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
@Milovy, I say what I feel I need to in order to argue a point, nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want to read what are apparent novels to you, then don't bother. It also helps not to engage me in a debate in the first place if you don't want to take the time to absorb what I'm saying and prefer to issue a pithy and unneeded reply in its place.
@Shardlake, that notion of Blofeld only exists in the minds of those who thought he was ever Fleming's character to begin with. Blofeld has always been a very surface character, where people remember the cat and the scar (for Pleasence's take, the only one that is truly known to the public even a bit). Who he is as a character isn't remembered, and if it wasn't for Austin Powers and other parodies of the sort he wouldn't be a prominent component of modern pop culture in any way to scream about. Waltz's Blofeld in character was no different than the very cowardly, egotistical power-loon from the past in that way. It was clear that the team were building him as a character after the cinematic Blofeld, and not Fleming's. Because of that, the argument that, "Waltz isn't Fleming's Blofeld" holds little water.
Silva was new to the franchise (at least in name, if not personality), sure, but I don't think that defeats the argument of him doing and acting in the same way people hate Blofeld for, if not worse. Perhaps it's a forest through the trees issue where people think Blofeld is too special for certain traits, but as I said, he's not as big a deal as I think some hope in their heads. I know which villain I would rather watch, considering Blofeld has more in his life to do than killing an old lady who's on her way out anyway.
The "it's just a movie" argument wasn't to deflect criticism, but more to point out that it's a fictional work and doesn't harm our lives in tangible ways. People have slung very vitriolic mud at EON since the film came out, like Barbara and Michael came to their house and threw rocks in their windows. So when I say that it's just a movie, I mean to say calm down and get a little maturity to those who choose to strike back with such strong words. Bond films will come and go and they will vary from great to good to okay and bad, but the minute we start insulting and slandering the people that make these movies for our enjoyment, we've got a serious issue. I just choose not to count myself of the group that choose to be so simple-minded in their vilification of Barbara, Michael, Dan and the rest of the current Bond team. I guess it's just easier for people to pretend Cubby never made any big mistakes, in order to fuel their misguided rants about the dire nature of their beloved franchise they're so invested in despised at the present moment.
It's always permitted to speak out about the change we want to see in the franchise creatively, but let's not lose sense of the fact that there are real people behind it that aren't just a bunch of untrained fools mucking about for two or three years on these films at a time. They have talents and their lives are entangled in making the vision of each movie come together the best they can under crippling logistics and deadlines from investors and other departments on the production. At times they stumble as all the other past teams did, but they deserve our respect and not our condescending attitudes. I don't know why that has seemed to be such a far-fetched notion of late.
More easily, yes; but the films that came before compared to that of the Craig era had very different goals to reach and were executed better. Look at the Brosnan era alone. The distinction is more than clear and not only that it knew what it was. A film like SP suffers from not only havong an identity crisis but comes off as boring and gorgettable; and like I said does a poor job from aping others and even from its own lineage/catalogue.
I think it's only natural that every era that goes on long enough experiences some change, big or small. Sean had two or three earnest but fun films, but GF changed the approach and gave way to YOLT and DAF which were very differently executed in tone, style and mood. Those three are very different in feeling and executed from the Young films, and it's a visible one that isn't always a superior change (in fact, it rarely, if ever is).
Moore's movies have the same issue, but the consistency problem lays in the worst place it could ever be: James Bond himself. Is he a workaholic bastard who does anything for the mission, or a lovable jokester who shoots down danger with eyebrow raises? They never seemed to figure that out, and because those films aren't known for their complexity or narrative genius, it didn't seem like the team really cared that Bond felt different in every subsequent film, often flipping back and forth in how he was presented and acted (MR to FYEO is a bit of a shock, for example).
Considering the massive changes that the Connery and Moore eras underwent, it's only natural that some inconsistency would arise after such a long period of time and over so many films with so many different teams on them. All things considered, I think the Craig era has faired pretty well in keeping a similar feeling throughout, especially down to character. Bond and the other people in his life (including the villains) rise and fall as they grow, and you can sense the changes that happen film to film. That's something that I think is a real asset of this era in particular, in that you can see Bond being shaped into the uber-capable man he is realized as throughout.
