"SPECTRE" Appreciation Topic (...and why you think the 24th Bond film was the best spy film of 2015)

1171820222327

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!
  • Posts: 19,339
    I know.
    There are more holes in the last 30mins of SP than swiss cheese.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Yes, Blofeld has access to CCTV cameras, then he would know whereas abouts the safe house was. That would actually make use of his surveillance scheme, and make it a tangible threat for the audience.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, #3 is even less necessary when you realize that if Bond hadn't escaped, he would've been led to Blofeld while blindfolded, so the displaying of the pictures was completely irrelevant, anyway.

    Good catch. But I always assumed that once inside the building, they were going to take off the blindfold so he could meet his fate. In that case, why the damn blindfold in the first place?
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 1,162
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm the only person I know who is fine with the last 30 mins. It's completely odd, but I see some appeal in that. It has a nightmarish quality to it (yes, yes, oh, the irony). I like the fact it isn't 'insert big finale in crater base'. There are loads of moments in Bond that are, from a critical standpoint, pretty awful, but they usually have something that draws me in. With SP it's a sense of the macabre. It's nothing compared to CR, but I'm fine with it. The narrative damage is done in Morocco.

    I love it too, @RC7. I get chills when Bond "comes home," and I enjoy the situation of he and his team working together when they actually need to, and not just to have all the main players there. Add in the danger of SPECTRE swarming them, the maze of Bond's past horrors and Bond's race to save Madeliene, and you have a thrilling and tense time.
    .

    Wow! You are really going all in emphasizing wise, aren't you? I remember when you once told about you having shivers of fear when watching Dalton finding Stella in LTK because you were so afraid what he was going to do. Somehow I envy you for having that much fantasy, even though I know for sure you are overdoing (and overanalyzing) it.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,583
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, #3 is even less necessary when you realize that if Bond hadn't escaped, he would've been led to Blofeld while blindfolded, so the displaying of the pictures was completely irrelevant, anyway.

    It would've obviously been taken off once they were inside. But the thought of keeping your captor blinded gives them a dulled sense of spatial awareness and allow you to essentially force them to use their other senses. If you can't see what you're hitting or where you're going, you're naturally vulnerable. They just never count on Bond being Bond, the hero of his own story.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm the only person I know who is fine with the last 30 mins. It's completely odd, but I see some appeal in that. It has a nightmarish quality to it (yes, yes, oh, the irony). I like the fact it isn't 'insert big finale in crater base'. There are loads of moments in Bond that are, from a critical standpoint, pretty awful, but they usually have something that draws me in. With SP it's a sense of the macabre. It's nothing compared to CR, but I'm fine with it. The narrative damage is done in Morocco.

    I love it too, @RC7. I get chills when Bond "comes home," and I enjoy the situation of he and his team working together when they actually need to, and not just to have all the main players there. Add in the danger of SPECTRE swarming them, the maze of Bond's past horrors and Bond's race to save Madeliene, and you have a thrilling and tense time.
    .

    Wow! You are really going all in emphasizing wise, do you? I remember when you once told about you having shivers of fear when watching Dalton finding Stella in LTK because you were so afraid what he was going to do. Somehow I envy you for having that much fantasy, even though I know for sure you are overdoing (and overanalyzing) it.

    @noSolaceleft, we really don't have to keep doing this monotonous dance. I don't think me explaining exactly what happens in the scene (Bond coming home to London, working with the team, running through a maze of his past, etc) is overanalyzing. It's all there to see. You can make light of my reactions to the finale all you want, but the content is the content.

    It doesn't take fantasy to enjoy, you just have to be the audience for the content. There's films you love that you couldn't pay me to watch and that I think are laughable, but that's fine as we have different expectations and tastes. No need to keep pressing on about how people who like things overdue their love of it. Certainly there's more to life than ragging on people for liking what you hate or telling people to find a new genre to enjoy. We like it, and that's all you need be concerned about.

