It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That just about nails it!
That's never been the understanding, no. It goes by a thread by thread basis, where the thread creator may allow it (as is the case with the Daniel Craig appreciation thread). That being said, there's about a 1% exception to a 99% rule there. Maybe the lack of some of our community's ability to follow the simple title of "Appreciation" without dipping into overly dramatic tirades has given you the false impression that this is a regular practice widely supported on the forum.
This. It's been noted dozens of times.
Perhaps a front page announcement on this so-called change should be made so that we're clear on this, as what I see hasn't backed this up. It seems like some threads are fair game for a little love and more hate, like this one, while for others it's just not allowed at all and one bad comment is pointed out as not fitting the tone of the comments section. It's either a rule for all, or none at all as far as I'm concerned.
I just feel it's a very poor idea to take threads that are meant for sharing the great things about certain topics created by other members and usurping their control to make it a free-for-all. It would be far better if at least the member who created the thread approved of the change (like Germanlady and her backing of making the Daniel Craig thread open to both sides), but if that poster disagrees their wishes should be followed. The excuse of creating too many threads doesn't really make sense to me, as in these examples we wouldn't have the opposite thread taking up space anyway. Why create a "I hate Daniel Craig" thread on a Bond forum, when the positives could be focused on and the negatives could be discussed in other threads related to debates on the actual films and the actor's performance in them? We've got a ton of random threads that have nothing to do with much anything here, from random shows to films, so keeping Bond threads appreciation threads as they are doesn't seem like a big boat rock to me.
It stands to reason that these kinds of threads are created because positive spaces to speak about them aren't available anywhere else, making it important to keep them as they are. I didn't create a QoS appreciation thread because it was just a cool idea I had and I thought others would like it, there was simply no other way to share what I loved about that movie without having to hear the overly dramatic responses of others firing against it day and night. SP is the same, but far worse, and so I think that those that do like it should be given a space to talk about it openly without having the usual suspects butting in that tear it apart in all the other threads already. At least here we can share ideas and create actual arguments about it that you don't see beyond, "This is shit."
To be very honest, I do think the times have changed as well. Young Bond fans (18 - 35) from the 1960's until the late 1990's IMO were a bit less critical, less well-written, slightly more positive, and more acceptive of what newspapers were writing. So times have changed. We live in a social media era that is both an example of freedom, but as well an example how society degrades into a shouting arena, with less social cohesion, but full of slightly distrustful, negative posters and bloggers; people who individually see themselves as there own 'newspaper reviewer'.
So in such an environment, in such a forum, I think it makes perfectly sense to sometimes remind people of the positive elements of things. And especially in here it doesn't hurt to focus a bit more on the positive elements of movies. I am not saying that negative opinions are forbidden, but these appreciation topics IMO are a logical result of people seeing too many negatively spirited topics, both politics and non-politics. Hey, I'm just here to sometimes poke people a bit, to let them 'fart' a bit positivity ;-)!
You included @Creasy47. And I know you a bit better. You're a great guy, but sometimes when I suggest something nice to you that you haven't seen yet, you merely Judge it on a trailer or other pre-conceived elements of movie making that makes you feel less asured of a positive outcome. I think it's a shame. Be open-minded! Give a movie or a TV Series a real chance. And on top of that, just try to see the nice elements of a movie as well. We are Bond fans, but sometimes it feels like everyone in here (me included sadly!), would like to see a Bond film obliterated from our timeline! It's a bit sad. I have my criticism about DAD, but it's a unique Bond film nonentheless, with some wonderful tongue-in-cheek cheesy scenes :-).
Hope this makes sense. I'm not here to fingerpoint all the time. But hey, this still is a "SPECTRE" appreciation topic. Negative criticism is OK, but I do think it's not a bit idea to first mention the negative elements of the film, and then ending your post with the positive elements that you really appreciate. Exactly, change the order of negativity vs. positivity! It's not all that bad no ;-)?
Its only fair to see both sides of the coin and have reasonable debate....well on my threads anyway.
Additionally, it's somewhat annoying to see a discussion cut off mid stream in an exclusionary fashion because someone feels that their safe space has been violated.
Perhaps is said films weren't so easy to criticise
I agree. Just fawning over something makes for a very uninteresting discussion:
'I think x is really good'
'Me too'
'And me!!'
Who wants to read that? Duller than an evening with Rory Kinnear.
People shouldn't blame others when people criticise their darlings they should blame EON for not making a better film.
There's a reason the OHMSS and FRWL threads don't descend into acrimony.
