Which "feels" bigger, YOLT or SPECTRE?

2

Comments

  • Posts: 7,653
    bigger YOLT and it has the UberBond actor Connery, great sets, and John bloody Barry and that is something more than SP can ever catch up to
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I'd definitely have to go with YOLT. The countdown to WWIII, outer space, the hollowed out volcano, Blofeld finally revealing himself to Bond etc... Even M has come out (in his personal submarine no less) because this is the "big one" 007. Not that I'm mistaking all of those things for quality. I probably favor SP slightly over YOLT.

    SP does have it's moments. The meeting in Rome and the Nine Eyes program certainly make it feel like Spectre is all knowing and all seeing. The "big" personal connection falls totally flat for me though. Plus, YOLT had one certain ingredient that SP can never match. An epic Barry score.
  • Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If "bigger" means "unreal", then YOLT wins.
  • Posts: 15,218
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    .
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    boldfinger wrote: »
    .

    Point taken.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
    Yes, it sounds so, theoretically. But for some reason, the film doesn´t transport this emotionally. To me that is.

  • boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
    Yes, it sounds so, theoretically. But for some reason, the film doesn´t transport this emotionally. To me that is.

    Perhaps because the film is somewhat parochial in as much as the focus is almost exclusively on western Europe and north Africa. If Bond had teamed up with Leiter and the CIA it might have leant SP a more global and geopolitical punch.

  • Posts: 1,864
    Actually, I started this thread to address the budgets that were spent on the two films and which one had it's money up on the screen as Cubby always said was his goal. As a matter of fact I might even add "Thunderball" to this comparison.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
    Yes, it sounds so, theoretically. But for some reason, the film doesn´t transport this emotionally. To me that is.

    Perhaps because the film is somewhat parochial in as much as the focus is almost exclusively on western Europe and north Africa. If Bond had teamed up with Leiter and the CIA it might have leant SP a more global and geopolitical punch.
    No, for me it has mainly to do with the way of Mendes´ storytelling and the camera work. They simply don´t attract me.

  • Posts: 15,218
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
    Yes, it sounds so, theoretically. But for some reason, the film doesn´t transport this emotionally. To me that is.

    Perhaps because the film is somewhat parochial in as much as the focus is almost exclusively on western Europe and north Africa. If Bond had teamed up with Leiter and the CIA it might have leant SP a more global and geopolitical punch.

    But the Americans were barely more present in YOLT. They are basically depicted as clueless, inactive pawns in a game that concerns them directly, while the UK and Japan lead the investigation. The US may be surprisingly absent in SP, but this can be at least partially explained by a British focused narrative: Nine Eyes is C's thing, it comes live in London at midnight GMT, MI6 is in turmoil, etc. I buy the SP premise more than YOLT's, I find it more plausible, even in its most far fetched elements, I also never liked the "world destruction" trope as SPECTRE's aim.
  • Posts: 3,278
    YOLT (and the two other Lewis Gilbert Bond movies, TSWLM and MR) are amongst my favorites, because I want my Bond movies to be escapist entertainment, and not character studies.

    All three are also beautifully shot and YOLT and MR are probably my favorite John Barry scores.

    SPECTRE is the closest thing during the Craig-reign, that delivers this.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 2,483
    Ludovico wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And I didn't find the scope of SP inconsequential. On the contrary. In YOLT it seems so darn implausible and its benefits uncertain compared to the risks taken that the scope was lost in the surreal aspect of the plot.

    SP's plot-line is indeed anything but inconsequential. A malevolent organization such as SPECTRE gaining access to all the data of all the world's leading intel organizations? Sound a right proper cluster F to me.

    Instead of destroying the world (to gain what?), Blofeld wants to rule it. Sounds as plausible as it is terrifying.
    Yes, it sounds so, theoretically. But for some reason, the film doesn´t transport this emotionally. To me that is.

    Perhaps because the film is somewhat parochial in as much as the focus is almost exclusively on western Europe and north Africa. If Bond had teamed up with Leiter and the CIA it might have leant SP a more global and geopolitical punch.

