In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1242527293051

Comments

  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    The criticisms of SP on here are a bit outlandish IMO. 'Nothing to say'? How many Bond films actually have something to say. It's not really a major characteristic of the series.

    The writing on SP is not outstanding but it's generally a lot better than what we've seen for much of the last 25 years. I can't think of any really poorly written dialogue or clunkers. The story may not be first rate, but again I'd say we've had far worse in the recent past.

    It's absurd to say the cast is poor. The cast is impressive. Where I'd agree with some of the criticisms is seydoux's lack of chemistry with Craig, and the misuse of Waltz. That's as much direction as anything else though I think.

    Have to admit to doubts about Seydoux from the moment she was announced. Don't like the idea of Bond using retreads from competing franchises. The fact she'd been in an MI movie should have ruled her out.


  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Fair enough. The series has struggled to create coherent narrative arcs for quite a long time. For me SF is as bad if not worse on this front. The hallmark of the Mendes era is half developed and poorly followed through concepts and themes at the expense of plot and character consistency.

    Purvis and Wade belong on British lunchtime TV.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    Getafix wrote: »
    The criticisms of SP on here are a bit outlandish IMO. 'Nothing to say'? How many Bond films actually have something to say. It's not really a major characteristic of the series.

    The writing on SP is not outstanding but it's generally a lot better than what we've seen for much of the last 25 years. I can't think of any really poorly written dialogue or clunkers. The story may not be first rate, but again I'd say we've had far worse in the recent past.

    It's absurd to say the cast is poor. The cast is impressive. Where I'd agree with some of the criticisms is seydoux's lack of chemistry with Craig, and the misuse of Waltz. That's as much direction as anything else though I think.

    When I say the writing is poor, I'm not talking about dialogue as such (except when Blofeld says he's Oberhauser)... I'm talking about the fluidity of the narrative; the structure of the film. The filmmakers wanted to comment on global surveillance and the relevance of the 00 program, which wasn't nearly as effective as it was in SF or GE. So it seems weaker and like we're treading over familiar ground because there was no real need to explore this again. We got our answer in SF - not to mention it doesn't thematically resonate - 'the dead are alive' doesn't gel with global surveillance or the merging of the 00 program. Whereas the theme of resurrection in SF for Bond, M and Silva fits in nicely with the rebirth of MI6.

    100% agree on the cast. Perhaps the most impressive cast the series has had, along with SF, FRWL, GE and TWINE, though let down by the narrative and characters they are forced to play.

    CR has one of the best casts, as does QoS (and David Harbour is finally getting his due). Hiring Craig did have a measurable impact on the talent that Eon could get.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    From my perspective I see what SF is trying to do. I just don't think it works. For me it's an honourable failure. And I don't find it entertaining on any level.

    I have often thought it would be great to have a sort of 'art house' Bond movie that mixed interesting ideas and great entertainment. On paper SF should be exactly that, but personally none of it resonated with me. I find it a very dull, flat movie, and the writing for me is utterly half baked. Lots of great ideas but on screen just feels like Mendes is flinging everything around rather incoherently. After Silva's Island it's frankly abysmal.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Getafix wrote: »
    From my perspective I see what SF is trying to do. I just don't think it works. For me it's an honourable failure. And I don't find it entertaining on any level.

    I have often thought it would be great to have a sort of 'art house' Bond movie that mixed interesting ideas and great entertainment. On paper SF should be exactly that, but personally none of it resonated with me. I find it a very dull, flat movie, and the writing for me is utterly half baked. Lots of great ideas but on screen just feels like Mendes is flinging everything around rather incoherently. After Silva's Island it's frankly abysmal.

    Yeah I hated it for a long time and only until my most recent viewing of it was I able to come to terms with the plot being so bad and just enjoy it for what it is which is an ok bond film. I some how think SPECTREs plot is worse just because well their is no plot in spectre
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,275
    Getafix wrote: »
    I have often thought it would be great to have a sort of 'art house' Bond movie that mixed interesting ideas and great entertainment.

    Isn't QoS kind of that?
  • @MrKissKissBangBang, I just referenced the QoS chapter of my copy of Some Kind of Hero (no relation) and discovered that Purvis and Wade came up with the driving with White in the boot PTS and the Sienna chase culminating in the rope battle, as I had suspected was perhaps the case. Their draft also involved not only Mr. White, but Vesper's boyfriend, Yusef. From there, things unfold very differently, but their writing did in fact make it into the finished film.