    It's also Della by the way, not Stella.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.
  • Posts: 142
    I’m sure I don’t need to say this but since I’ve got the time I’ll stick my foot in here and say that I totally enjoyed the last 30 minutes of SP. The black bag over the head would be standard practice, it disorients not only spatially but emotionally as well (not Bond of course, but the average beer muscle hero would be at a loss). The audience knows only some of what to expect and of course Bond (in character) knows nothing. Blofeld counts on Bond to come after him whether he escapes his captors or not, of course we the audience know that he will escape (that’s what Bond does). The hall of images is both for the audience and for Bond, as Blofeld is reminding him of his past. It was a nice visual metaphor as Bond stalks Blofeld, and again we know where it will lead to. Mallory, now as M has accepted Bond back into the fold and everyone pulls together to overcome C and Spectre, it’s all great fun. I think to enjoy any novel or fictional film, suspension of ones sense of reality is necessary.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, why is that obvious, though? Nothing deems it so, and blindfolding him to take him to the abandoned MI6 headquarters, of all places, is a foolish thing to begin with. Even if he is blindfolded to keep him vulnerable, that's immediately negated once it's removed.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, #3 is even less necessary when you realize that if Bond hadn't escaped, he would've been led to Blofeld while blindfolded, so the displaying of the pictures was completely irrelevant, anyway.

    It would've obviously been taken off once they were inside. But the thought of keeping your captor blinded gives them a dulled sense of spatial awareness and allow you to essentially force them to use their other senses. If you can't see what you're hitting or where you're going, you're naturally vulnerable. They just never count on Bond being Bond, the hero of his own story.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm the only person I know who is fine with the last 30 mins. It's completely odd, but I see some appeal in that. It has a nightmarish quality to it (yes, yes, oh, the irony). I like the fact it isn't 'insert big finale in crater base'. There are loads of moments in Bond that are, from a critical standpoint, pretty awful, but they usually have something that draws me in. With SP it's a sense of the macabre. It's nothing compared to CR, but I'm fine with it. The narrative damage is done in Morocco.

    I love it too, @RC7. I get chills when Bond "comes home," and I enjoy the situation of he and his team working together when they actually need to, and not just to have all the main players there. Add in the danger of SPECTRE swarming them, the maze of Bond's past horrors and Bond's race to save Madeliene, and you have a thrilling and tense time.
    .

    Wow! You are really going all in emphasizing wise, do you? I remember when you once told about you having shivers of fear when watching Dalton finding Stella in LTK because you were so afraid what he was going to do. Somehow I envy you for having that much fantasy, even though I know for sure you are overdoing (and overanalyzing) it.

    @noSolaceleft, we really don't have to keep doing this monotonous dance. I don't think me explaining exactly what happens in the scene (Bond coming home to London, working with the team, running through a maze of his past, etc) is overanalyzing. It's all there to see. You can make light of my reactions to the finale all you want, but the content is the content.

    It doesn't take fantasy to enjoy, you just have to be the audience for the content. There's films you love that you couldn't pay me to watch and that I think are laughable, but that's fine as we have different expectations and tastes. No need to keep pressing on about how people who like things overdue their love of it. Certainly there's more to life than ragging on people for liking what you hate or telling people to find a new genre to enjoy. We like it, and that's all you need be concerned about.

    It's also Della by the way, not Stella.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I was merely commenting on your dramatic choice of words and your perception of things happening ( or ones that in your view must have happened), which I often perceive as blown out of proportion.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 2017 Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason your Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.
  • RC7RC7
    edited June 2017 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason you're Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.

    Where did I say EON would be happy with it? I'm talking about how a viewer might respond. In both cases the films are lacking, but the veneer is clearly enough for some people to find a level of enjoyment. If that's cinematography, or score, or whatever, then so be it.

    EON have a vision, whether that's good or bad is subjective, but the vision and the reality are never the same and in a film series as monumental in scale as Bond it's almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning and execute in a way that placates the audience and fills the coffers in equal measure.

