Let's talk about Spectre's torture scene

Sark

I'm not sure what Gustav's names are names point is. Bond doesnt know who Blofeld is, yet it's treated as a big reveal. It doesn't make sense. If， say, Bond has been chasing Blofeld and found out that he was actually Franz Oberhauser that would have been good.

jetsetwilly

timmer wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

I think this scene deserves it's own thread.

Soo....what did we think?

I've seen the film a few times and for me it's really the most unusual sequence in the film. It feels kinda tacked on and a little unwelcome. Firstly, let's start with the staging and camerawork. The actual cinematography and set-design are a little flat. It almost feels like the sequence was hurried together quickly as an afterthought. Also the strange dentist chair felt like it was deliberately trying to be a more high-tech reimagining of the low-fi torture scene in CR. Only this time complete with a dodgy CGI drill.

The surprising thing is that every time I've seen the film people seem to genuinely be squirming in their seats during it. The woman next to me on Friday was covering her mouth and jumping every time the drill went in. Why doesn't this scene have the same impact on me? Is it because it's poorly staged? Or is the issue deeper-seated? Maybe it has something to do with the lack of drama in the plot? Or the film's failure to build Oberhauser up as a credible bad guy by that point?

Also, it feels like a total wasted opportunity to lobotmise James Bond only 2 minutes later to have him completely recover and shoot up Oberhauser's entire lair. This guy just had a drill in his f@*@king brain!!!! He should be mess, it would have been so much more effective to have him make mistakes during that shoot-up (still being competent but maybe passing out and struggling to keep up - Craig's Bond is all about vulnerability after all), it would have allowed Madeline to pick up the pace and actually protect Bond, she should have blown up the compound! She knows how to use a gun and I'm sure her Dad would have taught her a thing or two. It would have increased our emotional attachment to her if she protected Bond.

Additionally, there is probably the most ham-fisted piece of dialogue during the torture scene from Oberhauser when he says something like "the daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you" - talk about on the nose. Whatever happened to the subtlety and nuance of SF?

Thoughts?

I think this is a terrible scene. In terms of its gruesomeness its right up there with the torturing of Severine in SF, as described in a posting above.
I find these two scenes to be the most unsettling in the series. Both scenes are in Sam Mendes films. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

The SP torture scene does feel tacked on, and it was, as those familiar with the leaked Dec shooting script know.
It's a radical rewrite of a more civil tete-a-tete between Bond and Blofeld, with Swann present, before Bond launches the exploding watch and makes his escape. How this tedious torturescene is an improvement is beyond me.

The torture scene robs us of a DN style Bond and Blofeld dinner scene with girl present.
That's what I was hoping for, but Mendes made such a mess of the actual story, it's as if he couldn't decide how to stage the Blofeld reveal. Unfortunately someone on set, had a copy of Colonel Sun. Cue the rewrite.

And cue the garish blinding light and Blofelds sockless fishbelly white legs and ill-ftting pants practically hiked up to his knees, as added torture bonus.

Very unfortunate, as I thought the Ernst reveal was actually handled quite well. Nice touch with the cat. But it would have worked much better, over a tense dinner scenario, with death for dessert looming over the proceedings.

My main objection though is broader in scope.
Namely, that cinematically especially, Bond should not be subjected to such demeaning torture.
If the filmmakers are going for gritty edgy realism, then they also fail, because in gritty realistic world those who are tortured also die. This type of torture is just a form of sadistic slow execution. So be done with it and kill Bond. Then you've got your realism.
As the learned @perilagukhan suggests, are we watching Saw or Bond?

But in edgy fantasy adventure, which is what Bond is, the needles don't penetrate, just as Goldfinger's encroaching laser never even singed Bond's pants, nor did Stampers torture implements ever graze Bond's actual skin, while in DAF Bond was pulled from certain death by Slumber and Tree, before the crematorium flames even singed his hair.

