smashed and rightly so.

    I remember reading once that EON have a policy of ignoring all unsolicited scripts, no doubt because they don't want to invite tons of shitty fan fiction raining down on them, but how is what they paid for any better than the average dross turned out by fans*?

    *Obviously I'm excluding @IGUANNA's deranged scribblings there. Even if you lobotomised P&W with a rusty spade it would still be preferable to reading any more of Sam Dandies.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Milovy wrote: »
    Let's not forget who was right here all along, after all. Throughout the entire film Bond is the one with the decisive leads connecting the dots between the attacks worldwide, the proposed bombing in Mexico and the organization of SPECTRE, amongst other threads. And he does all this with barely any help, so much so that at one point M even says in no uncertain terms that Bond has to do this mission all on his own, which he of course does before they all come together for the finale and get Blofeld in chains.
    Is Bond right to behave the way he does, though? That's a major issue I have with Spectre - I find it hard to be on Bond's side throughout. He doesn't share intelligence with his boss; he selfishly pursues his own mission; he endangers Madeleine's life (the film even acknowledges that, which feels very icky to me); he puts Q's and Moneypenny's jobs at risk; he doesn't kill Blofeld. He is generally a dick to people and makes poor decisions. He only learns about the attacks from a news report that Q shows him. Only later does he learn that the attacks are related to Oberhauser.

    Yeah, Bond does some good in the end, but only through contrivance. The film could have concluded the same way - Nine Eyes shut down and Blofeld arrested - through several other sequences of events. Story could have started with Bond sharing Dench video and Spectre ring with M, M asking Bond to investigate C... Maybe some tension between them on which is more important. Bond follows his gut, tracks the ring to Rome and hears mention of Nine Eyes at the Spectre meeting - and so on.

    Anyway...

    What I wanted to talk about in this post: I don't think Spectre's ending works. It's all heavily staged, of course: Bond shoots down a helicopter, it lands neatly on the bridge, Blofeld's stuck crawling on the bridge, Bond meets him, then M and Madeleine take their places on either side of Bond to symbolize his two choices. I think the real error here is giving Bond a choice. Or at least dramatizing his choice this way.

    I have no issue with Bond's decision to walk away from the service - I mean, it's not properly set up (only suggested to him in passing by Moneypenny and Madeleine) and it's nothing I ever wanted to see in a Bond film, but fine. But why dramatize it through a decision to kill or not kill Blofeld? Sorry, but after Blofeld takes credit for all Bond's pain and so much terror worldwide, Bond choosing not to kill him just turns Bond into an idiot. And the implications are really queasy - Blofeld will get another chance at terrorizing the world, and Madeleine is still not safe, all thanks to Bond!

    The solution here, I think, is to take the decision out of Bond's hands. The police surround Bond on the bridge and tell him to lower his weapon - the police don't know who he is, and Bond's not going to just execute a criminal in the street. M could even tell Bond that if he pulls the trigger, he'll be charged with murder ("00 program" was shut down). Bond decides that the authorities can handle Blofeld and then leaves the spy game for good.

    Not that I would find any of this more engaging. But at least Bond's decision wouldn't be so hard to stomach.

    @Milovy, I wish we'd gotten more into Bond's mentality after he'd gotten the video from M, but from what we do know we may gather enough information to make educated guesses. I posted previously in an SP related thread that I think Bond is conflicted on who to answer to when he gets the video. M seems to want him to keep it between "them" so to speak, and because Mallory has been M for so little a time, I think Bond is still very much in the mindset that Judi's M is his boss and that this mission is her last one to him and him only from beyond the grave. He's kind of caught at a crossroads; does he follow the orders of his old boss, or submit himself and the information he has to his new boss?

    Also, because Mallory is stressed out and busy with the mess that is the MI5/MI6 melding and pressing Nine Eyes decision, I don't think Bond wants to put something more on his plate that he hasn't fully checked out as a threat yet. If he went to tell Mallory that his dead boss arranged for him to be sent a video before she died that told him to go to a location, find a man and attend his funeral once he was dead, I know M would've looked at him sideways and had him labeled certifiable. It's only natural that Bond would keep it to his chest given the circumstances at that time. I think this fits with the very private nature of Dan's Bond. He has moments where he goes out and does things on his own terms, the way he sees fit, because he knows bureaucracy and how hard it is to get untangled from the red tape. Bypassing those restrictions and getting the job done to save lives (as in SP's PTS) is what counts to him, and him being restricted once he told Mallory wouldn't have ended well for those in that stadium in Mexico City. The best hands, or the most trusted hands, are his own.