    They didn't set out to make DAD as misguided as it was, likewise they wouldn't have imagined the CR jigsaw would be so lauded. These pictures are enormous - once elements begin to unravel it's incredibly difficult to reign in.

    Anyone whose ever produced anything of scale before will understand the logistics involved, for anyone who hasn't it seems unfathomable and I get that.
  • Posts: 11,425
    No matter what the intention is, the final 30 mins are poorly written and conceived. It's like ropey Sunday afternoon TV.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason you're Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.

    Where did I say EON would be happy with it? I'm talking about how a viewer might respond. In both cases the films are lacking, but the veneer is clearly enough for some people to find a level of enjoyment. If that's cinematography, or score, or whatever, then so be it.

    EON have a vision, whether that's good or bad is subjective, but the vision and the reality are never the same and in a film series as monumental in scale as Bond it's almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning and execute in a way that placates the audience and fills the coffers in equal measure.

    They didn't set out to make DAD as misguided as it was, likewise they wouldn't have imagined the CR jigsaw would be so lauded. These pictures are enormous - once elements begin to unravel it's incredibly difficult to reign in.

    Anyone whose ever produced anything of scale before will understand the logistics involved, for anyone who hasn't it seems unfathomable and I get that.

    Once again, making excuses. The only vision EON have is the vision of a billion dollars and how to get their hands on it. With DAF EON are rightfully criticised for receding back into their shell after the ambitions of OHMSS, hiring Connery back and attempting to repeat Goldfinger but with Diamonds. Those are spreadsheet decisions designed to protect the bottom line, not a artistic vision that went awry. I'm stunned how you can see it in one case, but not the other. SP tries to capitalize on what was successful about Skyfall. That's why they have the old M return in a message from beyond the grave. That's why they feature the old building wreckage prominently, and they try to link back so much to Skyfall and Casino. And that's also why there was a forced familial connection - because it was already proven to work. A safe bet, or seemingly so after the barnstorming success of SF and the mother son relationship of that film. The parts of SP I enjoy are atomized moments, individual shots or deliveries of lines that momentarily excite my imagination, but as a grand vision that we're supposed to be in awe of? Yeah, somewhat missed the mark there.
  • Posts: 11,425
    When EON are worried about the future of the series they always play it safe. Time after time. Understandable and frankly the series wouldn't still be going if they didn't take that approach. Periodically they take a few risks, but usually only from a position of strength and stability.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason you're Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.

    Where did I say EON would be happy with it? I'm talking about how a viewer might respond. In both cases the films are lacking, but the veneer is clearly enough for some people to find a level of enjoyment. If that's cinematography, or score, or whatever, then so be it.

    EON have a vision, whether that's good or bad is subjective, but the vision and the reality are never the same and in a film series as monumental in scale as Bond it's almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning and execute in a way that placates the audience and fills the coffers in equal measure.

    They didn't set out to make DAD as misguided as it was, likewise they wouldn't have imagined the CR jigsaw would be so lauded. These pictures are enormous - once elements begin to unravel it's incredibly difficult to reign in.

    Anyone whose ever produced anything of scale before will understand the logistics involved, for anyone who hasn't it seems unfathomable and I get that.

    Once again, making excuses. The only vision EON have is the vision of a billion dollars and how to get their hands on it. With DAF EON are rightfully criticised for receding back into their shell after the ambitions of OHMSS, hiring Connery back and attempting to repeat Goldfinger but with Diamonds. Those are spreadsheet decisions designed to protect the bottom line, not a artistic vision that went awry. I'm stunned how you can see it in one case, but not the other. SP tries to capitalize on what was successful about Skyfall. That's why they have the old M return in a message from beyond the grave. That's why they feature the old building wreckage prominently, and they try to link back so much to Skyfall and Casino. And that's also why there was a forced familial connection - because it was already proven to work. A safe bet, or seemingly so after the barnstorming success of SF and the mother son relationship of that film. The parts of SP I enjoy are atomized moments, individual shots or deliveries of lines that momentarily excite my imagination, but as a grand vision that we're supposed to be in awe of? Yeah, somewhat missed the mark there.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in principle (other than them caring only about money, which is wrong), they are rightly criticised for their editorial and commercial decisions with DAF and also with SP. I haven't and wouldn't deny they've dropped the ball on occasions, sometime disasterously. But what do you want me to say? EON out!? They can't and won't always get it right. Neither will anyone else. This is film making.