    But the Americans were barely more present in YOLT. They are basically depicted as clueless, inactive pawns in a game that concerns them directly, while the UK and Japan lead the investigation. The US may be surprisingly absent in SP, but this can be at least partially explained by a British focused narrative: Nine Eyes is C's thing, it comes live in London at midnight GMT, MI6 is in turmoil, etc. I buy the SP premise more than YOLT's, I find it more plausible, even in its most far fetched elements, I also never liked the "world destruction" trope as SPECTRE's aim.

    That's fine. You could sub China, India, Russia and/or Japan for America and still enhance SP's geopolitical scope, if your aim is heightened geopolitical impact. YOLT, as you say, wasn't about just Great Britain. Japan was also in the mix, but the fact that SPECTRE's goal was to trigger thermonuclear war between the USSR and the US actually DOES bring those two countries into the picture in a very real way. At the end of the day, SP is an inwardly looking film while YOLT casts its eyes abroad.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Bigger? YOLT.
    Better? SP.
    Sums up my thoughts exactly!
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Bigger? YOLT.
    Better? SP.

    Yes, this.

    And SPECTRE has a better Oberhauser.

    YOLT had a s**t Director in Gilbert too......far too interested in humour above plot.
  • Posts: 1,864
    SPECTRE is by far the better film but I think YOLT felt like every penny was up on the screen. YOLT is a mess, with things like Blofeld sending helicopters up to attack Little Nelly, Bond still pretending to be a Japanese fisherman AFTER Blofeld assassins try to kill him during his Ninja training, Tiger drowning SPECTRE henchmen instead of interrogating them etc etc........ the list goes on and on.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited November 2015 Posts: 16,357
    Delete nevermind. :))
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    A meteor crater compound makes all the sense int the world compared to a hollowed-out & potentially ACTIVE volcano...

    But hey- Sixties. It HAD to be BIG! :P
  • The plot in you only live twice makes more sense than that of Spectre!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    The plot in you only live twice makes more sense than that of Spectre!
    Ummm...

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,357
    IFM.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,823
    Murdock wrote: »
    IFM.
    Impossible Force Missions-?

    :-j
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,423
    The problem with You Only Live Twice is that they didn't know what they wanted. They basically wanted to make a film bigger than Thunderball, but just look at the film, it's quite unbalanced and the scenes don't really suit one another. Sure, it had wonderful set designs and all but, looks aren't everything. Connery looked bored and uninterested, the rest of the cast and settings didn't bode well, either. You wouldn't know if it's a spy story or a science fiction thing.

    However, I wouldn't lay a finger on Lewis Gilbert. He's a very good director. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker were very good films, and that leads us to look at someone else for the fault. Roald Dahl who wrote the screenplay, and Harold Jack Bloom who did the essential story for the film, jettisoning Fleming's wonderful plot.

    Spectre on the other hand lacked the wonderful set designs of Ken Adam and Peter Lamont. Another problem it had was the pacing and editing of the story that was more of a two-parter worthy material rather than one film. While I loved it thoroughly, and still class it as the best Bond film in the last 15 years, it also was missing the proper thumbnail for any 007 adventure, "Sex and Violence", if you know what I mean. Still, despite of the twist that irks some of the fans, the writing was great, to tell you the truth.

    So, that summary brings us to evaluate the question as asked before:
    Which film feels bigger? You Only Live Twice.
    Which film feels better? Spectre.
  • Posts: 4,622
    YOLT was bigger. Nothing beats the Spectre volcano!
    Best Bond set ever!
  • timmer wrote: »
    YOLT was bigger. Nothing beats the Spectre volcano!
    Best Bond set ever!

  • I agree!
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    YOLT because it has the best ever set built for any Bond movie.
    Ken Adam, you rule \m/

    I absolutely, absolutely love that they paid homage to the Volcano lair in Spectre with the crater lair.
    One more thing to just love Spectre.

    Yes this was a nice touch!
    And I would consider YOLT the much better film.
    Thoroughly entertains from start to finish,.while SP lumbers along.
    The Blofeld reveal in YOLT is one of the most chilling scenes in the history of the series. Gives me goosebumps. The look on Connery's face is perfect. A mixture of both interest and contempt.
    I could watch the last 45 minutes of YOLT on loop over and over again and remain riveted.
    I do like that SP homaged YOLT with cratar lair, and the Blofeld reveal taking place there.
    Also correct me if I am wrong, but was Mi6 aware of Blofeld by name before he introduced himself to Bond?
Sign In or Register to comment.