In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1353638404151

Comments

  • Posts: 4,622
    echo wrote: »
    I thought the ring thing was rather cool. Was the trace from the Spectre agents who had shaken his hand?

    @echo, the SPECTRE rings all the members wear are made of iridium, a rare element found most easily in meteorites, and traces of that element were found on Le Chiffre, Greene and Silva in autopsy, essentially linking them as agents of the organization. The implication is that Blofeld used parts of the meteorite that crashed into his Moroccan base (near the area where he served in a battalion of the French Foreign Legion called 'Les Spectre de St. Pierre' with Mr. White) and created the rings for his members with the element contained in the rock. SPECTRE was then birthed through the symbol of the rings by the fantastic power (the meteorite crash) that gave Blofeld a metaphorical sense of power in his own life. Like the meteorite, he had been waiting in orbit, building up power before his descent and ultimate impact.

    Some of this is explained here:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/3sjlye/empire_magazine_spectre_spoiler_special_podcast/cwxre0p/

    Just listened to the whole 90min of this Spectre dedicated Empire podcast, including 30 min w Sam Mendes.
    Thanks for linking @brady.
    The three hosts are very engaging and very Bond knowledgeable. Great discussion. Very much worth listening to.
    The Mendes part is like the SP blu-ray commentary we never got.
  • Posts: 1,680
    For Craig to return it cannot be a film in the same vein as Spectre. There going to have to develop Craigs character one final time over the course of the next film for it to be well recieved. This really didnt occur in SP.

    I think there is an intention to get Craig back, but if P&W turn in something less than or on par with SP, Craig may pass.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    For Craig to return it cannot be a film in the same vein as Spectre. There going to have to develop Craigs character one final time over the course of the next film for it to be well recieved. This really didnt occur in SP.

    I think there is an intention to get Craig back, but if P&W turn in something less than or on par with SP, Craig may pass.

    Dan is always involved with the scripting process, so what he wants to see will be there.
  • Essentially, the relationship that Bond has with the young lady, and his willingness to walk away with her does not feel earned, in my opinion. She's a regular Bond girl and in no way created a significant relationship with Bond that was in the realm of the more memorable Bond women.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    Madeleine? The story sets her up to have a special insight into Bond himself, as related to her father's experience. Then they endure trying times and shared danger, it seals the deal on their relationship.

    Backing up, Bond falls for Vesper in a very short period. She's beautiful and likeable enough. But what's key is they shared the success in the casino, then more importantly the dire straits of being kidnapped (and "kidnapped") by Le Chiffre and Bond's enduring a horrific torture targeting his manhood and his life. People going through extreme circumstances behave that way.

    Harder to see in the films, but part of the Bond character is set up to fall for the latest Bond Girl that comes along. He doesn't try to marry every one, but he really does take to them and they're always worthy of that at least in the short term.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think people over exaggerate the Bond and Madeleine relationship (as they can over exaggerate everything about it). Bond isn't into this woman the way he was Vesper. To think so is to err from the start. It is my belief that Bond has an attraction and fascination to Madeleine, partly because he knows she can understand the man he's been in life from being around her father as a young girl, and he leaves with her because he thinks she's his best chance of moving on at that point in time. He's not head over heels, he just realizes that life is short and he wants to act on the choice she made known to him for the first time since Vesper betrayed him and made him turn away from a life of peace he no longer believed in. Because he's aware that his time could be limited, he goes with Madeleine because she is the best option for him.

    Bond wants to be with someone who he doesn't have to lie about himself to (as he wanted with Vesper), and no other kind of woman besides Madeleine would be able to accept his past life and be able to move past it with him. Her father was a dangerous man who did dark things, and because of that she understands the machinations that drive men to kill. Though Bond isn't that black hearted, he is assured that she is able to forgive what he's done on the job, and is willing to move away with him so that both of them can settle down and forget their dark pasts without ever having to worry about hiding who they were/are.