Like a rough stone, the tough circumstances he gets through polish him to a smooth. In CR we meet a very bold and mischievous man who is as adept at cracking a dry joke as he is screwing over his baddies and urking his boss. In QoS that very colorful and lively man gets silenced a bit because the betrayal he experienced at the end of the last film makes him retreat into himself a bit and feel more guarded in response. It's not that Dan is playing a different character, it's just that same man trying to repress the feelings bubbling inside of him. At the end of that film Bond exits triumphantly from his talk with Yusef, and is able to move on from the woman who set him off the track once he knows the truth of what she faced for him. When we find him many years and missions later in SF and SP, he's been returned to the kind of man we found in CR, just more pragmatic and dutiful, not as willing to step on toes to prove a point.
So when people mention Dan not feeling the same in SF or SP, I really don't see it. When I watch him dryly toasting baddies who are eyeing to kill him or giving a sarcastic wave to a SPECTRE agent who is giving him a stare down at a funeral, I see a slightly older version of the guy from CR who stole a man's car and his wife to prove a point, who acted like a cheeky bastard while he was getting his balls bashed, and who told his female associate that her cover name in Montenegro would be "Mrs. Stephanie Broadchest." Craig's Bond was always that smart arse, rough around the edges, dry guy, and who I see in SF and SP fits that. That Bond actually seems to enjoy being alive must set some off.
In other areas beyond character, I still feel a great consistency to the movies. The movies can balance earnest themes and fun well, but are still aware of when one mood needs to be the most present one-as in QoS where Bond had to be kept more reserved and introspective to make him feel consistent with the torn up man who desperately cradled Vesper's body in Venice at the end of CR. There's an endless amount of moments in each film from CR to SP where I can both wince in danger or fear, then laugh my ass off at a moment that was depicted in a way that doesn't make the films feel tonally confused as is the case with all the other eras at particular times.
There's hits and misses in moments over the course of 4 massive films as they are with everything in life, but I think the era is by far the most consistent and true to its start than the other eras. DN in comparison to DAF is severe and shocking, as is LALD to AVTAK and GE to DAD despite the fact that the first and third eras were less than a decade separated; at times you wonder, "What the hell happened?". CR to SP doesn't seem like a shocking change at all to me despite them separated by a decade, as what kicked off Dan's tenure has been kept around. The pedigree of the character writing, the use of cinematography to tell stories that bridge the films together with numerous callbacks to the journey of Dan's Bond since CR that give it such resonance, the clever way each movie deconstructs a Bond film while still paying its respects, and how you can see each character grow over time. They're Bond films for an experimental age, but I think that mission statement is kept constant in thought despite the many changes that've gone on behind the scenes.
We can debate the quality of each individual film all we want, but on the count of consistency, the Craig era feels by far the most true to itself to me.
They won't listen to me, they won't listen to you, they won't listen to anybody else in this fandom other than if you're part of the production team or have invested money in them to have a say in the matter.
It took you two years to figure that out? :)
I think that's a fairly cynical point of view. And this is coming from a cynic. EON certainly have their way of doing things, but the fans are clearly important to them and they are willing to risk things to finish off past stories. If they didn't care about what many fans like myself wanted, we'd never have heard Quantum spoken again, much less had White back for an explosive scene that helped to tie off the loose ends of the past. EON didn't have to do any of that, in fact it was very unwise in the business sense because those characters aren't who the casual crowd remember, and those people make up the big box office bucks.
The Craig era has been really geared towards fans, in many ways, not only for the connected stories only true fans can get the most out of (for knowing Bond's past history and development as a character), down to the celebratory nature of films like SF and SP that really show pride for being in the series. SF is nothing if not one never-ending trumpet salute of Bond's triumphant reign in pop culture history, with a scene that screams, "Look at him, he's still going!" It's self-aware, self indulgent and very much meant to only be understood by fans that get it. If EON didn't care about fans they'd just keep pushing out films that delivered easy money and easy thrills, without daring to rock the boat. Films like QoS and SP get such mixed reactions partly because they are made by people trying to attack the production and presentation of a Bond film in different ways by either stripping formula away or reinventing parts of the movies from a character or elemental perspective. Making those kinds of move isn't smart for a company or business that wants to maximize profits, as doing things the safe way can be far more easy going and plentiful.
The Craig era wouldn't be the massive experiment that it is without EON seeing that things needed a shake-up, getting people on board that really went about deconstructing what a Bond film is for the modern age. If all they cared about were investors and their own bottom line, we'd just have a repeat of the Moore or Brosnan eras where the need to stand out and be different was overwhelmed by the simple desire to make bank and feed the consumer public anything they'd swallow. The Craig films have boosted the portfolio from those days, and are true films at the same time they're Bond adventures with all the bells and whistles. Again, a massive risk to do, but EON went through with it because they respect the brand and those who support it (us).