By all means, position Bond under threat of any manner of heinous death, and knock him around some, but spare us actual helpless strapped to a chair, sadistic torture.

Fleming wrote exactly one torture scene, followed by 13 books of nada. It's not exactly a recurring element in Fleming.
And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.
He allowed that Bond was dead, once the goings got started. Bond was fortuitously rescued. He did not escape the impossible.
Yet one continuation author after another, not to mention later film directors, Tamahori and Mendes, seem determined to get their CR torture bonafides in. Yawn.
Maybe they could take their cue from the 13 books in which Bond is not subjected to helpless torture.
Colonel Sun I find to be a tedious continuation novel at best. Amis's torture sequence is sadistic and twisted in the extreme. Why Mendes felt a need to lift from this better forgotten scene, boggles. Mendes is a strange cat. Amis stranger.

This is just my preference btw, but I believe it to be sound.
Bond is escapist action hero. He doesn't get strapped to a chair and tortured. Rather he manages to escape before such indignities are visited.

If it were 1952 and I could sit down with Sir Ian, I'd say to him, ditch the torture scene in CR.
"I come from the future, where all the lameass imitators that follow you, are going to go hogwild on torturing Bond, as you did, all of one whole time.
"Your acquaintance Amis will write one of the most tedious scenes in all of Bond continuation lit, in one of the dullest most plodding continuation novels ever served up.
"Thank you Sir Timmer.Good advice. I will dispense with that scene entirely, and rework the entire scenario, and scold Mr Amis accordingly.
"May I offer you some of my my fine Jamaican rum?
"Thank you Sir Ian, don't mind if I do.

Not sure this is entirely true. There are quite a few horrific, nasty torture scenes in the Bond books after CR. In LALD Bond gets dragged around a coral reef with a woman tied to the back of a speeding boat, in the hope they eventually get eaten by sharks. How sick is that? Fleming had a sadistic side to him, and it showed in nearly all the novels, not just CR.

In MR Bond gets severely battered about the face strapped to a chair.

In DAF Bond is nearly kicked to death by two pairs of football boots, being stomped on. I always found that fairly unsettling, and would almost certainly be too violent to show on screen, which is probably why it has never been adapted to film.

Bond in Dr. No's nasty assault course is one long, drawn out torture ordeal that Bond just about survives, which drags on for a few chapters.

Even the scene in GF with Bond strapped to the table and a saw working its way up to his groin, there is no clever gadgets at hand for Bond to escape. Instead he tries to kill himself. How dark is that?

It's only when we get to the final novels, and the Blofeld/TMWTGG saga, that the nasty torture elements eventually take a back seat.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

jetsetwilly wrote: »

timmer wrote: »

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

I think this scene deserves it's own thread.

Soo....what did we think?

I've seen the film a few times and for me it's really the most unusual sequence in the film. It feels kinda tacked on and a little unwelcome. Firstly, let's start with the staging and camerawork. The actual cinematography and set-design are a little flat. It almost feels like the sequence was hurried together quickly as an afterthought. Also the strange dentist chair felt like it was deliberately trying to be a more high-tech reimagining of the low-fi torture scene in CR. Only this time complete with a dodgy CGI drill.

The surprising thing is that every time I've seen the film people seem to genuinely be squirming in their seats during it. The woman next to me on Friday was covering her mouth and jumping every time the drill went in. Why doesn't this scene have the same impact on me? Is it because it's poorly staged? Or is the issue deeper-seated? Maybe it has something to do with the lack of drama in the plot? Or the film's failure to build Oberhauser up as a credible bad guy by that point?

Also, it feels like a total wasted opportunity to lobotmise James Bond only 2 minutes later to have him completely recover and shoot up Oberhauser's entire lair. This guy just had a drill in his f@*@king brain!!!! He should be mess, it would have been so much more effective to have him make mistakes during that shoot-up (still being competent but maybe passing out and struggling to keep up - Craig's Bond is all about vulnerability after all), it would have allowed Madeline to pick up the pace and actually protect Bond, she should have blown up the compound! She knows how to use a gun and I'm sure her Dad would have taught her a thing or two. It would have increased our emotional attachment to her if she protected Bond.

