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
There is no concoction of a decade(s) long plan.
I still think it's emotionally inconsistent though,.....with what has come before and with what the narrative suggests. That's why the discussion about it is ongoing on these boards.
I came out of it the first time confused emotionally and therefore feeling somewhat empty about the whole thing. I see that in some of the reviews on this site too. That's what I mean in my earlier post. I think SF was emotionally consistent....maybe that was on account of Dench and Bardem.....I'm not sure.
People keep referring to plot flaws in SP but don't seem to elaborate on what they actually are.
A film plot moving into a direction that doesn't meet someone's personal preference doesn't constitute a flaw.
It's like with SF and people citing M and Kincade's use of a torch which revealed themselves to Silva as a plot flaw. It was a decision of the script writers to have the characters make this mistake and yet I've seen people refer to it as a plot fault!
As with everything, I believe it comes down to whether such conveniences or choices taken by scriptwriters are seen as too obvious or not. That is what drives the discussions here, for SF and for SP it seems.
I think SF did a better job of hiding its 'conveniences' if you will under the glow of character drama that resonated with many.....but obviously not all. I personally did not find such emotional connection in SP, because they deliberately chose to make Bond unperturbed by it. That may be Bondian and suit the character, but to me, it didn't quite suit Craig Bond as he has been developed for us up to this point. This was a man who cried while holding M after all.
Well yes and let's be brutally honest here. We could say the success of SF was down to the 50th anniversary or off the back of the Olympics but I think a huge part of it...including the strong word of mouth and polite overlooking of the problems with Silva's escape...were simply down to the film being 'the one in which Dame Jude dies'.
One could also say it's down to being 'the one with the OTT villain played by Javier Bardem' (I think he had a large part in the success of the film because he channeled the Joker). They really played him up in the North American market anway.
Yes though, I think Dench was a character that a lot of people could relate to.......both my parents & sisters recently told me at dinner that they thought she was a good M which really came as a surprise to me, given I've not been a fan of hers in the past.
The 50th anniversary didn't play too much of a part in North America, although the concurrent blu ray boxset might have.
I thought DC was fairly consistent in SP. But he's always pretty consistent.
One of the strongest impressions left on me by SF was how character motivations and actions were all over the place. M doesn't trust Bond again, then she does again (again). Everyone at MI6 is totally incompetent. M shows arrogance and pigheadedness when she needs to be penitent, and diplomatic. Malory happily sends M, the head of Mi6 and someone whose job he has his eyes on, off to Scotland, knowing she'll be in mortal danger. Then when Bond allows the demented Silva to fulfil his plan and gets his boss killed, he's welcomed as a returning hero in London.
There was plenty of that from the British press with 'best Bond villain in years' accolades but for my tastes he was uncomfortably OTT and by far the most overrated thing about the film.
SF gets off to a great start with the PTS, exploration of a washed up Bond re-integrating himself into MI6, ominous fate for M, stylish thriller moment with the Jellyfish scene and has a feel of going onto something epic...and then Bardem arrives.
Her death was a poorly kept secret and so I do think it was a 'hook' for people to see the film and how it was handled. Besides her stage and film work ever since the early 80s sitcom 'A Fine Romance' Judy Dench has been a 'national treasure' in the UK. I expect the popularity of 'As Time Goes By' in the UK and US brought some of an older audience to SF too.
It's interesting that some people are remarking on missing Dench and the gravitas she brought to the Bond films.
It was the same here in the UK. Outside of fandom the anniversary itself wasn't much celebrated other than mentioned in press about SF.
I celebrated the 50th anniversary with a Spy fiction from 1962 night given that Roger Moore debuted as The Saint and Honor Blackman made her first appearance in The Avengers in the same week Dr No released!
I think that emotional connection is not so clear in SP, and so its 'conveniences', which may in fact be less in number overall, are laid more bare. The passion in its defense is not there, as a result. There is an appreciation of the Bondian elements that have been inserted, but I don't sense the fervor that SF solicited. Interestingly, I don't sense the hostility either. It's more a 'meh' feeling.
I just had fun.