    In a sense, Bond is attracted to her, but doesn't adore her. She is his last chance, and he takes the opportunity to turn away while he still can. But what he feels for her isn't to the level of Vesper, as it never could be. The first time he gave his heart away, much of it got eaten through betrayal. He only has so much to give to whoever came after.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I understand what you're saying @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. However, the relationship is just not convincing to me. You have attempted to explain it here, but it's just that it doesn't come across to me that way on screen. There is a distinct shoehorned effect in my mind, as if they added tacked on moments (like the post Hinx sex, the torture-love confession or the whining in London) to increase the relationship's significance in lieu of a natural chemistry between Craig and Seydoux.

    As with many things in SP, it just took me completely out of the experience and made me think I was watching amateur hour. I have a feeling they knew there was a problem while they were making it, which is why she didn't show up in much of the trailers.

    When something clicks on screen, there is no reason for people to have to explain it to viewers. We just feel it. The electricity was there in CR.

    Craig had more chemistry with Kurylenko than he did with Seydoux. When Camille kissed Bond in the car at the end there was significance and credibility. None of that existed in SP, to me anyway.

    I honestly can't believe this is the same team that gave us SF, where everything they did resonated and was impactful.

    As I said in another thread, SF felt like it was made with love and dedication. SP reeks of a by the numbers 'let's get this over with' affair.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited April 2017 Posts: 4,043
    Also the justification for not having a theme tune named after the titles is a main drive of the film is this so called love story between Bond and Swann.

    When in the finished product it barely resonates, completely making the title song an it's tenuous link to the film useless.

    A song about the shadow of SPECTRE over Bond's MI6 career would have made much more sense thematically instead of some Bond pastiche with a love theme, that said the quality of the film got the theme it deserved, the worst of the series to date that is.
  • Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    I understand what you're saying @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. However, the relationship is just not convincing to me. You have attempted to explain it here, but it's just that it doesn't come across to me that way on screen. There is a distinct shoehorned effect in my mind, as if they added tacked on moments (like the post Hinx sex, the torture-love confession or the whining in London) to increase the relationship's significance in lieu of a natural chemistry between Craig and Seydoux.

    As with many things in SP, it just took me completely out of the experience and made me think I was watching amateur hour. I have a feeling they knew there was a problem while they were making it, which is why she didn't show up in much of the trailers.

    When something clicks on screen, there is no reason for people to have to explain it to viewers. We just feel it. The electricity was there in CR.

    Craig had more chemistry with Kurylenko than he did with Seydoux. When Camille kissed Bond in the car at the end there was significance and credibility. None of that existed in SP, to me anyway.

    I honestly can't believe this is the same team that gave us SF, where everything they did resonated and was impactful.

    As I said in another thread, SF felt like it was made with love and dedication. SP reeks of a by the numbers 'let's get this over with' affair.

    Have to agree. As much as the analysis above makes sense on paper, this is not what comes across on screen sadly. A very flat relationship.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    In the end, a film is to show and not to tell... so, if SP didn't "show", it doesn't matter what was "meant" by each scene... this coming from a guy that thinks SP is the most artistic of cannon, but the most spectacular failure in over all execution...
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited April 2017 Posts: 28,694
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Yes. One can explain the elements till one's red in the face, but if the result leaves the viewer unconvinced and cold the rationale is meaningless.

    It's like with my favorite. I've never bothered to try to convince the GF detractors what they are or not seeing; it's obviously not for them. All of my points to why I see it different would just be words and pointless. So I don't bother.

    We're all set in our ways at times, often down to a mix of our own preference and nostalgia, but I don't think this stance gets us too far.

    If we're not to discuss how we feel other films are effective, especially ones like SP who many believe doesn't even deserve to exist, dissenters won't understand where the supporters stand. Part of my goal isn't to convince people on the whole, just to argue why I find it to be far more powerful and well told than many think, as I have done with QoS for nearly a decade now, happily converting some fans to it over time. Sometimes the result of me sticking my neck out for SP ends in me being called bought and paid for by EON in a cheeky way, or more prickly criticisms that I've lost it or don't know good storytelling when I see it (as a degreed writer), but if I feel something strongly I'm not going to let drama queens silence me.