Additionally, there is probably the most ham-fisted piece of dialogue during the torture scene from Oberhauser when he says something like "the daughter of an assassin, the only one who could understand you" - talk about on the nose. Whatever happened to the subtlety and nuance of SF?

Thoughts?

I think this is a terrible scene. In terms of its gruesomeness its right up there with the torturing of Severine in SF, as described in a posting above.
I find these two scenes to be the most unsettling in the series. Both scenes are in Sam Mendes films. I'm not sure what that means, if anything.

The SP torture scene does feel tacked on, and it was, as those familiar with the leaked Dec shooting script know.
It's a radical rewrite of a more civil tete-a-tete between Bond and Blofeld, with Swann present, before Bond launches the exploding watch and makes his escape. How this tedious torturescene is an improvement is beyond me.

The torture scene robs us of a DN style Bond and Blofeld dinner scene with girl present.
That's what I was hoping for, but Mendes made such a mess of the actual story, it's as if he couldn't decide how to stage the Blofeld reveal. Unfortunately someone on set, had a copy of Colonel Sun. Cue the rewrite.

And cue the garish blinding light and Blofelds sockless fishbelly white legs and ill-ftting pants practically hiked up to his knees, as added torture bonus.

Very unfortunate, as I thought the Ernst reveal was actually handled quite well. Nice touch with the cat. But it would have worked much better, over a tense dinner scenario, with death for dessert looming over the proceedings.

My main objection though is broader in scope.
Namely, that cinematically especially, Bond should not be subjected to such demeaning torture.
If the filmmakers are going for gritty edgy realism, then they also fail, because in gritty realistic world those who are tortured also die. This type of torture is just a form of sadistic slow execution. So be done with it and kill Bond. Then you've got your realism.
As the learned @perilagukhan suggests, are we watching Saw or Bond?

But in edgy fantasy adventure, which is what Bond is, the needles don't penetrate, just as Goldfinger's encroaching laser never even singed Bond's pants, nor did Stampers torture implements ever graze Bond's actual skin, while in DAF Bond was pulled from certain death by Slumber and Tree, before the crematorium flames even singed his hair.

By all means, position Bond under threat of any manner of heinous death, and knock him around some, but spare us actual helpless strapped to a chair, sadistic torture.

Fleming wrote exactly one torture scene, followed by 13 books of nada. It's not exactly a recurring element in Fleming.
And even Fleming didn't allow Bond the fantasy of escape from such plight.
He allowed that Bond was dead, once the goings got started. Bond was fortuitously rescued. He did not escape the impossible.
Yet one continuation author after another, not to mention later film directors, Tamahori and Mendes, seem determined to get their CR torture bonafides in. Yawn.
Maybe they could take their cue from the 13 books in which Bond is not subjected to helpless torture.
Colonel Sun I find to be a tedious continuation novel at best. Amis's torture sequence is sadistic and twisted in the extreme. Why Mendes felt a need to lift from this better forgotten scene, boggles. Mendes is a strange cat. Amis stranger.

This is just my preference btw, but I believe it to be sound.
Bond is escapist action hero. He doesn't get strapped to a chair and tortured. Rather he manages to escape before such indignities are visited.

If it were 1952 and I could sit down with Sir Ian, I'd say to him, ditch the torture scene in CR.
"I come from the future, where all the lameass imitators that follow you, are going to go hogwild on torturing Bond, as you did, all of one whole time.
"Your acquaintance Amis will write one of the most tedious scenes in all of Bond continuation lit, in one of the dullest most plodding continuation novels ever served up.
"Thank you Sir Timmer.Good advice. I will dispense with that scene entirely, and rework the entire scenario, and scold Mr Amis accordingly.
"May I offer you some of my my fine Jamaican rum?
"Thank you Sir Ian, don't mind if I do.