We're lucky to have people like Barbara and Michael at the top, who grew up knowing the value of the series and how important it is that Bond doesn't compromise for anyone. In lesser hands Sony or another studio could've run over the Bond brand and brought it to doom and gloom, using it to satisfying a section of the consumer public hungry for mindless explosions, or worse, used Bond to fulfill PC aims. But here were are in 2017, and Bond is still the boozing, womanizing rogue he has always been, and EON have been quite firm in their stance that Bond is theirs, and nobody else's to control.
They certainly don't fit the stereotypical archetype of the greedy, slimy and manipulative Hollywood producers who do anything for the bottom line. They like profit as anyone would, but they're a lot more invested in it that most in show business could ever be. The production of the Bond films has always been a family affair, and when it comes to family there's an appreciation, respect and loyalty ingrained in things quite inherently. EON take special ownership of Bond not only because they have all the copyrights and legal papers squared away, but because Cubby and the old guard passed on the legacy to them and trusted them with continuing the films for several more decades. That's some heavy pressure, but it's always been clear to me that Barbara, Michael and everyone else have their hearts in this more than they ever did their wallets, and it shows. I don't think some fans appreciate how unique and special a blessing that really is.
I didn't feel like your response engaged coherently with what I said, and others have replied to your points in the meantime anyway. But here, let's play:
I don't get the point of this statement. Are you accusing members of being disingenuous, or merely foolish? Either way, it doesn't seem like you're willing to take people's opinions at face value. If someone said "I want a fun, formula Bond film," but then did not enjoy Spectre, that doesn't mean they're being unfair. It just means Spectre did not work for them.
Yes, I thought this was what you were getting at: fans "subconsciously" wanting something. Why don't you just take people at their word, instead of accusing people of having secret, unreasonable standards that EON can never meet? I think every Bond fan on here could tell you exactly what they want from a Bond film. For some of these people, Spectre did not satisfy.
Well, uh... I just plain disagree with you here. Spectre focuses on the "Bond team" just as much as Skyfall did. The DB5 is definitely brought back as fan service again, and its reappearance makes no sense.
M is Silva's metaphorical mother ≠ Bond is Blofeld's foster brother.
Why the demand for consistency? I don't judge every Bond film on equal metrics. I don't expect the same thing from Moonraker as I do From Russia, With Love. I think @bondjames said it best:
I'll add my own thought here: after a film "clicks," people roll with it, they get swept up, and they're a lot more forgiving of flaws. If a film doesn't click, people start getting bored, frustrated, trying to figure out why it doesn't work - and that's when the claws come out.
You can call this being "biased" towards a certain film (whether positive or negative bias) if you like, and most Bond fans will readily admit their own personal biases. For example, @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 you've talked about how you find Spectre compelling because you're really invested in the continuity of Craig's films - something I personally don't care about. So you're right, people don't hold all the Bond films to a consistent standard. You can't expect them to.
I'm under no allusions that there is bias, as that's often been my point here. SF came at the right time for many and it became impossible quite soon for Bond 24 to match it in any way, the same kind of issue QoS had after CR. I understand that SF's assumed positives allowed many to forgive the things it did the same as SP, whereas they found less to forgive in SP to distract away from those flaws.
I think every era or tone of Bond film has to be judged on its own merits (as you say, MR and FRWL can't be compared fairly), and that's why I focus my comparisons of the films inside the Craig era. As with the above, I can be mystified why the roguish Bond that's been here since CR has suddenly overstayed his welcome and feels incongruent with how Dan has played him before, why the dry humor and physical comedy is too much for people now though it exists in all other films delivered in similar ways, and why the film gets a harder slog than any other film I see from members who treat it as if it's a walking plague.
It shouldn't bug me as much as it does, but I guess that the never-ending low blows it gets has made me more hair-trigger protective of it for the time being as I ponder what exactly it did to deserve such a brutal response. Sort of in the way a parent would wonder what their son or daughter did at school to get the other kids to bully them, in a sense. It's often driven me to play devil's advocate, in order to see what perceptions people have had, with mixed results.
These aren't the discussions that get the best out of me, and very soon I'm going to impose a personal moratorium on discussing SP as it's become quite clear that people are sick of me arguing in its defense. I never wanted my learning experience and search for knowledge to come off as preaching, so I'm going to end it entirely.