    The whole point of a forum is to talk. If we only bother chatting with people who agree, people who like a film and those that don't like it won't really understand where each other stand on the issue, and there also exists no chance for people to be recruited to either side of thought. People's posts on here have made me look at Bond films I'd never given a proper chance to before, like DAF and some of Moore's films, and I know many who've read the writing of myself and others and were able to see things they hadn't spotted on their own that changed a movie entirely for them. Putting in no effort just doesn't work with me, when you can get those kinds of positive results out of it.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited April 2017 Posts: 6,304
    bondjames wrote: »
    I understand what you're saying @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7. However, the relationship is just not convincing to me. You have attempted to explain it here, but it's just that it doesn't come across to me that way on screen. There is a distinct shoehorned effect in my mind, as if they added tacked on moments (like the post Hinx sex, the torture-love confession or the whining in London) to increase the relationship's significance in lieu of a natural chemistry between Craig and Seydoux.

    As with many things in SP, it just took me completely out of the experience and made me think I was watching amateur hour. I have a feeling they knew there was a problem while they were making it, which is why she didn't show up in much of the trailers.

    When something clicks on screen, there is no reason for people to have to explain it to viewers. We just feel it. The electricity was there in CR.

    Craig had more chemistry with Kurylenko than he did with Seydoux. When Camille kissed Bond in the car at the end there was significance and credibility. None of that existed in SP, to me anyway.

    I honestly can't believe this is the same team that gave us SF, where everything they did resonated and was impactful.

    As I said in another thread, SF felt like it was made with love and dedication. SP reeks of a by the numbers 'let's get this over with' affair.

    I agree with this. Craig had better chemistry with the women in each of the three previous films (plus Giannini and Wright) than he did with anyone in SP.

    IMHO, the greatest problem with SP is casting. There were script issues but I've seen Waltz in many films and he is usually good enough to make reading the phone book interesting. Seydoux has been impressive in other roles. Bellucci is the only one of the three who acquits herself admirably.

    Seydoux's best scene is when she is drunk in the hotel...I had high hopes that the chemistry would start firing up then, but it never did.

    I wonder what it would have been like had Birgitte Hjort Sørensen been cast as Madeleine (clearly that was the role she was up for). Maybe she and Craig would have had the chemistry that the final film lacked.

    And the scene with Mr. White could have been twice as long and still worked as beautifully (with more Blofeld backstory?)...he's basically in the Draco role here.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    To talk and discuss our views, yes, but I often see members become outraged or insulted because people don't see what they see. Or, often just as bad, they explain away or dismiss all adversarial points of view as coming from some type of agenda or not being authentic, or from some uniform disillusion.

    There are people on here that can't read a negative review of a film, coming from personal perspective, that they themselves enjoy without going on a lengthy counter argument, and taking apart the observations of the reviewer. What would be the point of me responding to every criticism I read about GF? Would it change anyone's mind? I don't know, maybe, but doubtful, and why would I even want to. Will I feel better? No, I know what I like, and I've reviewed the film extensively several times. To get into a back and forth, and spend massive amounts of energy explaining why it isn't dull or silly to those who have had that experience would be frivolous and aggravating. Discussing and debating I can get behind, but this personal offense some on here take to others having an unkind word to say about their favorites seems very strange and almost irrational.

    @Birdleson, well said. I have noticed the same thing.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Birdleson wrote: »
    To talk and discuss our views, yes, but I often see members become outraged or insulted because people don't see what they see. Or, often just as bad, they explain away or dismiss all adversarial points of view as coming from some type of agenda or not being authentic, or from some uniform disillusion.

    There are people on here that can't read a negative review of a film, coming from personal perspective, that they themselves enjoy without going on a lengthy counter argument, and taking apart the observations of the reviewer. What would be the point of me responding to every criticism I read about GF? Would it change anyone's mind? I don't know, maybe, but doubtful, and why would I even want to. Will I feel better? No, I know what I like, and I've reviewed the film extensively several times. To get into a back and forth, and spend massive amounts of energy explaining why it isn't dull or silly to those who have had that experience would be frivolous and aggravating. Discussing and debating I can get behind, but this personal offense some on here take to others having an unkind word to say about their favorites seems very strange and almost irrational.