Not sure this is entirely true. There are quite a few horrific, nasty torture scenes in the Bond books after CR. In LALD Bond gets dragged around a coral reef with a woman tied to the back of a speeding boat, in the hope they eventually get eaten by sharks. How sick is that? Fleming had a sadistic side to him, and it showed in nearly all the novels, not just CR.

In MR Bond gets severely battered about the face strapped to a chair.

In DAF Bond is nearly kicked to death by two pairs of football boots, being stomped on. I always found that fairly unsettling, and would almost certainly be too violent to show on screen, which is probably why it has never been adapted to film.

Bond in Dr. No's nasty assault course is one long, drawn out torture ordeal that Bond just about survives, which drags on for a few chapters.

Even the scene in GF with Bond strapped to the table and a saw working its way up to his groin, there is no clever gadgets at hand for Bond to escape. Instead he tries to kill himself. How dark is that?

It's only when we get to the final novels, and the Blofeld/TMWTGG saga, that the nasty torture elements eventually take a back seat.

Wow, I really need to get on reading the rest of the Fleming novels. Damn you, college!

Gustav_Graves

Sark wrote: »

I'm not sure what Gustav's names are names point is. Bond doesnt know who Blofeld is, yet it's treated as a big reveal. It doesn't make sense. If, say, Bond has been chasing Blofeld and found out that he was actually Franz Oberhauser that would have been good.

But that's the thing. There is no big Blofeld-reveal. There is no big Blofeld reveal at all. And Bond isn't treating the villain as such either. Yes, he later mentions Blofeld in the Hildebrand safehouse. But it's not that 'suddenly' in "SPECTRE" Oberhauser/Blofeld is Bond's biggest arch nemesis. That's something only future Bond films can elaborate upon.

In my opinion it all makes perfectly sense. The name change from Oberhauser to Blofeld is merely a very personal thing for the man. As he said himself: He is disgusted by his father and his entire family bloodline. So very much like Elektra King in "TWINE", Oberhauser acts very similar. The only difference is, that he prefers using the names from his mother's bloodline. Hence Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

My guess now is the following. Blofeld obviously will return. But he goes underground. Some very good S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-lawyers manage to free Blofeld, "because he is too pivotal for the British government". Upon his release he goes underground. And very much like the first Blofeld from "FRWL" we now merely get to see the man in small cameo's. Paving the way to bigger non-Blofeld, though S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-affiliated villains (think Largo or Klebb).

CraigMooreOHMSS

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Sark wrote: »

I'm not sure what Gustav's names are names point is. Bond doesnt know who Blofeld is, yet it's treated as a big reveal. It doesn't make sense. If, say, Bond has been chasing Blofeld and found out that he was actually Franz Oberhauser that would have been good.

But that's the thing. There is no big Blofeld-reveal. There is no big Blofeld reveal at all. And Bond isn't treating the villain as such either. Yes, he later mentions Blofeld in the Hildebrand safehouse. But it's not that 'suddenly' in "SPECTRE" Oberhauser/Blofeld is Bond's biggest arch nemesis. That's something only future Bond films can elaborate upon.

In my opinion it all makes perfectly sense. The name change from Oberhauser to Blofeld is merely a very personal thing for the man. As he said himself: He is disgusted by his father and his entire family bloodline. So very much like Elektra King in "TWINE", Oberhauser acts very similar. The only difference is, that he prefers using the names from his mother's bloodline. Hence Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

My guess now is the following. Blofeld obviously will return. But he goes underground. Some very good S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-lawyers manage to free Blofeld, "because he is too pivotal for the British government". Upon his release he goes underground. And very much like the first Blofeld from "FRWL" we now merely get to see the man in small cameo's. Paving the way to bigger non-Blofeld, though S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-affiliated villains (think Largo or Klebb).

That's interesting. However, considering we have Waltz playing Blofeld and (I'm assuming) the vast majority will want him to return then I can't see the character being relegated to cameos after SPECTRE. That would be a waste of the man's talents and would probably lead to the role being recast.