    From my perspective I can see how and why it happens and you can continue to harp on all you like about how shite the era is, it's not going to change it. Save your energy.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Getafix wrote: »
    When EON are worried about the future of the series they always play it safe. Time after time. Understandable and frankly the series wouldn't still be going if they didn't take that approach. Periodically they take a few risks, but usually only from a position of strength and stability.

    Funnily enough, I see it the opposite way. When they are comfortable they tend to coast, just rehash the same thing over and over. Once they are on the back foot, that's when they decide to take risks.

    Regardless though, I'm not at all annoyed by them playing it safe. What annoys me is playing it safe while pretending like they are laying it all out on the line, which is essentially what SP is.
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 11,425
    What were the biggest creative risks EON ever took? OHMSS and CR arguably. Both made at times the series were on very firm commercial ground. I suppose you could add LTK to that list, and frankly after TLD preformed reasonably well they must have also felt well placed to take a few risks.

    Not sure EON made out that they were taking risks with SP. All the build up implied 'classic Bond' is back I thought.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Getafix wrote: »
    What were the biggest risks EON ever took? OHMSS and CR arguably. Both made at times the series were on very firm commercial ground.

    Not sure EON made out that they were taking risks with SP. All the build up implied 'classic Bond' is back I thought.

    Well, in terms of pure numbers Bond has never been on shaky ground. But in terms of by stuck in creative doldrums and finding a way out, it's always come once they pushed things one step too far.

    Just watch the first SPECTRE trailer again if you don't think they were implying that SP was going to be a creative ambitious and serious piece.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Well, I'm one of those who quite likes SP so I feel the film largely lived up to the expectations set by the trailer.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2017 Posts: 23,883
    They tend to shake it up whenever the prior film is critically lacklustre or comes across as tired, irrespective of box office. Whether that be a recast or a stylistic mid stream change (as they did with Moore in TSWLM and Craig in SF), it tends to reset things.

    Time for a shake up.

    EDIT: From my perspective, the first trailer for SP promised something interesting and mysterious. With the second trailer I suspected this production was in trouble, and the final product confirmed my fear and suspicion.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason you're Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.

    Where did I say EON would be happy with it? I'm talking about how a viewer might respond. In both cases the films are lacking, but the veneer is clearly enough for some people to find a level of enjoyment. If that's cinematography, or score, or whatever, then so be it.

    EON have a vision, whether that's good or bad is subjective, but the vision and the reality are never the same and in a film series as monumental in scale as Bond it's almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning and execute in a way that placates the audience and fills the coffers in equal measure.

    They didn't set out to make DAD as misguided as it was, likewise they wouldn't have imagined the CR jigsaw would be so lauded. These pictures are enormous - once elements begin to unravel it's incredibly difficult to reign in.

    Anyone whose ever produced anything of scale before will understand the logistics involved, for anyone who hasn't it seems unfathomable and I get that.