    I also don't think Moneypenny or Q were ever in real danger of job loss. When Mallory was wise to what was going on, he joined the team and made the necessary moves to ensure the MI6 family had the resources they needed to "save the day." Mallory shows his ultimate approval to Bond as well when he orders Q to deactivate the smart blood, as he trusts that Bond knows what he is doing and can get the job done. Each member of the team by the end of the film does their part to stop Blofeld.

    As for the finale, we disagree a fair bit. It's by no stretch of the imagination the best of the lot, nor is it the worst; high mid-table, I'd say on my end. You say you would want Bond's choice taken away at the end, but that defeats the purpose and momentum of his entire arc in the movie. The film is full of instances where he confronts what life outside MI6 would be like-he sees how White ended up dying and alone after he refused to quit and went too far, and Madeleine pushes him to consider a greater purpose in life-and the finale's conclusion gives him that wrap up and pay-off to all the build up. He's done taking orders and chooses to walk towards Madeleine, symbolically tossing his gun.

    People arguing that he should've killed Blofeld aren't getting the point of it, I think. Not only is it a sign that Bond is done being someone's hitman, he also wants Blofeld to suffer for the havoc he's wrought in a dingy cell. Him letting Blofeld know he's not worth a bullet is the greatest insult he could impose on the man, and as with Yusef in QoS, Bond knows Blofeld and the information he has is too valuable to his government for him to just step in and murder the man in an act of revenge, especially when surrounded by his boss and heavily armed London police.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    Thanks for thr shoutout, WizardOfice!

    As for Spectre, IMO the gunbarrel's at the beginning and anything past that point is just nitpicking. Will there be a sequel, in the immortal words of Bond I do hope so. Thank you Mendes, thank you Barbara, we dun goofed no you didn't, you made another Bond blowout in the style of You Onyl Live Twice, with big setpieces weird villains a Bond being shunted from one place to another with no particular goal, and a hollow feeling in the middle. It's that expensive bizarre empty feeling that rigids my boat all day and makes it a top 5 Bond film for me.... It's like the curtains that ask what's wrong with this picture and then they scream at you, this happened to me as a child and it totally redefined what I look for in a Bond film so thanks again.
  • I'm pretty sure @Iguanna = P & W. They're just testing out they're script for Bond 25.

  • edited September 2016 Posts: 676
    @Milovy, I wish we'd gotten more into Bond's mentality after he'd gotten the video from M, but from what we do know we may gather enough information to make educated guesses.
    Sadly, that seems to be all we can do - make educated guesses. I don't see much in the text of the actual film to support many of your ideas.

    Why wouldn't Bond trust Mallory with the Dench video after the events of Skyfall, which demonstrated that Bond and Mallory are onside? Maybe Bond doesn't want to put more on M's plate. Maybe Bond thinks the walls at MI6 have ears, and C is listening in. But the film never offers these ideas. You gotta make educated guesses.

    Bond should still be sharing intelligence with M. M might restrict him, but that doesn't seem to give Bond a moment of pause in Spectre anyway. You can see this situation play out in OHMSS, if you like: Bond takes his info on Piz Gloria to M, and M tells him to drop the assignment. Then Bond calls Draco and finds another way.
    The best hands, or the most trusted hands, are his own.
    A troubling idea. Who does Bond think he is, with no oversight? Silva? Lack of oversight was not a good trait in Silva.
    I also don't think Moneypenny or Q were ever in real danger of job loss.
    Bond asks Moneypenny to go behind M's back, and Q as well - several times. Q is very serious when he speaks to Bond about this at the clinic in Austria. Just because they didn't lose their jobs, doesn't mean they weren't at risk. That's like saying that drunk driving isn't risky, just cause you didn't kill anyone on the highway.
    You say you would want Bond's choice taken away at the end, but that defeats the purpose and momentum of his entire arc in the movie.
    I have no problem with Bond's choice to retire. I have a problem with dramatizing his choice as a decision to kill or not kill Blofeld, because that choice turns Bond into a dunderhead if he doesn't pull the trigger.