Gustav_Graves

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Sark wrote: »

I'm not sure what Gustav's names are names point is. Bond doesnt know who Blofeld is, yet it's treated as a big reveal. It doesn't make sense. If, say, Bond has been chasing Blofeld and found out that he was actually Franz Oberhauser that would have been good.

But that's the thing. There is no big Blofeld-reveal. There is no big Blofeld reveal at all. And Bond isn't treating the villain as such either. Yes, he later mentions Blofeld in the Hildebrand safehouse. But it's not that 'suddenly' in "SPECTRE" Oberhauser/Blofeld is Bond's biggest arch nemesis. That's something only future Bond films can elaborate upon.

In my opinion it all makes perfectly sense. The name change from Oberhauser to Blofeld is merely a very personal thing for the man. As he said himself: He is disgusted by his father and his entire family bloodline. So very much like Elektra King in "TWINE", Oberhauser acts very similar. The only difference is, that he prefers using the names from his mother's bloodline. Hence Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

My guess now is the following. Blofeld obviously will return. But he goes underground. Some very good S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-lawyers manage to free Blofeld, "because he is too pivotal for the British government". Upon his release he goes underground. And very much like the first Blofeld from "FRWL" we now merely get to see the man in small cameo's. Paving the way to bigger non-Blofeld, though S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-affiliated villains (think Largo or Klebb).

That's interesting. However, considering we have Waltz playing Blofeld and (I'm assuming) the vast majority will want him to return then I can't see the character being relegated to cameos after SPECTRE. That would be a waste of the man's talents and would probably lead to the role being recast.

I'm not so sure about that. Although I loved his performance as Blofeld, Waltz hasn't received the same critical acclaim that Bardem got with his character. I don't think the public fiercefully want Waltz back as Blofeld. A cameo however, in which you clearly hear Waltz talking, but where you can't see him, makes people more interested in the character I think. Don't forget, we got introduced to Blofeld...the more or less real Blofeld...during the torture sequence. It's now time to let him hear about some dirty schemes, and plans.

CraigMooreOHMSS

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

CraigMooreOHMSS wrote: »

Gustav_Graves wrote: »

Sark wrote: »

I'm not sure what Gustav's names are names point is. Bond doesnt know who Blofeld is, yet it's treated as a big reveal. It doesn't make sense. If, say, Bond has been chasing Blofeld and found out that he was actually Franz Oberhauser that would have been good.

But that's the thing. There is no big Blofeld-reveal. There is no big Blofeld reveal at all. And Bond isn't treating the villain as such either. Yes, he later mentions Blofeld in the Hildebrand safehouse. But it's not that 'suddenly' in "SPECTRE" Oberhauser/Blofeld is Bond's biggest arch nemesis. That's something only future Bond films can elaborate upon.

In my opinion it all makes perfectly sense. The name change from Oberhauser to Blofeld is merely a very personal thing for the man. As he said himself: He is disgusted by his father and his entire family bloodline. So very much like Elektra King in "TWINE", Oberhauser acts very similar. The only difference is, that he prefers using the names from his mother's bloodline. Hence Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

My guess now is the following. Blofeld obviously will return. But he goes underground. Some very good S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-lawyers manage to free Blofeld, "because he is too pivotal for the British government". Upon his release he goes underground. And very much like the first Blofeld from "FRWL" we now merely get to see the man in small cameo's. Paving the way to bigger non-Blofeld, though S.P.E.C.T.R.E.-affiliated villains (think Largo or Klebb).

That's interesting. However, considering we have Waltz playing Blofeld and (I'm assuming) the vast majority will want him to return then I can't see the character being relegated to cameos after SPECTRE. That would be a waste of the man's talents and would probably lead to the role being recast.