    Once again, making excuses. The only vision EON have is the vision of a billion dollars and how to get their hands on it. With DAF EON are rightfully criticised for receding back into their shell after the ambitions of OHMSS, hiring Connery back and attempting to repeat Goldfinger but with Diamonds. Those are spreadsheet decisions designed to protect the bottom line, not a artistic vision that went awry. I'm stunned how you can see it in one case, but not the other. SP tries to capitalize on what was successful about Skyfall. That's why they have the old M return in a message from beyond the grave. That's why they feature the old building wreckage prominently, and they try to link back so much to Skyfall and Casino. And that's also why there was a forced familial connection - because it was already proven to work. A safe bet, or seemingly so after the barnstorming success of SF and the mother son relationship of that film. The parts of SP I enjoy are atomized moments, individual shots or deliveries of lines that momentarily excite my imagination, but as a grand vision that we're supposed to be in awe of? Yeah, somewhat missed the mark there.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in principle (other than them caring only about money, which is wrong), they are rightly criticised for their editorial and commercial decisions with DAF and also with SP. I haven't and wouldn't deny they've dropped the ball on occasions, sometime disasterously. But what do you want me to say? EON out!? They can't and won't always get it right. Neither will anyone else. This is film making.

    From my perspective I can see how and why it happens and you can continue to harp on all you like about how shite the era is, it's not going to change it. Save your energy.

    That just sounds dreadfully defeatist to me. EON can and do change periodically, when they have to. But perhaps I've not done a good job of explaining exactly what it is I'm trying to say. My point is, from 1962 - 2002 the familiarity aspect that was needed to sell a Bond film commercially was taken care of by the fact that each entry followed a formula that the audience could depend on. There was no qualms made about it. That rug was then unceremoniously ripped from underneath the franchises feet in 2006, and now they are having to find ways to make up for it. The irony is that true variety and innovation came a lot easier when the franchise had that dependability of formula to fall back on. What becomes quickly apparent is that the quality of the scripts alone aren't enough to get by on, which is why EON feel the need to "shore up" these new films by linking them like a daisy chain. Whilst the formula of old allowed for an extraordinary degree of variation, the path they have chosen now necessitates that they keep returning to the same tired well, recycling the same ideas. In a lot of ways the legacy of CR, and the attitude that that film ushered in, has done more harm than good.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why he was blindfolded in the first place? It's not like they were taking him somewhere he wasn't familiar with. It was his previous office after all!

    I seriously have to warn you going down this road of applying logic and sense, because with the last two Bond movies this might very well get an occupation for life.

    You are right. Makes even less sense than the most Bonkers Moore films.

    There is truth to this. In many cases, you have to accept "on faith" why things are happening. Even in SP, I "accepted" that Bond would have an easy time getting his Aston Martin from London to Rome in less than 12 hours, bring a tuxedo on board a train to nowhere, and that Hinx would try to kill him and Madeleine, despite the fact that Blofeld is already expecting their arrival. ;-)

    More offensive to me, is that with CR EON seem to have worked out that if have a serious tone, you can essentially throw a bunch of ideas at people and they will see the masterpiece they want to see out of it. They will forgive the most egregious plot holes, and underdeveloped characters in the name of a sense of maturity that the older films didn't have. By and large, it doesn't matter that Bond and Madeline have no relationship to speak of. That would have been a problem in a Moore film, but because it is shot by a world class cinematographer and directed by Oscar winning auteur, they can be won over by the veneer of sophistication.

    The same way people can be won over by the kitsch sensibilities and aesthetic of DAF, despite it being a bag of bollocks under the hood. I don't really see a problem with people being swept along by certain elements and not others. It's irrelevant to me that SP is directed by Mendes, I take them all as I find them. Some are carried primarily by plot, others by character, or visuals, or action, or score... the idea that EON attempt to effectively hoodwink the audience is laughable.

    Why would they be happy with it being obvious how woefully inadequate their story was? The reason you're Diamonds example doesn't hold water is that Diamonds wasn't pretending to be anything more than it was. SP, SF, QoS and CR all have pretensions of being a serious drama, at least in part, and CR is the only one that does a half decent job. I have no idea how these films can be treated with gravitas and sincerity, when you pull at one string and the whole thing collapses. Either you spend your time finding explanations and excuses that the film didn't earn itself, or you simply call a spade a spade.

    Where did I say EON would be happy with it? I'm talking about how a viewer might respond. In both cases the films are lacking, but the veneer is clearly enough for some people to find a level of enjoyment. If that's cinematography, or score, or whatever, then so be it.

