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
Add the whole Bond/Blofeld coincidence and the pretty mediocre Bond tropes of the second half of the film, and an awesome start just flattens out, for me.
You count that as having so much going for it!?
Joking aside though I think you're right - the reason it gets hammered so much is not because it is plain bad but that it could've been truly great but it only ends up merely decent.
I know some of you can see past it but for me it's one of the worst decisions in the series history to take an iconic character and reduce him to some childhood brat that became what he did because Daddy didn't love him enough.
Now you fans of the film can say that isn't so but outside of the fan base this is what a good percentage of the people who saw it take from it.
Yes they can move on after it I guess but I really don't think DC if he returns will want to let it go. I think he's a great Bond and his commitment to the role when he plays it is second to none but some of things he signed off on that film shows he's not much of an ideas man and please somebody hand P&W their P45's.
Some have been willing to lay the blame at Logan's door but those 2 are far more responsible of the uneventful tension free film we got. After the PTS, pretty much all the action sequences are entirely lacking, though this is more Sam's fault. Rings that reveal the whole organisation just by scanning it, what lazy plotting, worst screenplay of this era.
I can't believe how much I appreciated Skyfall but are just utterly non plussed about this film and Mendes needs to be done, his so called depth charges as he phrased them in interviews were bloody laughable. He was only person who thought he was offering any surprises with this film.
He didn't become what he did because Daddy didn't love him. He talks of realising his father had to die - it's a little more opaque than some people suggest. There's nothing to suggest he hadn't killed previously, for example. The idea that the true Fleming Blofeld is reduced in the circumstances, of course, I can accept that opinion, but I think the one we are presented with in SP isn't as one note as 'daddy issues' Blofeld. The story presented is just one of many windows into the soul of a psychopath.
My guess is that it will be better appreciated if the next batch of Bond films is hot garbage, and it will be less appreciated if the next batch of Bond films is ecxellent ESPECIALLY if said batch of films is more "traditional" like SP, but just better.
"It was pretty good, I guess, but it seemed like the most recent episode of the [Craig's] James Bond show. You kind of had to have seen all the other [Craig] movies to get all this stuff about all the people Blofeld posted all those pictures of... it just didn't seem like a movie that stands on its own much. I have to watch it again to see if I 'get' it better..."
It's not that he killed his old man that's the problem. It's the preposterous stupidity of having Bond know them both that annoys people.
To be honest if, in the face of all sanity, they couldn't resist pressing ahead with this step brother bullshit then what we got was about as good as it could've been. They way it turns out you can practically ignore it and it doesn't affect the story. It could have been a lot more intrusive and infuriating.
It's not that he killed his old man that's the problem. It's the preposterous stupidity of having Bond know them both that annoys people.
[/quote]
I completely agree with this. I didn't buy it then, and it submarines the better qualities of the picture and brings it down to soap opera level.
I get that. I was referring to the above post that implies the ridiculous aspect is the so called 'daddy issues'. As you say, the fact they know each other is the real sticking point.
That's how I see it. What's done is done. It could've been much worse.
Just as long as in the next film he's just Blofeld and they never mention it again then I think we can get past it. The absolute worst thing they could do now is dredge up more crap from their childhood skiing with Hannes.
It wouldn't surprise me if they make Irma Bunt a tasty Tyrolean madchen who was Franz's bird who Bond nicked, then shagged, then dumped and they've both still got the arseache with him about it so cue more authoring of pain for Bond.
That's the awful level of writing we're operating at these days.
Well of course in the critical perspective you are quite right - those are facts after all. But they still prove my point really - Brosnan's films used to be higher, but now that it is Craig's era, his ratings have gone down. What I am supposing is that the same will happen to Craig when a new actor takes over, provided he is received better than say, Lazenby.
And when I was talking about the pattern of 'one good film followed by three bad or decent films' I did mean in terms of how they are received by the general fanbase sphere, not the critical sphere. I don't think SF is quite as revered by fans as by critics, and QOS is hammered even further by fans.
Precisely. Also, Mendes coming back was interesting because we were getting the same director and because he kept on saying that there were so many things he wanted to do differently in SF and that for SP he wasn't interested in making SF2. That was music to one's ears in that Mendes was going to improve upon what he did for SF but unfortunately, well, we ended up getting something different alright just not anything close to what a number of us were expecting. A massive shame.