When EON made CR they were trying to keep up with the likes of Bourne and others - not valiantly leading the way. When they made QoS they took the route of the quick sequel to cash in on as much good will generated from CR as possible. They even set it immediately after, and made a subplot out of Bond settling old scores. Then when they made SF they were trying to keep up with the explosion of comicbook films, drawing mainly from The Dark Knight - so they weren't leading the way there, either. They also attempted to cash in as much as possible on the anniversary, just like they had done with DAD 10 years earlier.
The idea that the producers of Bond have been taking these broad strides into unknown territory is frankly a little tiring. In reality they are doing now what they have always done - follow industry trends. Cinema in general has been going in a certain direction since the early 2000's, and EON have been trying their best to keep up, just like they've always done. There's nothing particularly special or unique about this era, it just so happens that what sells at the moment [or atleast during 2006 - 2015] is giving fans a supposed deeper look into their favourite characters. It a deceptive form of fan service, really. Don't be surprised when all that goes out the window and we return to lighthearted adventures. These trends only ever have so much mileage.
Where White originated has little consequence. He's in CR, but in a very minor capacity in comparison to QoS, where he is revealed to be the honcho of Quantum (which has no mention in CR) and where he escapes and is put in a place to run to ground. One of Bond's only failures in the film on a grand scale is that White slipped through his fingers, and that is the angle that SP stitches up. In CR White is there to oversee Le Chiffre's meeting and then silence the guy and get the money, a very wordless performance. In SP we're catching up with White after he was run into the ground, an event that only QoS wrote into the story. That's the story that was being wrapped up, quite clearly. Mendes and co. even give White another IV to strap himself to, to visually link his wounded state to the one he has in QoS with his busted up leg. In many ways, Bond finds White how he's left him. All these recalls to White and how he's developed are as much invested in CR as they are in QoS, with an edge to the latter since that movie left him in the air after underscoring his character and role to us.
As for the Craig era not really going into uncharted waters, let's not be simple. Every Bond film from the beginning has been susceptible to industry trends, including the Hitchcock influence of early Bond and their war film inspirations, the Moore era's constantly swapping influences of black exploitation film clear to revenge films and sci-fi, the Dalton era's obvious recall of the crime and revenge film mash-up in LTK and the Brosnan films' quintessential 90s action hero archetypes. We can name influences for the Craig era too, sure, but that would be unavoidable. Every Bond film is connected to some other element done elsewhere that the creators were attached to or inspired by at the time, even the almighty 60s. To say that a Bond film isn't truly original unless they don't get influence from anything is a very myopic view to hold. All aspects of art are fed from an earlier source, with no exceptions. That's what art is: common notions developed and improved over time.
Inside the Bond series itself, I think the Craig films have done something unexpected and not seen before, or at least in a long time. It's why so many seem upset, as the films chose to step out of clearly defined lines of formula to do films where Bond has actual dimension, and where he develops. I don't think Bond getting affected by the events that happen to him and others is cheap fan service, it's simply smart filmmaking. Films have grown in expectation from what they were, and right now people like to see characters who actually react to what happens to them. The days of 80s and 90s action heroes who wink away danger and deflect bullets with their abs are gone, replaced with images of heroes who endure great strains to be who they must be. There has been a need for a more grounded reality, and Bond has partly fed into that, such that Bond isn't happy go lucky the moment after someone is murdered, and if he's shot he's going to have that wound for all the scenes after. I don't see QoS as a cash-in, I see it as the continuation of a story that needed to be told, unless people think it would've been a far more beneficial plan to just let the ending of CR be the only time Vesper, White or any other characters from the film were mentioned again. It was clear that a follow-up to CR was needed, and not addressing the dramatic consequences of the film would've been a misstep. I think decades of standalones meant just a little continuity was deserved, especially with a cast who were talented enough to pull it off, which wasn't the case for most of the 90s.
It's fine not to like this approach of the Craig era, but it's important not to underserve the impact this view of Bond has had since 2006. It was the light-hearted formula-laden nonsense that necessitated the start of this era in the first place, in accordance with what audiences and fans wanted in some respects. Bond is very much trend based and the continuity of Bond will fade as others have I'm sure, but right now this vision holds the stage as the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s approaches had their day. The way the films are made always changes according to the time, place and resources, but calling those changes based on trends or circumstances unworthy of applause isn't a very clear read of what art comes to be in the film industry. Every movie approach or idea has an origin, but the fact of that origin doesn't make the branching films influenced by the creation of that time and place any less worthy.
The only thing I'll add (which I've mentioned in detail before somewhere) is that the ending of CR (Vesper drowning) into QoS (right up to the epilogue) riffs off The Bourne Supremacy as much as SF/SP riff off TDK/TDKR.