    EON have a vision, whether that's good or bad is subjective, but the vision and the reality are never the same and in a film series as monumental in scale as Bond it's almost impossible to keep all the plates spinning and execute in a way that placates the audience and fills the coffers in equal measure.

    They didn't set out to make DAD as misguided as it was, likewise they wouldn't have imagined the CR jigsaw would be so lauded. These pictures are enormous - once elements begin to unravel it's incredibly difficult to reign in.

    Anyone whose ever produced anything of scale before will understand the logistics involved, for anyone who hasn't it seems unfathomable and I get that.

    Once again, making excuses. The only vision EON have is the vision of a billion dollars and how to get their hands on it. With DAF EON are rightfully criticised for receding back into their shell after the ambitions of OHMSS, hiring Connery back and attempting to repeat Goldfinger but with Diamonds. Those are spreadsheet decisions designed to protect the bottom line, not a artistic vision that went awry. I'm stunned how you can see it in one case, but not the other. SP tries to capitalize on what was successful about Skyfall. That's why they have the old M return in a message from beyond the grave. That's why they feature the old building wreckage prominently, and they try to link back so much to Skyfall and Casino. And that's also why there was a forced familial connection - because it was already proven to work. A safe bet, or seemingly so after the barnstorming success of SF and the mother son relationship of that film. The parts of SP I enjoy are atomized moments, individual shots or deliveries of lines that momentarily excite my imagination, but as a grand vision that we're supposed to be in awe of? Yeah, somewhat missed the mark there.

    I don't disagree with what you're saying in principle (other than them caring only about money, which is wrong), they are rightly criticised for their editorial and commercial decisions with DAF and also with SP. I haven't and wouldn't deny they've dropped the ball on occasions, sometime disasterously. But what do you want me to say? EON out!? They can't and won't always get it right. Neither will anyone else. This is film making.

    From my perspective I can see how and why it happens and you can continue to harp on all you like about how shite the era is, it's not going to change it. Save your energy.

    That just sounds dreadfully defeatist to me. EON can and do change periodically, when they have to. But perhaps I've not done a good job of explaining exactly what it is I'm trying to say. My point is, from 1962 - 2002 the familiarity aspect that was needed to sell a Bond film commercially was taken care of by the fact that each entry followed a formula that the audience could depend on. There was no qualms made about it. That rug was then unceremoniously ripped from underneath the franchises feet in 2006, and now they are having to find ways to make up for it. The irony is that true variety and innovation came a lot easier when the franchise had that dependability of formula to fall back on. What becomes quickly apparent is that the quality of the scripts alone aren't enough to get by on, which is why EON feel the need to "shore up" these new films by linking them like a daisy chain. Whilst the formula of old allowed for an extraordinary degree of variation, the path they have chosen now necessitates that they keep returning to the same tired well, recycling the same ideas. In a lot of ways the legacy of CR, and the attitude that that film ushered in, has done more harm than good.

    I'm saying you can't change what has already been done. That's not defeatist, it's just fact. Quite clearly they can and will change going forward.

    I don't have a problem with this era in the way you do. I think they're all perfectly worthy additions to the canon, one in particular being a bona fide classic.

    I also don't see EON's decision making as cynically as you. The 'shoring up' as you call it was the reverse - an attempt to use their previous successes to bolster and add depth to SP. It's predecessors didn't need shoring up - two in particular, depending who you ask, are regarded as top tier even classic and even the lesser loved is able to stand on its own two feet. They could've made SP a standalone in the same manner they did SF. They didn't, and that's the mistake. The whole era doesn't crumble because of the errors of SP.
    I
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, why is that obvious, though? Nothing deems it so, and blindfolding him to take him to the abandoned MI6 headquarters, of all places, is a foolish thing to begin with. Even if he is blindfolded to keep him vulnerable, that's immediately negated once it's removed.