Blofeld isn't an evil guy because of Bond, that's just an additional eddy to his river of madness.
I can deal. Just like in Keaton's Batman when it was Joker who killed Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill. Whatever. Entertain me without pretentious pseudo-serious angst & I'm good. \m/
Quite.
All I've tried to do is offer an alternative viewpoint for some to maybe, just maybe, watch again with a more open mind and different perspective. I certainly had my perceptions changed regard elements of SF after looking at them from a different angle.
After all, if Mendes has done anything it's to provide scenarios and characters that can be dissected in different ways. Hence the lengthy discussions. I don't buy that SP is any less resonant, or leightweight than SF in that regard, but I guess it's easy to point the finger at 'formula'. There's still enough heft behind SP and in my eyes it's counter-balanced by a much clearer, more simple narrative. Yeah, it's fleet-footed, but there's more than enough character work, great dialogue and top class acting to flesh it out.
Just out of my third viewing and I have to say this time I agree with the above.
I had 3 caipirinhas before I went in this time which puts you at just the right level of pissed to still be able to concentrate on the film without dwelling too much on the flaws. I recommend it.
Let's be honest we have had some absolute dross over the years - DAF, TMWTGG, DAD - and ok SPs last act is lacking but it still blows away a lot of the Moore and Broz eras.
There's a danger, I feel, that we get too nostalgic about some of the old Bond films which actually aren't that good. Make no mistake SP is a classy product. A bit flawed in places but still a f**king quality evening at the cinema.
Agreed.
*My attempt at the diplomatic thing here. :D
Glad to hear you've come round to this view.
I had a similar experience. First time rather underwhelmed. Second viewing thought it was really entertaining.
I feel it has rewatch value as well and that it could be a film that grows in stature and reputation over time. Probably not a full blown classic, but quite a solid entry.
I see a lot of complaints on here how it didnt have the same drama & emotional depth as SF. But we all know just about everyone was screaming for a full blown Bond movie, & Eon listened. The mixed reception the film has recieved may be followed up with SF2.
Maybe its just me but their starting to run out of ideas to suit the Craig era.
I dont think EON knows what the next step is as of yet, & I dont believe its solely going to be where SP left off. If we dont here an announcement by next summer its not a good sign, the studio debacle doesnt help either.
It is my personal observation that the lack of emotional connection to the characters is leading some to focus on these contrivances, which were also present in SF (although not as much retconning). I may or may not be wrong on that. The acting is superb by all concerned, so it must be the writing itself that is to blame. Good acting can only go so far to elevate what is on the page.
I don't think they will follow up with SF2. I think they know that SF was a one off (and a Mendes demand, to kill off Dench to create a drama). As I said on another thread, I really think Mendes is gone, so they will likely forge a new path with B25. Even if they follow up the SP story, they can change the tone, like they did on QoS even though it directly followed CR and had a new director. The sequel to SP, if it must be a sequel, can just as easily be a simple thriller.
Again, from my personal viewpoint, I don't have a problem with a full on Bond film. I just don't think they executed such concept so well here, and I think some others feel that way as well. We are all Bond fans, so of course we want a Bond film, although with 24 films, it's difficult to define what that really is anymore , even if you exclude the recent Craig reboot.
You may be right on ideas in the Craig era. He is a very specific kind of actor, and specific kinds of scripts suit him best I think. Something with meat on the bones, to showcase his acting range. That's my view.[/quote]
But Craig re-defines Bond.
And SPECTRE shakes AND stirs it up.
I feel bad for those who cannot feel my joy. :x
In my teens I hated the insulting MR. In my 50's I resented moments in SF. Today I embrace SP
as a work of Bond art.
I thought it a mess. But SP has made me totally rethink this.
Now after seeing the final product, I can honestly say I have slightly warmed to the idea of Blofeld's return. Though in the end, it would have been better if they would had just pocketed the whole Blofeld storyline and went down a different route.