I'm clearly on an island when it comes to this kind of thing. I don't think these new forms of discussion threads are indicative of how one actually speaks about things. One will always focus on the positives of something they enjoy, and will forgive weaknesses if they like what they see. The alternative is speaking all day about what you hate, which only makes the poster miserable and serves no purpose to make them feel great about discussing things. A weird switch has happened in internet culture (and certainly here) where you look like you don't belong for being positive about something instead of negative. That's why I stated the importance of having just one damn thread where members who actually enjoy their entertainment can share why they enjoy it without worry of all the people who come on here to get their jollies off daily by bad mouthing any number of films (while supplying near nonexistent positivity or variety of any sort).
Just as it's apparently annoying to hear the same arguments of why a film is good repeated over and over, the same could be said for the far less rounded and infinitely more pedestrian and/or childish criticisms you hear to match the number; somehow rampant negativity equals reasoned debate and passionate positivity is just overdone and stale. Maybe I would be more keen on this idea if I believed such nuanced and fair discussions can be had, but I think we're looking at the ideal and not the reality of internet discussions. It's no secret why so many of these threads turn nasty, or just become breeding grounds for the louder negative voices to conquer, as it seems to be a profession now to be outraged about anything. If people want to open the floodgates here for more of the same rehashed and overdone SP criticism (as opposed to hearing strong positive arguments you don't get as much of elsewhere) and allow threads like the Brosnan appreciation thread to be overtaken by the same old dissenters as per usual, have at it, but please don't elect to be surprised if it doesn't pan out so swimmingly.
That'll really solve things.
*I shouldn't have to include this, but here I do:*
[SARCASM WARNING]
Yet for me it just works. It's not perfect but it's one of those rare Bond films where everything (well, almost everything) just seems to fall into place and everyone involved seems to be having a lot of fun going all out to make a proper, old school Bond film, while also making sure it's fresh and modern (ala TSWLM and GE).
It also helps that Mendes and co ticked a lot of my personal boxes, it was almost everything I'd been wishing for for the last few years. I was really pleased with the tone of Skyfall and their general direction but there was an air of pretentiousness about it that I really didn't like. In Spectre that's all gone, they seemed to really be embracing the cinematic Bond template. In a way it's the film I've been waiting for since CR. No more origin story and set up. Just Bond in his prime, ejecting out of his bespoke Aston Martin, fighting a massive henchman on a luxury train while wearing a white dinner jacket, escaping Blofeld's clutches with his handy exploding watch, etc. For me it's what the Craig era had been building towards this whole time: an unashamedly old school 007. And it's even more satisfying because of how earned it feels. I'll be the first to admit that I wasn't a huge fan of the first two Craig films (CR I like but felt bloated and the reboot/origins idea put me off, QoS is awful and my least favourite of the series) and the long drawn out journey to get here that they had, but that journey lasting so long made it all the more satisfying when I did get what I'd been waiting for.
But it's not just a box ticking exercise. It takes classic Bond and places it in the real world context of the Craig films. So we get a flawed, human, fleshed out Bond in an epic old school adventure. He isn't a cartoon like Connery and Moore and to a lesser extent Brosnan (who were all brilliant in their own way, definitely not a criticism because unfappable Bond can be just as entertaining). The gadgets on his Aston Martin don't always work. He gets shutdown after ordering his signsture drink because the bar doesn't serve alcohol. He practises his interrogation technique on a mouse when he's bored and half pissed. And the threat feels modern too: Blofeld's plan is brilliant. The film doesn't really give it the stakes it deserves but a villain orchestrating bombings to play on peoples fear of terrorism to drive forward their own government initiatives is a simple but relevant, modern evil scheme.
I don't agree with all of the criticism. I think Bond and Madeline's relationship for example is perfectly fine. She loves him, probably because of her daddy issues. Bond never says that he loved her back. It wasn't supposed to be a love story. To Bond, Madeline is just a way out, a girl who he can leave the service for because she's already the daughter of an assassin. If he retired for a Bond girl like Natalya, it wouldn't be fair. He'd be burdening her with his world. But Madeline is already a part of that world. Another bit of criticism I don't agree with is the finale: I don't think it gives the Nine Eyes plot the stakes it deserves and Q hammering away on the laptop doesn't really give off much tension but in a way that's sort of symbolic for the Craig era as a whole, sidelining the plot for the characters and themes. And I think it works. I really like the MI6 funhouse (wish they'd kept the city wide blackout from the script though), I thought it was a cool, original finale and while it didn't feel epic, that worked well because it felt intimate and personal. I also loved the ending and personally I think the whole film served as a great end to the Craig era.