    I think it is, yes, @Creasy47. Blofeld has set up a maze for Bond to follow, and is having his men bring him there, after which point the game will begin and the blindfold wouldn't be needed. Bond will be occupied with finding Madeline and Blofeld would leave as we see. Until Bond got there he would be blinded simply because it's a natural thing to do to a captor. Why not take away one sense and dull it, especially when it's sight so that Bond is already on the back foot? I don't get the scrutiny over him being blinded as he's taken to the building, because it is the smart thing to do no matter the situation for the effects physically and emotionally on a captive.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, #3 is even less necessary when you realize that if Bond hadn't escaped, he would've been led to Blofeld while blindfolded, so the displaying of the pictures was completely irrelevant, anyway.

    It would've obviously been taken off once they were inside. But the thought of keeping your captor blinded gives them a dulled sense of spatial awareness and allow you to essentially force them to use their other senses. If you can't see what you're hitting or where you're going, you're naturally vulnerable. They just never count on Bond being Bond, the hero of his own story.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm the only person I know who is fine with the last 30 mins. It's completely odd, but I see some appeal in that. It has a nightmarish quality to it (yes, yes, oh, the irony). I like the fact it isn't 'insert big finale in crater base'. There are loads of moments in Bond that are, from a critical standpoint, pretty awful, but they usually have something that draws me in. With SP it's a sense of the macabre. It's nothing compared to CR, but I'm fine with it. The narrative damage is done in Morocco.

    I love it too, @RC7. I get chills when Bond "comes home," and I enjoy the situation of he and his team working together when they actually need to, and not just to have all the main players there. Add in the danger of SPECTRE swarming them, the maze of Bond's past horrors and Bond's race to save Madeliene, and you have a thrilling and tense time.
    .

    Wow! You are really going all in emphasizing wise, do you? I remember when you once told about you having shivers of fear when watching Dalton finding Stella in LTK because you were so afraid what he was going to do. Somehow I envy you for having that much fantasy, even though I know for sure you are overdoing (and overanalyzing) it.

    @noSolaceleft, we really don't have to keep doing this monotonous dance. I don't think me explaining exactly what happens in the scene (Bond coming home to London, working with the team, running through a maze of his past, etc) is overanalyzing. It's all there to see. You can make light of my reactions to the finale all you want, but the content is the content.

    It doesn't take fantasy to enjoy, you just have to be the audience for the content. There's films you love that you couldn't pay me to watch and that I think are laughable, but that's fine as we have different expectations and tastes. No need to keep pressing on about how people who like things overdue their love of it. Certainly there's more to life than ragging on people for liking what you hate or telling people to find a new genre to enjoy. We like it, and that's all you need be concerned about.

    It's also Della by the way, not Stella.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I was merely commenting on your dramatic choice of words and your perception of things happening ( or ones that in your view must have happened), which I often perceive as blown out of proportion.

    That's fine, @noSolaceleft. I'm not here to step on toes, just to point out that we all have things that engage us that lose others, and there's no point in getting all cut up over it. Some people see grand things in movies people fall asleep in, and vice versa, and that's cool. I've just come to a point where I don't take it seriously and let it all slide off, as it's not worth getting into arguments over. They're just films, after all.

    I may come off as over passionate and I can deal with that. I really study these films for reviews and other blog writing I do, so the content in them speaks loudly for the movies that I really connect with and that's where the passion comes in. It's cool if people don't see what I do, I don't expect them to. At the end of the day I just want to enjoy as many Bond films as I can and will look at every angle of them to try and find a way to that enjoyment. SP is one of those such movies.
  • The last act of SP is not terrible, but it sort of dropped the ball. The problem is that the last trial in the Mi6 building did not test Bond's wits or intelligence or even his physicality. He really just ran around until Madeleine decided to scream (when she had a gag in her mouth) and then jumped down onto a conveniently placed net to get into a conveniently placed boat to then shoot down a surprisingly vulnerable helicopter. Hmm. This is Bond, they could have done better...
  • edited June 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, why is that obvious, though? Nothing deems it so, and blindfolding him to take him to the abandoned MI6 headquarters, of all places, is a foolish thing to begin with. Even if he is blindfolded to keep him vulnerable, that's immediately negated once it's removed.