I think they gave too much away in the trailers. There was no need to show the scene with Oberhauser saying "author of all your pain". Seydoux was allowed to tell jounos prior to release her character was White's daughter. They could have even kept Jesper Christensen return quiet, so that there was some element of surprise in the movie. Imagine we did not know and we only learn with Bond that the Pale King is Mr White?.
I think that is what I am most disappointed with, that there was nothing left to surprise you with. And I did not read any of the leaks, only mainstream media coverage on the build up. But it felt like I had already seen the film on first viewing.
With Skyfall I did not know before viewing that Dame Judi would die at the end, it was a good element of surprise. The finale was pretty well guarded. The trailers were short and did not give much away.
M's death was all over the mainstream media. Incidentally, if I recall correctly you were adamant that Waltz was not Blofeld, so that must surely have come as a surprise to you? You were convinced that Scott had the gig.
God you are going to defend this to the bitter end, dredging the sea bed now are you not? No to be honest it lacked any imagination . I was expecting a twist that never came. Why not just have Waltz and cast him as Blofeld, it was rather embarrassing as it was fooling really nobody in the end. Skyfall did not suffer from the leaks to which Spectre did. Again your defending something which is blatantly obvious, there was far too much information given away between video blogs, trailers and interview.
We knew what the PTS would be
The order of the locations
What Scott's role was
That Waltz's character would be someone from Bonds past. But we knew who cause they showed the photograph.
We knew Oberhauser was already, and that Waltz was Oberhauser.
We knew there would be an explosion in Morocco.
We knew Swann was Whites Daughter.
We knew what everyone was wearing.
We knew all about the car, the high point of the car chase was in the trailer.
We knew Dame Judi M would appear in a video.
We knew MI6 was still a ruin.
We Knew White was returning
I don't remember such level of detail being given away in the franchise before a film before. It was almost like EON concede many would have seen the leak script and decided that rather than fight it, the best way to sell the film was to sell how well executed the scenes were and gave away more than they normally would. I bet in future script drafts are done by secure post in future and no digital copies will be allowed.
I remember nothing which gave away the M death story in Skyfall, I read mainstream media every day as part of my job, maybe I was lucky enough to have avoided that and got to enjoy that surprise. it changes nothing, it is the worst formed Bond script in since DAD.
I'm not defending anything, I'm offering an alternative to the hysteria that seems to be enveloping the naysayers. I get that we all have differing opinions on what is good and what is not, but some of the negativity seems skewed. You're angry about not being surprised. That's fair enough. But once the dust settles we re watch the films (and that is what we do and why we're here) for the value of the performances, the visuals, the direction etc. All these elements seem fairly top notch to me. The Blofeld reveal to me is not appealing for it being a surprise, it is appealing because it's brilliantly written and performed and infinitely watchable. For the record, the idea of Scott being the big bad, in the context of the film, is a terrible idea.
You forgot to mention that the trailer showed us 97.3% of both the car chase and plane crash so that when they finally arrived in the film your reaction was 'meh. I've already seen that. Show me something new.'
Also good point earlier about all this bullshit secrecy about who is playing Blofeld. The film's called SPECTRE FFS and you've cast Christoph Waltz so I think we can all do the math. For Blofeld to played by anyone other than Waltz would be short changing the audience.
So just scrap the Oberhauser thing altogether and be bold enough to just slap your cock on the table and state 'yeah we've got Christoph Waltz and he's playing f**king Blofeld. Your move MI, UNCLE and Kingsman!'
Instead of this pathetic, whiny crap 'no no he's playing Franz Oberhauser' that fooled nobody.
The only way you could have pulled this off is if Waltz actually was playing Oberhauser and then in the final scene on the bridge as M does his little 'Her Majesty's lily livered government is going to place you in an easily escapable cell' speech a red dot appears on Oberhauser's forehead and he is taken out by a sniper.
Cut to the sniper, a flame haired woman, packing up her kit and having it away on a high speed bike. She calls to report that 'it is done'.
Cut to Daniel Day Lewis stroking the cat 'Sorry Franz. But this organisation does not tolerate failure.'
This would've made me shit my knickers. He was always my first choice ESB. I hope they use him in the future, with a new Bond and as a back to basics Blofeld.