But Brady, these are things you've picked up on from years of being a super fan and picking apart the films of every morsel of content. I'm glad you're able to find these little details, (whether they were placed there intentionally by the filmmakers or not) however we must bear in mind that the audiences munching on popcorn and slurping their big gulp simply aren't going to make those connections. One isn't going to lean into another and whisper "ah yes, the IV, a great visual link to the last time we saw Mr White in QoS". That stuff only becomes evident through repeated viewing, intricate exploration and analysis. it's not something that's evident to the average moviegoer who only goes to watch these films once every couples of years. For them, Mr White is simply a character from the earlier Craig films, if they remember him at all.
It's hard for me to view QoS as anything more than a cynical cash-grab to capitalize on a successful first entry in a Bond tenure, no different than TMWTGG or TND. You have only to consider that the original release date was May 2008 before it become obvious they weren't so much concerned with forwarding the story as they were with rushing something out. But somewhere along the line people seem to have gotten the impression that we're avoiding pitfalls now that Bond was susceptible to in the past. That we're any less hamstrung by restrictive formula and ridiculous plot contrivances. We aren't, It's merely a case of the formula and the gimmicks adapting to appeal to the sensibilities of a modern audience. In years to come, people with view the title cards, sped up editing, and cross-cut action sequences with the same ridicule that they treat Sheriff Pepper and the slide whistle today.
Ultimately it's not about taking risks, but the illusion of presenting something dramatic and meaty. Audiences today don't go to the cinema unless they feel like they got something meaningful out of it (well, except China that is), and that's exactly what QoS, SF and SP provide. The feeling like they are being presented with something soulful in this blockbuster motion picture. In the 70's it was the humour, in the 90's it was the action and now in the 10's it's the drama. Nothing's really changed, but if you hire the right pedigree of actor, lure in an auteur to direct and make sure the film looks good you can convince people that their favorite film series just took a 200 million dollar roll of the dice. Trust me guys, they've taken all the risks this time, you've got to see it!
Point being, we're being played and it doesn't appear like we're any wiser to it than previous generations were. It's only once we have a new status quo in place that we become conscious of how obligatory it all became.
I don't think spotting the White element is that big a deal. I watched QoS, I watched SP and said, "Hey, he's got the IV here too." The connection was obvious, and I happily moved on. I don't expect audiences to know all the details of a film, that was a tangent you've invented. I was simply pointing out why SP's use of White was more of a callback to CR and QoS, and the IV symbolism was a part of that, in addition to the narrative connection.
On the point of the production and their approaches, we'll always disagree. The drama of Grant and Bond on that train in FRWL wasn't any more an allusion than Tracy or Vesper's deaths in OHMSS and CR respectively. The series is in a constant flux, in endless ways, and when it really hits its not a mechanism of smoke and mirrors. The franchise isn't one of the most respected out there for acting like they're innovating for fifty years while only doing more of the same. The influence of Bond has been plastered over the world since the 50s and 60s and has constantly been reassessed for new eras and markets.
I think feeling like you're being played by EON is the real allusion, and also a sad omission from a fan. Maybe they are as sneaky as you repute. (!!!)
I think the hysteria mainly stems from that infamous 'brother angle'. People seem to react very emotionally to this, and it effects their overall assesment.
Very true. That does account for a lot of it, I agree.
QoS wasn't 'rushed in' to check on CR's succes (au contraire, they wanted to wait a little to milk CR a bit) but because of the writer's strike. Don't forget that if you have one party stopping your game, you still have to pay all the others, which makes a strike like that extremely expensive. So yes it was the money and no, not the money they wanted to earn, but the money they were investing.
It's also easy for us to point at films and say they're not original at all, but ffact is it's kind of difficult to find things that haven't been done yet. Of course other films have an influence (yes, TDK) but we often hear this from the makers themselves.
