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
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.
As did I! It looks very sophisticated, and Bond ought to look sophisticated.
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.
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.
Blofeld destroying the condemned MI6 building is just more contrived writing that serves symbolism before anything else.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
A troubling idea. Who does Bond think he is, with no oversight? Silva? Lack of oversight was not a good trait in Silva.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You're right about that!
Thanks, maybe I will check it out sometime.
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.
If someone on here had written this as a fan idea, they would have been laughed off the forum.
This:
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.
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.
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.