    The implications of Bond leaving Blofeld alive are extremely uncomfortable. If Bond cozies up to Madeleine and she gets killed, really, who is to blame? Bond knows exactly what danger he's put her in. I find myself unable to ignore these facts while watching Spectre's ending. It's not entertaining, it's horrifying.

    And what is his entire arc? You mean when Madeleine suggests to him that he quit his job and try something else at the 1 hour 30 min mark, and Bond simply says he's never considered it before, then quits? That's not an arc. Maybe Bond's just never checked job listings before. Maybe he doesn't know how to put together a resume. (Kidding.)
    People arguing that he should've killed Blofeld aren't getting the point of it, I think. Not only is it a sign that Bond is done being someone's hitman, he also wants Blofeld to suffer for the havoc he's wrought in a dingy cell. Him letting Blofeld know he's not worth a bullet is the greatest insult he could impose on the man, and as with Yusef in QoS, Bond knows Blofeld and the information he has is too valuable to his government for him to just step in and murder the man in an act of revenge, especially when surrounded by his boss and heavily armed London police.
    Bond is done being someone's hitman - what? What has changed for him exactly? He's never been fond of following orders... M doesn't order him to kill a single person... And rebellion against orders is a theme Spectre doesn't even remotely touch. Nothing in the film suggests that a life of killing has eroded his soul, either. In fact, he seems content to be a "hitman" till he dies. As for the rest of what you said - I'm sorry, they're nice ideas, but I just don't see any of this in the film itself. You're being very generous by filling in all this stuff where none of it is present.
  • Posts: 4,617
    All very interesting points, much to mull over. The point about the retirement issue comiing in at 1 hour 30 is very well made. A good screenplay will have a theme running though it like a name in a stick of rock. References that are both plot driven, dialogue and visual. Something for the audience both actively think about and also have more subtle references that can be picked up on second viewings. So , with SF, it was age - his grey whiskers, the Turner picture (that was clever ), the melancholy feel (at times), Bond struggling for fitness, "there's no shame in saying you've lost a step.", etc etc, great movies have these threads (not just Bond) running through them and they are there because writers start with a clean sheet of paper and have themes that run consistantly though.
    I just cant see this in SP, its all over the place. What is the theme that runs through SP ? Its all over the place IMHO
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    I personally enjoyed the look and feel of SP.

    As did I! It looks very sophisticated, and Bond ought to look sophisticated.
    GBF wrote: »
    I would not say that there are no links between Skyfall and Spectre. The cinematography, the score, the spectacular PTS, the more prominant role of M and the other mi6 staff, the focus on London as a location. I even find that the first half of Spectre is very much in the tradition of Skyfall and is pretty fine whereas the second half goes into a completely different direction. This is where a solid Bond film turns into a big mess.

    I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.
    bondjames wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    I would not say that there are no links between Skyfall and Spectre. The cinematography, the score, the spectacular PTS, the more prominant role of M and the other mi6 staff, the focus on London as a location. I even find that the first half of Spectre is very much in the tradition of Skyfall and is pretty fine whereas the second half goes into a completely different direction. This is where a solid Bond film turns into a big mess.

    I don't think the cinematography is linked to Skyfall, in my honest opinion, as much as I love the cinematography I think it was the wrong choice. I personally believe they should've just tried to really hard to get Deakins back. Don't get me wrong I love Hoytema, I especially love his work on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, but that's what his style suits, the small almost independent film that's on a lower scale to this spy epic that is James Bond. Insterstellar is different cause it still managed to come across to me anyway as an "independent epic". The cinematography in Spectre, I believe lowers the scale of the film. For example, the establishing shots make the film not feel as epic, whereas Skyfall used these beautiful big establishing shots of these beautiful parts of whatever place we were in, and even the big action sequences felt small in scale, because of the framing, the color correction and that glow effect the film seems to have the whole way through. Hopefully I'm not the only one who noticed it, but everyone seems to glow in a weird way in this film plus, everyone in the scene in Blofeld's lair where he shows Madeleine the video of her father's death, looks extremely fake especially Craig. They almost look animated.
    100% in agreement @MadeleineSwann. The cinematography in SF enhanced that film immeasurably. The cinematography in SP on the other hand did the opposite. I thought the 'shot framing' was done very well though (many scenes were filmed at distance), and gave a Lean'esque scale last seen in TSWLM or MR, but the colours were horrid. Everything had a monotonous flavour which is not a Bondian attribute. Bond films must have strong colour contrast imho.