    I think it is, yes, @Creasy47. Blofeld has set up a maze for Bond to follow, and is having his men bring him there, after which point the game will begin and the blindfold wouldn't be needed. Bond will be occupied with finding Madeline and Blofeld would leave as we see. Until Bond got there he would be blinded simply because it's a natural thing to do to a captor. Why not take away one sense and dull it, especially when it's sight so that Bond is already on the back foot? I don't get the scrutiny over him being blinded as he's taken to the building, because it is the smart thing to do no matter the situation for the effects physically and emotionally on a captive.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @TripAces, #3 is even less necessary when you realize that if Bond hadn't escaped, he would've been led to Blofeld while blindfolded, so the displaying of the pictures was completely irrelevant, anyway.

    It would've obviously been taken off once they were inside. But the thought of keeping your captor blinded gives them a dulled sense of spatial awareness and allow you to essentially force them to use their other senses. If you can't see what you're hitting or where you're going, you're naturally vulnerable. They just never count on Bond being Bond, the hero of his own story.
    RC7 wrote: »
    I'm the only person I know who is fine with the last 30 mins. It's completely odd, but I see some appeal in that. It has a nightmarish quality to it (yes, yes, oh, the irony). I like the fact it isn't 'insert big finale in crater base'. There are loads of moments in Bond that are, from a critical standpoint, pretty awful, but they usually have something that draws me in. With SP it's a sense of the macabre. It's nothing compared to CR, but I'm fine with it. The narrative damage is done in Morocco.

    I love it too, @RC7. I get chills when Bond "comes home," and I enjoy the situation of he and his team working together when they actually need to, and not just to have all the main players there. Add in the danger of SPECTRE swarming them, the maze of Bond's past horrors and Bond's race to save Madeliene, and you have a thrilling and tense time.
    .

    Wow! You are really going all in emphasizing wise, do you? I remember when you once told about you having shivers of fear when watching Dalton finding Stella in LTK because you were so afraid what he was going to do. Somehow I envy you for having that much fantasy, even though I know for sure you are overdoing (and overanalyzing) it.

    @noSolaceleft, we really don't have to keep doing this monotonous dance. I don't think me explaining exactly what happens in the scene (Bond coming home to London, working with the team, running through a maze of his past, etc) is overanalyzing. It's all there to see. You can make light of my reactions to the finale all you want, but the content is the content.

    It doesn't take fantasy to enjoy, you just have to be the audience for the content. There's films you love that you couldn't pay me to watch and that I think are laughable, but that's fine as we have different expectations and tastes. No need to keep pressing on about how people who like things overdue their love of it. Certainly there's more to life than ragging on people for liking what you hate or telling people to find a new genre to enjoy. We like it, and that's all you need be concerned about.

    It's also Della by the way, not Stella.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I was merely commenting on your dramatic choice of words and your perception of things happening ( or ones that in your view must have happened), which I often perceive as blown out of proportion.

    That's fine, @noSolaceleft. I'm not here to step on toes, just to point out that we all have things that engage us that lose others, and there's no point in getting all cut up over it. Some people see grand things in movies people fall asleep in, and vice versa, and that's cool. I've just come to a point where I don't take it seriously and let it all slide off, as it's not worth getting into arguments over. They're just films, after all.

    I may come off as over passionate and I can deal with that. I really study these films for reviews and other blog writing I do, so the content in them speaks loudly for the movies that I really connect with and that's where the passion comes in. It's cool if people don't see what I do, I don't expect them to. At the end of the day I just want to enjoy as many Bond films as I can and will look at every angle of them to try and find a way to that enjoyment. SP is one of those such movies.

    And lets be honest,when it comes down to it,they are ALL bloody good films...yes,even TLD and ,meh,THAT WOMAN .....
Sign In or Register to comment.