There's a lot to criticise in SP. The score is a boring Skyfall rehash and Skyfall didn't have a great score anyway, Waltz phones it in, Belluci was woefully underused, they still can't get the gunbarrel right, the plane sequence was a bit of a let down, the SF retcon was contrived and unnecessary, and even as downplayed as it was the brother angle was still unjustifiable. And whenever I read some of the posts from @bondjames, @TheWizardOfIce and @Birdleson for example I can't help agreeing with them. It isn't unfair criticism, it's all fairly thought out and well argued. But for me the film just really works despite its flaws. I think last time I ranked the films I had it at 3. It's certainly top five and Craig's very best for me.
In your defense, there were months where you were head over heels for SP.
Also not sure what a personal comment regarding me giving something a fair chance has to do with me enjoying a Bond film in its honeymoon phase before the plot holes and disappointments set in. Happened to countless others on the forums, as well.
Some love it, some like it, some hate it. It is what it is. I'd have an aneurysm if I took the anti-Brosnan/anti-GE crowd so personally.
The fact that you get threads where everyone argues such as this one about SP and QOS but not about FRWL, OHMSS and CR is down to the fact that they are better examples of why we are all here - namely because we enjoy Bond films.
I can understand @Brady's wish to curtail endless streams of negativity because some people are glass half full kind of people and are seemingly happy just to get a decent Bond film every 3 or 4 years. But those of us for whom the glass is half empty (at the present time the glass has only a few drops left at the bottom to be honest) aren't merely complaining at the drop of a hat because we take pleasure in slagging off Bond films. I'd love to live in a world where every new film was at the same level as FRWL and OHMSS and I could come on here and be relentlessly positive (actually I think we'd all hate a sunny Wizard but nontheless...) however that's not the reality of life. I can understand that. It's hard for EON to reach those highs every time. But if no one calls them out when they drop the ball then we are just living in a Bondian North Korea where everything supreme leader Babs does is an unquestionable triumph.
I'm afraid I can't just drink EON's Kool Aid if, in my humble opinion (which as you all know is unequivocally correct at all times), they are serving me up substandard goods that could be improved.
Hence whilst I can agree with large tracts of @thelivingroyale's eloquent post above that SP ticked a lot of Bond film boxes (I did smile like a 10 year old boy when Bond ejected himself and loved that they gave us the torture scene from Colonel Sun) I'm not going to sit there with a lobotomised grin on my face like Jack Nicholson in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and lap it up when they tell me that Bond and Blofeld are stepbrothers and when they try to stick all of Craig's films together with little more than sellotape and blu-tack.
SP is a good Bond film. Very good actually. If we'd been given this after DAD we'd all be ecstatic.
There's a quote from Partridge that sums up SP very well (and surprisingly it's not 'Stop getting Bond wrong!') when the show is collapsing around him (ironically the Roger Moore episode) on KMKY: 'What people forget about the Titanic is that there were over 1000 miles of very pleasant, pleasurable cruising before it hit the iceberg.'
If the Titanic had got to New York what would anyone have had to complain about? Same with SP. I was happily playing deck tennis before retiring for my 5 course banquet when EON ploughed it into a fucking iceberg. It wasn't weather conditions or an act of God but human error. And maybe some of you can happily overlook this minor niggle and just remember enjoying the cruising but for me I'm afraid I have to mention the bit where I ended up dying of hypothermia in the middle of the Atlantic on any Tripadvisor reviews I write.
To paraphrase Shankly himself 'Some people think a Bond film is a matter of life and death. I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much more serious than that.'
If you are happy with whatever EON give you then good for you. But please don't criticise the rest of us for striving for perfection. Mankind didn't manage to leave its cave and fly to the moon by sitting in the dark night after night telling the bloke who was trying to create fire to give it a rest.
And just in case you think all our whining falls on deaf ears at EON HQ (although I'm sure that 99.9% of it does) just look at the SP GB. We all without exception hammered the QOS and SF GB's as being utter shite and what we got in SP was (although still far from perfect) the old, classic design back so one thing I am actually optimistic about is that if we shout and scream loud enough about the things that are not good enough maybe EON do listen?
It's got to be worth a try hasn't it? And is certainly a better option than just lying there and happily letting EON do whatever they want like we are Fritzl's daughter.
Gustav was commenting that you never gave anything a chance, including SP, and I stated that you did. That's the only point I was making.
It's definitely a false statement. Caught it twice in cinemas and still bought it day one on bluray, where I gave it several rewatches. Was even more forgiving with SF, and the end result was still the same. Not much more I can do past that.
Even if I loathed it from day one, can't give something more of a chance than five or six viewings.