    @Birdleson, well said. I have noticed the same thing.

    Same here. I'm all for sharing different viewpoints, playing devil's advocate, and seeing things in a light I may not have before, but the pressing need on these forums to try and convince people to enjoy something they don't is a bit extreme. Just like the analysis of particular scenes/love angles/relationships I see - you can explain it until the end of time, but if it doesn't work for me, I'll never agree.

    Like @Birdleson said, we've all watched the films by this point and we all have our own feelings on each one. I love GE, and some people hate it; I accept it, doesn't bother me in the slightest because it doesn't remotely detract from the entertainment I get out of it, and it never will.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    On that note, I have a confession to make. I love TMWTGG. Subjectively it's up there with GE as one of the films I just enjoy like no other. I don't rank it highly because there are other films that are objectively better, but I think it's great.

    I can probably discuss in detail why I feel this way for pages upon pages. As you say, it's pointless. I realize the majority of the forum thinks it's a PoS and that Moore trying to be Connery tough didn't work (I disagree and think it's his best performance). I don't take it personally that one of my sentimental favourites is regularly lambasted here. While it's hurtful to read some of the vitriol leveled against Ekland's Goodnight in particular (an endearing character from my perspective), it is what it is and as long as it keeps bringing a smile to my face that's enough for me.

    I realize I am the one who could be delusional in this case, but c'est la vie.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    @bondjames, I won't run this too off-topic, but TMWTGG is probably the one film I've changed my mind on the most over the last couple of years; it's incredibly entertaining now, whereas I used to not enjoy almost anything about it. It's not my personal favorite role of Moore's, but I agree that it's his best (the shower/bedroom scene with Anders is one of my favorites - he's cold, yet cracking and funny at the same time).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed @Creasy47. It's such an atmospheric film & I love its quirkinesss. That scene with Anders, along with the Lazar sequence and the threesome with Britt in the Thai hotel are Moore at his best. I always crack up at his superb delivery of this line:

    "Fascinating anatomical titbit, but the most useless piece of information l ever heard. Unless the Bottoms Up is a strip club and Scaramanga is performing there.You'll have to do better."

    Priceless, and delivered like only he could.
  • Posts: 11,425
    TMWTGG is very enjoyable. I'd probably watch it over anything we've had since 1989
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    Exactly what I mean, his delivery is incredible - retains the comedy while he's being deadly serious. Damn, now I really need to watch TMWTGG. Been too long.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Watched TMWTGG last week. Always a pleasure.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I've always hated how much flak TMWTGG gets. I personally think it's one of Moore's better Bond films.
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    TMWTGG like SP and QoS is top 10 material. Underrated films. Especially QoS which has been and is my favorite of all the Bonds.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    Agreed @Creasy47. It's such an atmospheric film & I love its quirkinesss. That scene with Anders, along with the Lazar sequence and the threesome with Britt in the Thai hotel are Moore at his best. I always crack up at his superb delivery of this line:

    "Fascinating anatomical titbit, but the most useless piece of information l ever heard. Unless the Bottoms Up is a strip club and Scaramanga is performing there.You'll have to do better."

    Priceless, and delivered like only he could.

    It's these kinds of comments that could turn the tide of opinion, which is why I don't view it as a useless exercise. If people like @timmer felt this way, he wouldn't have posted all the things he sees in DAF that made me re-examine it recently for instance, which I probably wouldn't have done outside of a bit of debate on it. A large part of the reason I look forward to going in and reviewing all of Moore's and Brosnan's films again-movies I historically don't take to-is because I've spent months reading great impressions on them from members that I'm going to take to heart and try to see openly for myself.

    Maybe I'm in a minority here, but I want to be challenged and discover positives in things I may not at first like, and I don't mind pointing out where I erred if I see something truly spectacular in a film I had long lambasted. So when I'm in a debate with someone over a film I recall all the times I know people converted me to something and all the times people have told me I did similarly with them, and I try to-with no air of earnestness or nastiness-share my perspective and the wealth of things I see in films some may not like. It may annoy or displease some, and they are within their right to tell me to shut up, but I know others such as myself like the discussions and find them valuable to expand their Bondian horizons. The alternative is shutting others off and just liking what you like without letting the chance of new things in, and that doesn't really work for me. My time as a Bond fan here has been very dynamic, not static, and that makes me very proud.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 11,425
    TMWTGG and DAF are both underrated.