    Yes, I did notice that Craig and Madeline in particular looked 'wierd' in the control room. She almost looked CGI (I couldn't help staring at her when I saw the film again a couple of weeks back wondering what was up).

    Were the colours really that bad? I think the monochrome makes sense given that the theme of the film is death. The cinematography gives the film a sense of cohesiveness and a greater atmospheric quality in my opinion.
    The colours were bad to my eyes because they took me out of the experience, as did the poor CGI. They were unnatural in my estimation, and that was quite evident from first viewing.

    Normally, when I watch a Bond film, I'm immersed in the proceedings on screen and in awe at the elegance of everything. The colours are a key component of conveying that impression, as is the score. In SP, the colours seemed 'painted on', if that makes any sense, and 'unreal'.

    I realize that there was evidently a creative decision behind this, which may have been in 'synch' with the narrative as you note.

    However, it just didn't work for me, and was more of a distraction.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Milovy, it's not a matter of me being "generous" about SP and what I feel it's doing with the character. To quote Bond in the same movie, "It's all a matter of perspective."

    We watch movies and see different things. Movies like this give you room to make your own judgements at times, as the directors and writers don't want to outright tell you everything the character is doing and why through shoddy exposition that halts momentum and mystery. You watch, you analyze, you make judgements. It's why the meaning and beauty of film as well as all art is in the eye of the beholder; we see what we see, and believe what we believe based on that, liking or disliking it. You can't tell somebody staring at a painting in an art gallery they are foolish for seeing something you don't. It's their impression of what the art speaks to them, and what they see being explored, whether it's something ambitious like the demise of futurism or simple like the emotion of sadness they see as reflected in the blue hues on the canvas.

    This feeling and experience of art carries over to Bond, as well. We can see different things in these movies and that's okay; nobody has to be wrong. Judging by your username and profile picture, for instance, I assume you enjoy the character of Kara, while I personally find her to be insufferable and frustratingly simple, and unideal Bond girl. Now, would I say you're being "generous" for liking her, for excepting her for the positives I don't find in her character to exist? No, because that's your view on her, and that's fine, just as my views on SP are mine.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 676
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I thought we were discussing Spectre. I'm not interested in discussing your understanding of the purpose of art and criticism.

    Your have your interpretation of the film; I have mine. Now we come together to have a critical discussion... Or not, in this case. There's nothing wrong with a generous read of a film, by the way. It just means you like Spectre more and are invested in enjoying it. You look at the basic substance of the film and walk away with a bunch of interesting ideas on your mind. Whereas I find Spectre thematically confused and barren, and the themes that do emerge are unpleasant. The only "perspective" from which I can see your ideas emerge from Spectre is if I put on the film, close my eyes, plug my ears and start daydreaming about a different movie!

    I'm not here to discuss whether it's "right" to like Spectre or not. You enjoy it, or you don't. Doesn't matter to me. What I am doing is making an argument for the ideas I see emerging from Spectre, supported by the actual substance of the film. I don't see any support for your "read" of the film, and I remain unconvinced. I am allowed to think you are wrong (and vice versa, obviously). That doesn't mean I think you are a fool.

    If all this just boils down to "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man," then I have nothing more to say.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Brady wasn't arguing with you?!!
  • Posts: 676
    @w2bond Huh?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Milovy wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I thought we were discussing Spectre. I'm not interested in discussing your understanding of the purpose of art and criticism.

    Your have your interpretation of the film; I have mine. Now we come together to have a critical discussion... Or not, in this case. There's nothing wrong with a generous read of a film, by the way. It just means you like Spectre more and are invested in enjoying it. You look at the basic substance of the film and walk away with a bunch of interesting ideas on your mind. Whereas I find Spectre thematically confused and barren, and the themes that do emerge are unpleasant. The only "perspective" from which I can see your ideas emerge from Spectre is if I put on the film, close my eyes, plug my ears and start daydreaming about a different movie!