RE: Blofeld, I watched SP again last night in parts and Blofeld's character to me became even more ruined for me as his reasoning for initially hating Bond and killing his pops as a child wasn't because his daddy didn't love him enough but because he didn't want to share...? It's not like Blofeld was ostracised from his father's love or anything, if anything that all important picture shows how very much involved Blofeld was in looking after Bond not to mention he says he was told to treat Bond like a brother. I mean did the guy really hate responsibility THAT much?
Regardless, that's not the main reason why it bothers me (although the daddy issue angle has always bothered me with Bond villains). I don't think he started the entire criminal organization because dad liked James better, but I certainly think that started him on the path and it was a huge motivation for his madness.
The main reason obviously is that they know each other. all of the above, for me personally, as well as the way themovie plays out, makes Blofeld just very un-intimidating and just an almost pathetic villain. It's a cardinal sin for a Bond movie. The best I can say is some slight creepiness I feel now and then, but often I don't feel threatened or intimidated (certainly not in the last act).
The SPECTRE meeting is a bit different, because that's before we really know what's up. But once he says "cuckoo" his evil presence and any menacing vibe poofs away
Even all the flaws in the script are slightly more palatable with familiarity, but not any less unforgiveable.
I love analogies like this. You're right, all of the ingredients are there, except a decent title song :P, but it just didn't come out right; it's good, edible as you said, but not great.
In the end it just came off as an incredibly lazy attempt. There were great sequences (the PTS, the train fight, etc.), but there was zero danger and heft to the plot that it made them feel weak. It was a film that seemed far more concerned with the style of the film over the actual substance and as a result there were countless issues with the plot and characters, and to just make it worse they tried to ret-con SPECTRE as those behind the events of the previous 3 films and backed Bond 25 into a corner with where it can go if Craig does indeed return for a 5th film.
And even with all those issues, I did like the first 2/3 of the film to where a great ending might have seriously rescued my opinion of the film. But then we get a very quick, anticlimatic fight at the SPECTRE base, and an even flatter ending in London that just felt tacked on for the hell of it.
My opinion of SPECTRE years from now will have a lot to do with how Bond 25 tries to fix some of the mistakes made by SPECTRE - which is kind of why I hope they take a page out of OHMSS' book and just ditch all continuity for Bond 25 from the end of SPECTRE. Make no mention of Bond/Blofeld's shared past, Madeline Swann, etc.
I think for instance that shoehorning SF into Blofeld's saga has lowered a bit SF's reputation for the future. On the other hand, I feel CR's appraisal is still untouched by the Blofeld saga...
The ending alone was something out of a superhero film. I thought Casino Royale was a recognition by EON that this didn't have a place in Bond. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm no fan of skyfall either, of the film in general or the whole 'invincible Bond' with no explanation of his miraculous recovery.
Agreed. The retconning of the Craig era, especially in the case of Skyfall, was a big mark against Spectre.
As for the question posed by the thread, I don't think that Spectre will be more appreciated as time goes. I think once people are able to watch the film right alongside Craig's other films, the retcon and somewhat illogical nature of everything being forced to fit together when it was never meant to from the outset, combined with the awful step-brother angle will only serve to detract further from the film.
Definitely a 4 star film, possibly 4 and a half. I have no idea how a film so steeped in tradition can feel like such a breath of fresh air. That being said I can see how this will be lost on some. It'll be years of growing appreciation before this film gets the recognition it deserves. Best Bond since the sixties, certainly Craig's best. 98 percent of the criticism this film gets is just people missing the point.
Not true. They have done tests and both can hold the weight of a human being. More answers here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html
As for SPECTRE, I don't think it will be seen as a franchise high in years to come, despite me personally liking it. It's major flaw being the Blofeld plot which detracts from the previous three DG films.
Well I guess there's only one way to find out for sure - nail someone up for real. Mendes, Newman or P&W?
Wonder if we could get Mythbusters interested?
I think you miss the point.
I know full well they are not it is just easier to type 'step brother' than 'Bond was under the guardianship of Hannes Oberhauser so spent time with the family and thus encountered Franz Oberhauser'.
It's not the nature of the relationship that matters. They could be step brothers, cousins, next door neighbours, f**king gay lovers - it's irrelevant!
The point is having them know each other at all is a bollocks concept that shouldn't have made it past a brainstorming session let alone the final script.
Saying 'but they're not step brothers Bond just lived with the Oberhauser's for a bit ' is ignoring the fundamental issue.