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
As much as I like Craig, if they feel the need to continue this story with him in the role, then I'd much rather have a new actor.
This is just my opinion, of course.
Well not really, what happens after? Blofeld's not dead after all. They can't just ignore that and pushing the reset button with Bond suddenly back at a functional MI6 would also be weird. Those are some big loose ends that beg for an epic conclusion.
I'm in agreement with you. If Craig returns, a standalone film with no reference to what has gone before is odd. If they choose to recast then they can start over.
If they keep him they have to continue the story. If they recast they should ditch Spectre for the foreseeable.
I wouldn't find it odd. It has happened many times before. New story, new villain - same Bond. I didn't mind the continuation of Quantum storyline, but after this, I'm not such a sucker for continuity.
We'll see what happens. :)
I'm the last person here who cares about continuity, but they've made it too personal with Craig. This will likely be the most descernably standalone era for quite some time.
I doubt Eon spent all that money on the Spectre rights just to get rid of it in one film (unless it is just about taking out the McClory estate competition). Personally I always thought the LALD-DAD eras had too many standalone villains.
There are a lot of villains in the world, dude..... :-?
Spectre brings much welcome continuity with one big bad overseeing the enemy action.
I don't agree. Continuity needs to be knocked on the head again, post Craig. We did without SP for 44 years. They should be used sparingly IMO or risk becoming a bore.
Agreed. It reduced the impact their threat represented by giving them a villain of the week feel. We need sometimes a recurring adversary.
'Sometimes' being the key word. They were a threat in 2 Fleming's, while the 3rd featured a more insane, less powerful incarnate. I feel like they should finish the Craig era with Blofeld's last hurrah, then move on. Possible return to them in a decade or so. The canon can't become all about Spectre. The joy of Fleming is having this roster of glorious villains.
SP should've introduced SPECTRE and a shadowy Blofeld who only appears in the meeting room and perhaps once more at the end.
Villain duties should've been divided between C and Franz Oberhauser (the whole brother thing would be less jarring then and wouldn't impact the character of Blofeld by just making him a petulant toddler) who were SPECTRE numbers 2 and 3 and in charge of the whole 'controlling government surveillance plan'.
At the end Bond and Madeline drive off into the sunset and we cut to a final scene where we see the cat for the first time and a patched up Hinx and Blofeld says something along the lines of 'Mr Bond is indeed a rare breed soon to become extinct'. The camera pans up from the cat to reveal Daniel Day Lewis with a long mane of white hair and a syphilitic nostril. The end.
But they simply couldn't resist shoehorning everything into the one film, yet despite it being called SPECTRE we see next to nothing of SPECTRE business going on. Early scripts even had Bond shooting Blofeld on the bridge??!?!
So after finally wrestling the rights of Mcclory they were going to be done with it in one film?
As it is the ending we got is almost as bad as rather than having Blofeld escape we are now practically obliged to have a convoluted escape from prison scene a la Silva at the start of B25.
If you must put Blofeld in SP let him escape and beef C's role up a bit to make him the main villain at the climax.
It's already been established as the driving force behind the first 4 films anyway.
Plus considering Spectre's scope it makes little sense that supervillains such as Stromberg, Kamal Khan, Drax, Zorin, Graves, Carver etc could operate without SP oversight.
Fleming even linked most of his villains with Smersh and later the KGB.
The endless parade of independent supervillains from LALD-DAD was not terribly realistic, even by Bond world standards.
Anyway I quite enjoy the Bond versus Spectre dynamic.
It's kind of the nature of the beast.
Marvels the Avengers battle Hydra.
The Uncle.agents battle Thrush.
Both are riffs on Bond versus Spectre anyway.
Even the MI team is now battling an enemy organization
Much more exciting I think than having to keep inventing new supervillains, many of which are Blofeld knockoffs anyway.
I think Spectre, its evil genius chief, and future erstwhile sub-villains will be with us for a while yet, not to mention cat.
Quite liked the casting of cat in SP. Worthy of its illustrious feline predecessors.
Agreed. She (he-?) was nicely attentive to the camera.
Cat was apparently not aware that previous incarnation of Bond was guilty of kicking one of its predecessors DAF
:)) My fave was the YOLT cat that bolted during gunfire.
The return of the gunbarrel sequence at the start was a major rush and the pretitle sequence itself was great, high octane fare. But then that bloody song...The strings are pure John Barry, but Sam Smith forgot to bring a tune (especially a chorus). A note to Sam : Just because you CAN sing falsetto doesn't mean you HAVE to sing falsetto. Monica Bellucci was criminally underused and in my opinion would have made a great turncoat who betrays Bond, or even just the main Bond girl herself. Then there is Mr Hinx - lousy name, interesting henchman but could have done with a bit more facial expression (look how much you could read into Jaws' personality just from his frowns and grimaces etc).
I can't say I'm a fan of the title, it just feels to me that not a great deal of thought went into it this time around. Obviously it was a lot easier when there were still Fleming titles aplenty, but I think this film deserved something a little grander. I think it's just me being constantly irritated by the constant stream of eponymous movies coming out (Jack Reacher, Jack Ryan, Alex Cross, Wolverine followed eye rollingly by The Wolverine and the as yet unreleased Jason Bourne). I'm just hoping we never see a Bond film called "James Bond" or "007".
Christoph Waltz was a good choice for Blofeld but the whole step-brother thing didn't really work for me. Enough with Bond's past, please. We've all seen it thanks. Would have preferred Blofeld to just be a classic psychotic megalomaniac.