I'm not so sure about that. Although I loved his performance as Blofeld, Waltz hasn't received the same critical acclaim that Bardem got with his character. I don't think the public fiercefully want Waltz back as Blofeld. A cameo however, in which you clearly hear Waltz talking, but where you can't see him, makes people more interested in the character I think. Don't forget, we got introduced to Blofeld...the more or less real Blofeld...during the torture sequence. It's now time to let him hear about some dirty schemes, and plans.

Well if that is the case then I think we have seen the last of Waltz as the character already, which is a shame. He's the sort to take challenging jobs now. A cameo wouldn't satisfy the lust.

I would note however that critical acclaim has little bearing on Waltz' popularity with the public. I think if you asked people if they would like to see Waltz again, the answer would most likely be "yes".

Dragonpol

TheWizardOfIce wrote: »

Am I the only one here who thinks that idea is utter bollocks?

God knows the final reel wasn't brilliantly put together but I'm at a loss as to how this theory would improve upon anything.

I'm certainly with you on it, @TheWizardOfIce. It sounds to me like an idea rejected from DAD for being too silly!

Creasy47

If they started out B25 with that ever-so generic "It was a dream/all in the main character's head" trope, I'd be livid.

Crazysoul95

I agree that it would be silly, then it wouldn't be a point of watching the ending of SPECTRE in the future, you could just turn it off after the torture scene. I am one of the few who actually likes the london sequence at the end, was hooked to the screen both times i watched it.

Creasy47

I do like the London scene for what it's worth, but I think I would've enjoyed things a tad bit more if they had branched out that beautiful lair and surrounding location of Blofeld's and had it conclude there. I do get irritated when movies have a double finale like that one. When I saw SP for my second time, all of my friends even said they thought the Morocco scenes were going to be the finale.

Dragonpol

Creasy47 wrote: »

If they started out B25 with that ever-so generic "It was a dream/all in the main character's head" trope, I'd be livid.

Me too. It's like something out of Dallas ("the Dream Season/Year"), but certainly not James Bond!

Creasy47

Exactly. Keep those plot twists on daytime television and soap operas.

Crazysoul95

Creasy47 wrote: »

I do like the London scene for what it's worth, but I think I would've enjoyed things a tad bit more if they had branched out that beautiful lair and surrounding location of Blofeld's and had it conclude there. I do get irritated when movies have a double finale like that one. When I saw SP for my second time, all of my friends even said they thought the Morocco scenes were going to be the finale.

Agree, the beautiful Morroco lair was heavily underused and i also would prefer the movie to have finished there, but im in no means as dissapointed as others with the london finale

Creasy47

I would've enjoyed seeing it go the route of DN where Bond and Madeleine arrive, check out their rooms, relax for a while, and whether or not they're drugged, they have a long dinner scene with ESB after seeing the meteorite, which is all then followed by the control room scene and torture scene with a more definite conclusion instead of reverting back to London for more action.

Getafix

Yep. That would have been nice. A dinner scene was definitley needed.

The meteorite room scene was too short.

The London sequence was superfluous.

Still enjoyed the film overall though.

bondjames

I had advocated for the dinner scene too, but having thought more about it, I'm glad they didn't do this now (even though the setting almost demanded it) because it would have increased comparisons to DN.

That whole section seems like a 'too obvious' reimagining of the DN scenes, and I think they should try to shy away from this sort of thing going forward.

Perhaps the rumoured poker scene would have been better (certainly something more meaty in that lair setting with more intriguing dialogue fleshing out motivations and past history between the two was called for).

RC7

bondjames wrote: »

I had advocated for the dinner scene too, but having thought more about it, I'm glad they didn't do this now (even though the setting almost demanded it) because it would have increased comparisons to DN.

I agree. Not so much because of the DN comparison, more because it would've fleshed out a narrative between Bond and Oberhauser which is otherwise light (rightly so imo) on detail.

Creasy47

They should've had a dinner scene with Waltz proposing some form of question or hinting at something sinister, a conversation akin to the creepy intro to 'Inglourious Basterds' where he discusses the rats.