What bothers me with SP is the execution. It's ham-handed and clumsy from my perspective. Amateurish & obvious. Whatever points they were trying to make with this film are done in an inept manner. I could go into details but I'm sure it's already been done many times over on this thread alone. Additionally, I couldn't invest in the characters, who are all cold and distant. So the callbacks to the past are more apparent & obvious to me on account of this. As an example, when Craig does his wave from the plane window, all I saw in the theatre was a poor attempt to replicate Roger's nod from the Citreon in FYEO or Naomi's wave from TSWLM. The photography and style of the chase also reminds me of the copter/Lotus chase in TSWLM (including the aerial vehicle tracking the ground vehicle in parallel and then doubling back in front of it), but that sequence in that earlier film is a legendary classic. Referencing it in such an obvious manner wasn't a wise move imho. Neither was having a visceral fight on a train (most will agree that this has been done too many times before to begin with, and the most visceral of all is still the one from FRWL). Furthermore, Craig's performance wasn't authentic to me. As others have noted, this is the first time where I thought he was trying to 'act' like a 'composite' Bond (a criticism I've leveled at Brosnan many times) rather than 'be' Bond in certain places. Others may have a different impression & they're welcome to it, but that's all I saw.
So ultimately, it's not what they did (which is formulaic, and which I can forgive), but how they went about it which I have an issue with. It has to do with the execution, rather than the premise.
SP is very similar to TWINE for me. Nice idea, but horrid follow through of the vision. There's a little bit of TND in there too (where the formula is too obvious & inferior to what it apes in places).
I don't see why some seem to judge & analyze those who dislike SP. It's a film. Some like it and others don't. No big deal.
Keep at it man, every post is golden!
Not just the characters, but the whole film feels distant. The chases, the torture scene, the finale - all seem to be happening at half pace and bereft of excitement or emotion. It's just wallpaper.
The next 20 films could be vastly different, or they could be formulaic box-checkers, but my enjoyment solely boils down to the execution and just how well it all works and flows.
Wallpaper is a good way of putting it. Just meh box ticking on one level, at least in the way it's perceived by a lot of us.
The Seydoux/Craig chemistry is a serious weak element in the film, and if they had got that right it would have improved things immeasurably. That's why I'm surprised some are calling for her return. I'd rather see the back of her.
Mendes has these underlying thematic messages that he injects into his films, and on that level SP probably succeeds best. However, that's not why I go to watch a Bond film.
That one doesn't really work for me, either, but at least they weren't trying to come across as a couple, with the former quitting his job for her. It was a generic relationship like a lot of others in the series, that ends with Bond bedding her, just for her to be ignored entirely in the following film.
It's not an issue of questioning people who dislike SP, it's more about how that viewpoint has been argued forth. Every SP fan I know on here (they do exist, yes), has experienced what @RC7 very adequately put as "over the top hysteria" that comes from a very primal and brutal place from those who hate the film. The things leveled at SP by some go beyond folks just not caring for a film, they are guttural and really tear it apart like it stole their wallet and hit on their mother in the same breath. It's been the source of constant calls to take the Bond rights from EON, individuals from Barbara on down who are thrown to the mud by their adoring fans in a fashion that goes beyond being simply critical about a creative enterprise. It's nasty and, at times, very myopic and strange.
DAD is getting a massive reappraisal despite the 90% of it that doesn't work and much of what even its fans won't disagree with (the effects, the characters, the plot, the villain, etc), but SP has to be dissected and taken apart for every cue of music and slice of visual on display. It just goes beyond anything I've ever seen in response to a Bond film, where people almost treat their trashing of it like a hobby. I've never understood this point, as I wouldn't waste my time going on about something I didn't like and wasn't passionate about beyond the time of its release. It's why you'll never hear me go off on cruel and endless tangents about the Moore and Brosnan films in every thread. The vets here know I don't like them as we've discussed them a couple of times, and because my views are known I then let them settle and don't bother bringing them up, because there's no point. I certainly feel strongly about those eras, but getting worked up over them on the daily like some SP dissenters do with this film doesn't help anyone. The people that don't like it constantly have to bring up why they want to burn it with hellfire, and the fans once again get subjected to judgement for liking any part of it as the hysteria returns to suffocate them.
When it comes to opinions, anything goes, it's just how we present our views and construct our tone that could really use some work. I think we're all guilty (I know I am) of taking criticisms too far in our appraisal of things while espousing some nasty things in our anger, but I think that very base way of communicating viewpoints does little for us as debaters. So we can love or hate any Bonds we must, but let's not treat any particular film as a sign that EON are hacks who don't deserve Bond anymore, or that the movie proves the director is an artless slob who shouldn't have quit his day job. Discussions can rise above the easy ad hominem attacks, and that is visible simply by seeing the viewpoints argued by those on both sides of the divide that are strong and well argued. I rethink myself all the time by reading well-argued posts that are focused on making essential points easily consumable, doing away with any personal remarks of hatred that block out and poison the issues being argued. We're each doing our thing, usually in top form, but the extraneous hate doesn't need to get thrown into the mix.