    LALD however I think may be slightly overrated

    That Hamilton trilogy is brilliant on campy weirdness though.

    I think Mendes was aiming for a bit of that with SF
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    TMWTGG and DAF are both underrated.

    LALD however I think may be slightly overrated

    That Hamilton trilogy is brilliant on campy weirdness though.

    I think Mendes was aiming for a bit of that with SF

    Silva definitely feels like he'd be at home in a Hamilton film, @Getafix. Well spotted. Though I would hope Hamilton would make him say a few less "Mommies."
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I guess that SPECTRE will be more positively reviewed. Why? Because I think that people usually prefer the films they have watched in their childhood. There are very young Bond fans who discovered Bond after Skyfall and SPECTRE and certainly like these and the other Craig films more than the average Bond fan. The very young Bond fans are still a small minority in the Bond fandom, however, they might become a more relevant group in the future. And when Craig is not the new Bond actor anymore, people will have the same nostalgic feelings about Craig than some people with the other five Bond actors. Then they might see a film like SPECTRE less critical and are more forgiving since they remember how much fun they had when they watched SPECTRE as a kid.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    bondjames wrote: »
    On that note, I have a confession to make. I love TMWTGG. Subjectively it's up there with GE as one of the films I just enjoy like no other. I don't rank it highly because there are other films that are objectively better, but I think it's great.

    I can probably discuss in detail why I feel this way for pages upon pages. As you say, it's pointless. I realize the majority of the forum thinks it's a PoS and that Moore trying to be Connery tough didn't work (I disagree and think it's his best performance). I don't take it personally that one of my sentimental favourites is regularly lambasted here. While it's hurtful to read some of the vitriol leveled against Ekland's Goodnight in particular (an endearing character from my perspective), it is what it is and as long as it keeps bringing a smile to my face that's enough for me.

    I realize I am the one who could be delusional in this case, but c'est la vie.
    TMWGG would be Top 15 material for me if it didn't have Sheriff Pepper.
  • Posts: 19,339
    GBF wrote: »
    I guess that SPECTRE will be more positively reviewed. Why? Because I think that people usually prefer the films they have watched in their childhood. There are very young Bond fans who discovered Bond after Skyfall and SPECTRE and certainly like these and the other Craig films more than the average Bond fan. The very young Bond fans are still a small minority in the Bond fandom, however, they might become a more relevant group in the future. And when Craig is not the new Bond actor anymore, people will have the same nostalgic feelings about Craig than some people with the other five Bond actors. Then they might see a film like SPECTRE less critical and are more forgiving since they remember how much fun they had when they watched SPECTRE as a kid.

    Very well said,and you just beat me to it !!

    Just what I was thinking.
    To be honest,there is something in EVERY Bond film that appeals,be it one scene,one chase,one moment,one conversation.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I think the positive nostalgia factor depends on how much of a distinctive stamp an actor puts on the role, how long their tenure is, and how many movies they make.

    Craig scores pretty highly on all but the last, so I imagine there will be lots of fans who will look back on his era very positively and with a sense of fondness. Additionally, he will always be the 'reboot' Bond who started from inception, which is something none of the other actors had the benefit of (even Connery was introduced mid-stream with no back story).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    There's part of me that wishes/d that the Craig era wasn't plagued with so many production halting issues (with something bad happening into the lead-up of every one), but I think I would be quite happy with a fifth and final movie that tied everything off with the same kind of ballsiness, artistry and power that his tenure began with.

    Plus, one last movie of around 2 hours and 30 minutes would get him basically around the entire length of Connery's own tenure over 6 films (because Craig's movies have been at least twenty to thirty minutes longer than Connery's except for QoS), so everything balances out. We'd end up getting around the same time spent with Dan's Bond, if not much more, than we did Connery's Bond, and I'd be quite fine with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.