Getafix

If they are saving the dinner scene until the next one then that's fine.

I don't see this as the sort of cliche that bothers me. People have dinner, and Bond likes food. So, if anything I'd argue it's been too long since we saw a) a Bond villain mealtime conversation and b) enjoying a fine meal or some fine wine.

bondjames

Getafix wrote: »

If they are saving the dinner scene until the next one then that's fine.

I don't see this as the sort of cliche that bothers me. People have dinner, and Bond likes food. So, if anything I'd argue it's been too long since we saw a) a Bond villain mealtime conversation and b) enjoying a fine meal or some fine wine.

I agree, and I'm not averse to a dinner scene going forward. I too think we are long overdue. There is a certain refinement to dinners that suits the Bond universe. However, given the other noted similarities that Mendes threw in to the lair setting evoking DN, I am happy they didn't do it here. On top of TB style SPECTRE meets etc. it's just a little tiresome homaging and too obvious for me personally (although some seem to find it creative).

Getafix

bondjames wrote: »

Getafix wrote: »

If they are saving the dinner scene until the next one then that's fine.

I don't see this as the sort of cliche that bothers me. People have dinner, and Bond likes food. So, if anything I'd argue it's been too long since we saw a) a Bond villain mealtime conversation and b) enjoying a fine meal or some fine wine.

I agree, and I'm not averse to a dinner scene going forward. I too think we are long overdue. There is a certain refinement to dinners that suits the Bond universe. However, given the other noted similarities that Mendes threw in to the lair setting evoking DN, I am happy they didn't do it here. On top of TB style SPECTRE meets etc. it's just a little tiresome homaging and too obvious for me personally (although some seem to find it creative).

I don't find the homages to past Bond films creative at all. The White cat fell a bit flat for me. I don't like the way Mendes thinks it's fun to constantly reference the past rather than coming up with new iconic moments. He doesn't even play with or twist the tropes to make them new and fresh.

The warning signs were there with the DB5 in SF.

Dragonpol

Yes, I imagine they're saving some good stuff for Bond 25 where they can go into more detail on Blofeld. Spectre was just the establishing film for the character and organisation.

royale65

I do hope so Draggers. Strange that SP was like a two part story, but conversely it tied all the Craig films together. Can't decide whether this dichotomy is a good or bad thing. I guess it depends on Craig coming back.

TheWizardOfIce

Getafix wrote: »

The warning signs were there with the DB5 in SF.

And they just couldn't resist piecing it back together because apparently you can't have a Bond film without the DB5 anymore.

Dragonpol

I do hope Craig comes back as Bond in No. 25.

I also really hope that the Bentley comes back as Bond's car of choice after the Craig era. :)

Getafix

They've actually ruined a lot of the iconic status and enjoyment of the DB5 for me. I'm sick of the sight of it. Talk about scraping the barrel. Flogging a dead horse. Robbing a corpse. ETC etc.

royale65

To be honest, I thought they'd included the DB5 just to get a larf from Q - "I thought I told you to bring it back in one piece not bring back one piece." And as Bond parked the new Aston in the Tiber he needed a car...

TheWizardOfIce

Getafix wrote: »

They've actually ruined a lot of the iconic status and enjoyment of the DB5 for me. I'm sick of the sight of it. Talk about scraping the barrel. Flogging a dead horse. Robbing a corpse. ETC etc.

Spot on Sir - well compared to the other thread. ;)

I was so happy to see the f**king thing finally blown to buggery only for them to be unable to stop themselves from bringing it back to life. It seems like as soon as P&W run out of ideas (which is fairly often) they reach for this infernal thing like a crack pipe. And Jesus are they addicted.

bondjames

This is Mendes channeling Nolan again. The DB5 has become the Batmobile. Something that Bond must have. An extension of himself. It's a damn shame it got applause in SF.

I'll add gadget laden Omegas to that as well. I know we haven't seen it since 2002 (I think), but really, I'm done with it.