    (I really will have to crack into this book from the beginning at some point. Seems like there's a lot of great material in here.)

    Interesting. Might have to get into it myself. Weird how different sources of information have different facts.

    Reading further into the same chapter there are even more scenes and influences from P&W in the finished film. I'll leave the details for you and others to discover when you read it yourself, but it seems P&W's fingerprints are on a larger part of QoS than some may previously have thought.
    echo wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    I have often thought it would be great to have a sort of 'art house' Bond movie that mixed interesting ideas and great entertainment.

    Isn't QoS kind of that?

    Yes, QoS is our art-house Bond and I love it for that. Things could be pushed further I suppose, but I'm not sure I'd want them to. I think QoS had just the right balance of art-house and action flick.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I'm not sure how/why QOS would really be considered art house.

    I like the film but it doesn't tick many of the art house boxes IMO.

    Forster was apparently going for 1970s revenge thriller, but I don't get that either.

    SF is probably the film that works hardest to develop thematic motifs and explore 'ideas'. So I would say it comes closest to exploring the art house end of the spectrum. Just not v successfully IMO.

    In general I don't think it's what Bond is about. A great Bond film is almost it's own genre. Front and foremost the films must be viscerally entertaining. That isn't necessarily at odds with an art house sensibility but blending the two is a big ask. Rarely achieved.
  • Artsy title cards, intercutting action with the opera, many of the "quick time elapse" transitions like Bond leaving Slate's place or the end of the scene with him at Mathis's villa, Forster's earth, water, air, fire idea, playing with the traveling white dots imagery during the opening titles, the "concrete poetry" end crawl. There are flashes of art-house in OHMSS and perhaps SF as well, but QoS is really the one that maintained the style throughout.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @MrKissKissBangBang, thanks for the career advice! I'm flattered you took the time to find about more about me. In fact I'm blushing as I reply to you. My very first fan, and no less the most charming that I have met on this forum.
    Thank you, sir, you have indeed made this Monday a very special one!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Artsy title cards, intercutting action with the opera, many of the "quick time elapse" transitions like Bond leaving Slate's place or the end of the scene with him at Mathis's villa, Forster's earth, water, air, fire idea, playing with the traveling white dots imagery during the opening titles, the "concrete poetry" end crawl. There are flashes of art-house in OHMSS and perhaps SF as well, but QoS is really the one that maintained the style throughout.

    Agree about OHMSS. I see where you're coming from with QoS. I suppose stylistically it's true.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I find the acting in SP in crucial moments to be rather disappointing, most notably from Seydoux. The same goes for the dialogue. Waltz gets a bit of criticism on here, and deservedly so given the high expectations for him, but if I had to single out one actor who lets the film down in a big way, it would be Lea Seydoux. Her character and role is critical to the narrative, as Bond ostensibly leaves the service for her.

    Sadly, I think several members here (myself included) found her quite uninspiring & unbelievable in this capacity. Not only was her elocution poor (that's forgivable, especially in a Bond film, where this sort of thing happens a lot with the foreign accents on display), but perhaps more indefensibly, her delivery was completely flat.

    I'm quite sure that expressiveness is a requirement even in French acting. Especially coming after the brilliant Eva Green who played the part of the previous love of Bond's life, Seydoux left a lot to be desired. Just one example of the cringe worthy dialogue (and delivery) are below:

    "What do you want?" "What are you doing?!" "Can't any of you speak?"
    "Argh, don't touch me!" "Get away from me!" "Just get away!" "Did it cross your mind that you led them to me?"

    Additionally, her intro scene especially lacks credibility. The way she starts speaking to Bond at the clinic without getting up and introducing herself or greeting him doesn't seem proper.

    EDIT: I almost don't blame Bond for not giving a damn when she announces her departure in London. I certainly wouldn't have cared if she left.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Agree Seydoux or perhaps her character are a major week point.

    But only Eva Green really stands out amongst recent Bond girls are anything special. Seydoux was asked to go beyond the usual banalities and failed.

    I agree though that her dialogue and that intro scene were poor.