Yes, that was what I was trying to say, but I think the argument got lost under all the other stuff that is going on in this thread at the moment. When someone watches something countless times trying to like it you can't really call them out for not putting in the effort to give that something a chance.
Your point about the film placing 'classic Bond' in the context of the more 'real' Craig universe is well taken. While I can appreciate why this works for you, I believe it may in fact be one of the fundamental reasons why I don't enjoy the film very much. I always feel a tonal imbalance between the classic Bond elements and the Craig universe when watching SP. The juxtaposition of something like the watch gadget with the deliberately discomfiting torture sequence, or the casual car chase with the brutal eye gouging, or the terribly visceral Hinx fight with the sudden desire for heated sex which follows just don't work for me, and take me out of the film. Strangely enough, I've never felt that way during the G-Force simulator sequence in MR for instance, which was quite a distressing event for Bond in an otherwise light hearted film. The same goes for the post-train fight coitus in TSWLM. I've since wondered why, and realize that perhaps it has to do with the visuals and score in SP, which are deliberately conceived in a manner to create an unsettling experience. Mendes, for instance, creates a disquieting mood via overtly filtered visuals which subconsciously evoke unnerving films like Eyes Wide Shut & The Shining . The often criticized Newman similarly provides a somewhat un-Bond like background ambient score in many scenes which serves to accentuate the surreal visuals.
I've given some thought as to what could have made this film better for me. More interesting, unpredictable, faster paced and more innovative action sequences would have gone a long way towards improving my viewing experience, despite other complaints. Dumping Smith's tripe would have also had a tremendous positive impact on my overall perceptions, not least because I wouldn't then be forced to frantically reach for the mute button every time I watch the film. His enfeebled lyrics & fragile delivery still confuse me to no end about Bond's feelings towards Madeleine (although Craig's indifference to her threat to leave him in London doesn't help matters there either). It's like the song is working in the opposite direction to the behaviour onscreen. I've begun to wonder if this was again deliberate on Mendes's part.
Other suggestions (such as removing the yellow filter) would probably only serve to further pollute his grand creative vision, such as it is.
So at the end of the day, I must learn to accept and appreciate the film for what it is. Your articulate post has definitely helped me along on that front.
For the most part it's quite a grandiose picture with a very stylish and luxurious aesthetic. The biggest issue for me was the attempt to balance the dramatic heft of SF with the structure and beats of classic Bond. In summation I would say, much like QoS, it was an experiment that didn't quite work. Where I prefer it to the former is that I feel it has a little more Bondian DNA. And I don't mean, Q and MP and the DB5 etc, but it has a sweep and scale that echoes what I consider Bondian, in a cinematic sense. Conversely I find QoS can at times feels like a big budget TV show.
I mentioned this a while back to the Major. When we got the shot of Bond decked out in all his finery at the end of Casino Royale, I expected it's successor to be an old school Bond, with added violence.
I see most of the points raised by others and most of them I agree with. SP's has, let's put it politely, a wayward script and screenplay. The climax in London is rather anti-climatic. Not helped by Newman's droning score. (Though his interspersion of Madeleine's theme is quite emotive). Yet the scene on Westminster Bridge is a delight, and the shot of Bond and Dr. Swann riding off into the sunrise, makes my inner Bond geek happy, if it is a little ambivalent.
For all my gripes about SP, I find it to be a wonderfully retro experience, full of glamour and style.
What isn't in any doubt however, is Craig's performance. I find it to be unburdened, cocky and insouciant, in the vein of Connery's TB.
When seeing SP for the first time, I thought "Aha, so this is what Craig's Bond has been building up to." It all made sense - we could witness a character arc for Craig's Bond.
Still, viewing the Craig era as a whole, I can't help being slightly disappointed, after the superb Casino Royale, with QoS's editing problems, SF's logical problems and SP's wonky script. Yet, this is, in my opinion of course, is the strongest era of films since Connery's heyday.
A sunny @TheWizardOfIce? Heaven forbid! I like you snarky and delightfully cynical old chap. Plus you're the only one to get my Red Dwarf references.
Dammit, close it now then! :)
Because obviously a majority of people, including certain moderators are highly critical of appreciation topics, or prefer them to stop all together :-). I mean, I didn't wrote this long post a while back. But with my opinion I am in a sheer minority position here. Not to mention the fact that it basically facilitates more opposite views as to what I was saying. So better to close it down. At least this one.
Look, by all means I am not against a good critical discussion. But I do firmly believe such critical discussions at times can be infused a bit with some necessary positivity, or bent them a bit so to say. But most of the people in here disagree with that. So let's close it down!:-) That does make sense.