    I'm not here to discuss whether it's "right" to like Spectre or not. You enjoy it, or you don't. Doesn't matter to me. What I am doing is making an argument for the ideas I see emerging from Spectre, supported by the actual substance of the film. I don't see any support for your "read" of the film, and I remain unconvinced. I am allowed to think you are wrong (and vice versa, obviously). That doesn't mean I think you are a fool.

    If all this just boils down to "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man," then I have nothing more to say.

    @Milovy, and we've had a discussion here about it, but maybe only a brief one if you think we haven't begun at all.

    What I got from your post-not saying you meant this, just my perception of it-was, "Good luck having those ideas about Spectre, Brady, because there's nothing there to see," as if thinking about it the way I was happened to be a waste of time.

    The reason I brought up the criticism of art is to underscore how we have seen one film yet have come away with it with different ideas about it. It absolutely boils down to what our opinions are, as it's the basis of everything.

    I think you're responding to me with a harder edge than you need to, however, as this is all a rather silly business to get earnest about. I've written more about this film than any I know on the forums, posts you can find interspersed around the Spectre Appreciation thread, for one, so if you care to discuss specifically the themes of the film, which I and @Gustav_Graves have had a fun time looking at and analyzing, then do head over there.

    Beyond that, I have nothing further to add to this particular point of discussion.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 676
    The reason I brought up the criticism of art is to underscore how we have seen one film yet have come away with it with different ideas about it.
    Yes, that is the understanding that discussion is based on.
    I think you're responding to me with a harder edge than you need to, however, as this is all a rather silly business to get earnest about.
    You're right about that!
    I've written more about this film than any I know on the forums, posts you can find interspersed around the Spectre Appreciation thread, for one, so if you care to discuss specifically the themes of the film, which I and @Gustav_Graves have had a fun time looking at and analyzing, then do head over there.
    Thanks, maybe I will check it out sometime.
  • Posts: 1,993
    I would have dumped the Bond/Blofeld relationship. It is silly and contrived. It makes Blofeld seem petty and jealous. If Blofeld has been a presence in Bond's life from the beginning of CR, he should have killed him then instead of screwing around for four films. I much prefer naked greed and power as a motivation rather than daddy issues.

    I'm guessing Waltz could have been a better Blofeld, but this performance seemed phoned in. No presence, no threat, nothing anywhere near the caliber of DN, GF, or Sanchez. These villains actually seemed threatening.

    From the dumb crap villains do department, why in hell waste all that time putting red string and pictures up in the old secret service building. If you're going to do that, then film the scene in which a bunch of flunkies are hired to do that. A scene such as that would immediately emphasize how dumb that entire sequence was.

    Hire a writing team that can create a Bond story without having been influenced by the successes of other action films. Beginning with MR, Bond films seemed to be copying and following rather than leading as the early films had.

    As much as I wanted the films to return to their roots, in the next Bond film just kill off Blofeld forever in the PTS. Over the years the writers have screwed up the Blofeld thing so much that he is just a Mike Myers parody of himself, even with what should have been a credible actor in the role. Just get it right for once.
  • Posts: 1,181
    patb wrote: »
    I genuinely beleive that, if someone had published a fan fiction script that portrayed Bond shooting down a twin engined helicopter from a speedboat at speed down the Thames (at night) with a pistol (we should also remember that MS is driving the speedboat), it would have been questioned, surely? I must add the IMHO as I know the SP bashing is becoming sensitive, but, sorry, it just does not work for me.
    This was one of my main beefs with the movie. It's not even remotely plausible for this to occur. I understand the fact that the series has other moments that are outlandish, but this is a bit beyond that. I also understand they are trying to show Bond's marksmanship skill and that it would be too easy and cliche to have him shoot the chopper down with a missile.

    If someone on here had written this as a fan idea, they would have been laughed off the forum.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Milovy wrote: »
    @w2bond Huh?

    This:
    Milovy wrote: »
    I think you're responding to me with a harder edge than you need to, however, as this is all a rather silly business to get earnest about.
    You're right about that!