When Judi Dench's M was killed off in Skyfall I had hoped that the role of M might finally be dialled back a bit. As much as I liked Judi in the role, it felt like she was turning up every five minutes. For me, her most effective scene during her tenure was the lambasting she gave Pierce Brosnan's Bond in the classic scene from GoldenEye. Now we have theproblem of M, Moneypenny, Q and even Bill bloody Tanner rocking up to help every time Bond is on a mission. Please, please PLEASE no more Bill Tanner. He serves no purpose anymore and there is nothing his character says or does that cannot be conveyed by M, Moneypenny or Q. He is completely surplus to requirements. M and Moneypenny can stay out of field work, thanks very much. As for Q, unless he's actually delivering a piece of equipment to Bond, he can stay in the armoury - watching characters looking at a computer screen all the time becomes a bit samey after a while.
This brings me to my biggest bug bear - the ending. Oh, the ending. We're back in London again, where not many people live apparently. Bond and the Gang sorting everything out. And Blofeld gets arrested. Was I watching Spooks by accident? Having Blofeld arrested now means that in Bond 25 (or 26) they will have to have a scene where he escapes from a maximum security prison (which was recently done in Skyfall anyway). The more I think about it, the more it becomes (for me) the worst twenty minutes in any Bond film ever (and I'm including Casino Royale 67 here). The whole London bit just feels horrible, with Bond now being in love again and clearing off with Madeleine at the end, going back on all that hard-nosed resolve he developed upon Vesper's death. I would have much preferred the climax of the film to have taken place in the desert compound. Max Denbeigh turns up and gets killed by Bond. Big explosion. Where's Blofeld? - Find out next time. Bond and Madeleine escape and in a tidy coda are once again set upon by Hinx for a final dust up. That would have been my ending.
I enjoy the explorations of Bond's character but only up to a point. The films need to keep moving forward without feeling the need to make everything a psychological study. The Bond films are outlandish, over the top movies that are the benchmark for high production values and incredible entertainment. I found Spectre thrilling and hugely enjoyable and as a Bond fan of almost thirty years, I cannot wait until the next one, but a few things here didn't quite click for me. I know it sounds like I'm being a miserable old fart, but it's only because I care so much.
The absence of any living soul in London outside of the main cast and emergency services is yes a bit annoying.
I wouldn't minded Blofeld's helicopter crash taking out a few of the street hustlers.
"Hey, you guess which shell, huh?" Ugh.
Spectre became one of the most successful Bond movies of all time.
The cinema experiences were unforgettable with everybody being excited and happy with the movie. I will never forget the happy crowds at the bars after the viewings.
The Swiss premiere was a once-in-a-lifetime experience and I even met Naomie Harris backstage.
Spectre did the unthinkable and dethroned GoldenEye in my Bond ranking. After 20 years I didn't think that's possible anymore.
Personally I see Spectre in the group of GoldenEye, TSWLM, OHMSS and Goldfinger = Highest entertainment level meets sheer Bond perfection.
...and I'm glad :) ..ok so no not the same experience for me but I did enjoy and SP has entered nostalgia for me now.
For me SP is not as bad as my criticisms of the film. Sure I have my gripes but it's still Bond and still special to me.
Sad too in that it's my first Bond film without my dad.
The dust is settling and SP is what it is ..loved by many, liked by many, and hated by many.
Aren't they all? :)
Excellent first post Sir.
You pretty much nail most of the flaws with film. Also good to see someone else who wishes that we could see the back of Bill 'utterly pointless' Tanner.
Wonderful first post @sweeney and a lot of things here that I would agree with.
The finale was a let down, the Mi6 crew being at Bonds aid and the expanded role of M is getting boring. As is exploring too much of Bonds past.
I hope you find your feet here. Judging from this initial post, you've certainly got plenty to discuss, and I think will fit in here well. If you need any assistance, just holler.
:-c
I agree with much of this.
The first hour and forty minutes were epic. The PTS might be the best. Not much to complain about, except for the airbag--which I still find ill-timed and ill-advised. I am also not crazy about the Blofeld-Bond link and the SPECTRE-Quantum link. Neither was necessary and both cast a pall on the previous three films. It's sort of like how TESB and RotJ ruined Star Wars for me, as a kid...maybe, in due time, I'll warm up to it.
The ending is problematic in four ways:
1. The escape from the crater lair is too fast, too easy.
2. The cut to London and Madeleine going to the safe house was too fast; we needed some space here.
3. Bond leaving Madeleine alone on a dark street, under dangerous pretenses, is the worst demonstration of love toward a woman I have ever seen.
4. Lie the lair escape, the shooting down of Blofeld's chopper is just too...simple.
I didn't mind Bond not killing Blofeld. There is a line that M tells C: "A license to kill is also a licence NOT to kill." Remember, M explains having to look into a man's eyes to know when. I thought the line was a perfect explanation of Bond's demeanor. It worked.
In the "One Word" thread, I described SP as "disappointing." This doesn't mean I consider it a bad film; but it could have been so much more--if maybe EON and Mendes had worked more on the script and decided to start filming later. I would have been OK with a May 2016 release, instead, if it meant a more solid film.
Would you care to elaborate on why you think SP is flawed? It's just that in the Christoph Waltz thread you seem to have a downer on people being negative towards SP?
I have never said that SP was devoid of criticism, or should be treated as such. What I took issue with was a specific criticism because I didn't see any basis in it, and still don't.
Well seeing as you discount the handling of Blofeld as a negative point against the film I'd be interested to hear exactly what your criticisms are then?
Assuming you haven't lost the evidence that is.