    For me it's been a hallmark of the Mendes era that characters don't act or respond to situations as normal people would. That Lea intro is a prime example. But SF is littered with examples as well. As a result nothing feels very convincing. There's a distinct lack of tension throughout both films.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Additionally, throughout the film I noticed that folks seem to ignore her.

    Whishaw almost seems uninterested by her presence in the hotel, Fiennes seems dismissive, and Craig acts throughout like he'd rather be someplace else. It's all in the chemistry & warmth which is distinctly lacking.

    I wonder if there was some tension that we are not aware of.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    She was a poor choice. Just uninspired. Why would Q be interested in her though?

    To be a little fair the relationship is pretty poorly written tho. And if Dan's not convincingly in love on screen, is that her fault as an actress? Both fail to convince IMO.

    May be Monica as the main love interest would have been better? Bond seeking solace in the arms of an older woman. Or may be that just screams too much of more mummy issues.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I was more referring to all her intro scenes with all MI6 members just being a little 'off', & not that Q would necessarily be interested in her. She almost seemed transient in most of her scenes except with Waltz.

    I agree that her part is poorly written, but even then, with a little more effort they could have made things more convincing. Mendes didn't do a good job improvising here in my view.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    bondjames wrote: »
    I was more referring to all her intro scenes with all MI6 members just being a little 'off', & not that Q would necessarily be interested in her. She almost seemed transient in most of her scenes except with Waltz.

    I agree that her part is poorly written, but even then, with a little more effort they could have made things more convincing. Mendes didn't do a good job improvising here in my view.

    I get the comparison you're attempting to make, whereas Q is rather warm and chatty with Pam in LTK.

    I think a better script would've most certainly helped her out, along with Waltz. Hell, they should've just had Tarantino write him a big villainous speech for the movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Waltz is not happy with the way his performance turned out. He has said as much.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    I think SP will be more appreciated later.

    It's true that I think there are some flaws - Bond/Blofeld's connection feels very contrived and the pace/tone of the film significantly suffers in the second half as opposed to a much more well-oiled first half. Also, there is a strange lack of a stand-out scene if you ask me; QOS, for all the hate (undeserved, I think) it receives, obviously features the amazing sequence at the Opera and the incredible character-defining final scene in Russia. In SP... Bond's infiltration of the Spectre meeting was a highlight - and the action pieces in the PTS and on the train are excellent; however, similar scenes of this nature have been done and, in my opinion, done better in past Bond films (Spectre meeting in TB, helicopter action in FYEO and train action in FRWL/TSWLM). Where is the series stand-out scene in Spectre? As much as I hate to admit it, I'm having a hard time coming up with one....

    However, Craig is spot-on as Bond. What a performance - I think we've taken for granted Craig as Bond if we think we weren't gifted a brilliant version of the character (even if the adventure isn't equally as fantastic) in SP. The film is wonderfully scored, edited and especially shot; there's nice dialogue and interesting character moments for Bond. Hinx is a fun henchman. Also - the side-story involving the MI6 crew has said far more about the morality of the current spy state than most other movies around. Finally - has a Bond actor ever been a credited producer on a Bond film? I think there's more analyzing to be done on this film, as far as what it says for its time and how it fits into the series as a whole.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Waltz is not happy with the way his performance turned out. He has said as much.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    He didn't do anything I mean come on we have the rights to blofeld use him properly
  • Posts: 19,339
    Waltz was very unhappy with the role and how it turned out,hence the reason he wants to come back..
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Take the case of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Alex Cox wrote a treatment, but this was entirely rewritten by Terry Gilliam. Yet both of them (plus two other writers) have final credit for the screenplay. It's probably similar o what happened with QoS and P&W.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I really liked Seydoux, though I think that's partly because she's lovely to look at.
  • Posts: 386
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I really liked Seydoux, though I think that's partly because she's lovely to look at.

    agreed :)

  • Posts: 4,044
    I guess SP will be more appreciated in time, because it can't get much lower judging by the views here.
  • Posts: 11,425
    That's my point. SF is overrated. SP probably slightly underrated on here. Overtime they'll settle down closer to each other.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    Getafix wrote: »
    That's my point. SF is overrated. SP probably slightly underrated on here. Overtime they'll settle down closer to each other.

    Spot on
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I honestly doubt it, but time will tell.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Your blinded by Craig mania.
Sign In or Register to comment.