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ed83 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    I genuinely beleive that, if someone had published a fan fiction script that portrayed Bond shooting down a twin engined helicopter from a speedboat at speed down the Thames (at night) with a pistol (we should also remember that MS is driving the speedboat), it would have been questioned, surely? I must add the IMHO as I know the SP bashing is becoming sensitive, but, sorry, it just does not work for me.
    This was one of my main beefs with the movie. It's not even remotely plausible for this to occur. I understand the fact that the series has other moments that are outlandish, but this is a bit beyond that. I also understand they are trying to show Bond's marksmanship skill and that it would be too easy and cliche to have him shoot the chopper down with a missile.

    It's certainly plausible that if you fire a clip at a helicopter from 500 yards that one bullet might go into the engine and cripple it.

    The problem is it is reliant entirely on luck because at that range and at that distance, shooting at a moving target from a bouncing boat and with the helicopter downdraught to factor in it becomes not a test of marksmanship but pure luck.

    Is that how Bond should vanquish his enemies? I could have fired those shots and stood just as much chance as Bond of taking the chopper down and if that's the case then you've got a poor climax.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Bond is no Gladstone Gander, but his luck is still legendary.
  • Posts: 1,296
    Please guys let's not nitpick about the single shot takedown on the river Thames, it begs to be fantasticial in by the way, I think Bond had an out of body experience in that moment, hence the pause in music.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 591
    I mean I'm sure if we were to nitpick everything like the helicopter sequence in the Bond films, we would have quite a long list. As much as Spectre had problems, I wouldn't class that as one of them especially since in the previous film we had a man be shot and fall from a great height into water and survive, and in the film before that a man and a woman manage to jump out of a plane and survive the fall even though the parachute opens at the last minute.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 4,617
    2% of people who fall from the Golden Gate Bridge survive and fitness is a deciding factor. So there is a chance for Bond to survive (yes, we shall overlook the fact he was shot). Its hard getting the balance right. People have to respect Bond for doing amazing stuff but when the line is crossed, it does get very silly and undermines any attempt to have a more serious, grounded Bond.

    On the topic of the SP ending, two (or more) wrongs dont make a right. Just because the line has been crossed before does not justify doing it again. One could say that modern screenwriters should learn from this and not do it again. Its just uncalled for IMHO. To me, its a weakness in the plot that requires Bond to do something that is "superhuman". We want Bond to do amazing things but not unbeleivable things.
    So if you are writing a script and there is a line that says "He holds on to the outside door handle as the Atlas takes off" and then compare that to " He passes the controls of the speedboat to MS and shoots down the helicopter with his pistol". All the time, the writer should be thinking "have a crossed the line" and also "how has the plot got me into a situation where I have to cross the line?". Of course, in the Moore era, anything was possible but , in the Criag era, I think they should be more careful. The darker, grittier feel means that the "cross the line" scenes stand out far more.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    patb wrote: »
    2% of people who fall from the Golden Gate Bridge survive and fitness is a deciding factor. So there is a chance for Bond to survive (yes, we shall overlook the fact he was shot). Its hard getting the balance right. People have to respect Bond for doing amazing stuff but when the line is crossed, it does get very silly and undermines any attempt to have a more serious, grounded Bond.

    On the topic of the SP ending, two (or more) wrongs dont make a right. Just because the line has been crossed before does not justify doing it again. One could say that modern screenwriters should learn from this and not do it again. Its just uncalled for IMHO. To me, its a weakness in the plot that requires Bond to do something that is "superhuman". We want Bond to do amazing things but not unbeleivable things.

    Well but how do these people look afterwards? Even if you survive you will certainly never be able to walk again or safe yourself getting out of the water. This is another issue that I have with the last three Craig films. The more they care about Bond's emotional vulnerability, the less they care about his physical boundaries. I mean he is more like a mashine who cannot die and he seems to feel neither physical pain nor injuries.
  • edited September 2016 Posts: 1,296
    I don't like how Craig's Bond can just take down 3 or more men no problem, no questions asked, and maybe this was a porblem in the past too but I want Bond more vulnerable to danger and being outnumbered. I'm never that worried for Craig's health when I watch him play Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.