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
I think the one thing that most will agree on is that SP is a very polarizing film. Perhaps intentionally so (I can't imagine the team that came up with it couldn't have expected some kickback from what they devised).
Ultimately, the film will either be positively reappraised as other films have over time, or it will sit at the bottom of the dustbin. I doubt I'll be looking at it more positively because I've done all I can to try and see its plus points, and they just don't work for me. Even though it's the most recent release, I've watched it more times than I've watched CR, QoS or SF. Every viewing was an attempt to try and enjoy the film, but I just came away empty every time. For the record, I much prefer DAD to SP. That doesn't mean DAD is a better film. Just that I enjoy it more.
I don't hate it, but I definitely don't want to be reminded of it ever again. That's why I'm not in favour of a sequel, and that's also why I wouldn't lose sleep over Craig moving on. If he chooses to return, I hope they decide to give us something completely new, fresh and standalone. Otherwise, I hope he leaves.
I think part of it could be that you don't see all the hysteria around the film that the SP fans do because you're on the "other team," so to speak, and the views don't feel unfamiliar to yours, barring minor exceptions. It's always harder to see what others deal with and feel when you don't share their experience or views, much like a person in California can't understand what it's like to live in Chicago, etc.
You're also the exception to my post above, @bondjames, so I wasn't making a go at targeting you or anyone in particular. It's just a system I've seen at work, where the criticism of a simple film is taken to a level I and countless others are constantly uncomfortable with when the people at EON who made it are targeted with very childish and crude posts, as the fans can be too. Maybe I stumble on to many twelve year old members who don't have their sense, or I bump shoulders too often with those that act that age. ;)
However, I don't see this as any different from what was happening with SF all the way up to SP's release. There were numerous SF bashing threads that were in full force out here until Oct 2015. Perhaps surprisingly, they all died off as soon as SP was released. Go figure. I wasn't a member here at the time, but from what I've read, QoS suffered similar hate, so it's just par for the course.
I'm sure there are a minority who take it to extreme levels, but for the most part I only see members voicing real concerns that they have, and they do articulate them (again for the most part) reasonably well too.
As I said on another thread, I have seen many over the years blast some of Moore's films which I really enjoy (especially TMWTGG). I don't take that personally. I see something in those films that many others don't and just consider myself fortunate. I don't have to convince people that they are misguided.
Regarding the EoN bashing: I don't think they should be above the fray. On the contrary. They are the production team. If they deliver a product (or a series of products) that go in a particular direction which certain fans don't like, then the fans should be able to voice their concerns and vent. I don't see a problem with it. I don't hold Babs up on a pedestal. She's doing the best she can I'm sure, but she's not infallible. Nobody is.
I agree that the tone of criticism should be more measured sometimes however. As long as we can all comment without losing it, criticizing one another and without resorting to ad hominems, I think we are enriched for the experience of others, even if we will never agree with them.
@bondjames, I think my feelings on this issue are largely derived from the simple fact that SF was the first Bond film I saw the response to roll out in full force, and that I discussed extensively on this forum. I think the main difference with that one is that the majority were in its favor, and because of that, I didn't see the hysteria as you don't feel it now with SP. It's only natural, and I concede that I haven't been around the bend long enough to have a clear view of the response to certain films. I think being on team SF during a time of positivity made me unprepared for another time (little did I think it'd be the next film) when I was on team Bond 24 when a large portion of people weren't. I comparison, the response from SF to SP where different ecosystems existed could be playing with my head, when it's just par for the course of two sides attacking the final product of a Bond film at different angles.
It's clear I have a lot of growing to do in that area, as I'm a new dog to this kind of discussion and "internet talk" after a life of being a committed Luddite. I've always been a writer, so compiling viewpoints is a well honed process for me by this point, but experiencing the rollout of a Bond film and the criticism that lies in the aftermath of its release is in many ways still fresh. From a scientist's perspective, I may lack the data to prove my hypothesis, and further testing needs to be done to give clarity to my perceptions. As I've stated elsewhere, this is all essentially a learning experience for me in many ways, not only in conversing with people, but in experiencing the release and response of Bond films in tandem. Before SF, I had no concept of this as I joined here after QoS was released (three years after) at a time when the response to it had died down and it was impossible to feel the raw reaction in 2008 because I wasn't there. I have no allusions that over time, with the release of other films, most of what we see with SF and SP will simply be a repeated process of natural discourse, despite varying degrees of crudeness.
I'm certainly not against calling out EON, as I do it too at times (yes, even on the Craig films), but as I stated (and you backed up), the tone of discourse is important. Arguing for new creative blood, a return to more traditional movies and a regression from connected stories are fair game. What should never be, however, is talk that Barbara, Michael and all the rest don't deserve their jobs, can't be bothered to work anymore or are pissing on Cubby's grave. There's a way to argue strongly agains the current EON pyramid and their decisions without being so obviously crude and juvenile-in short, such as in the way you have always managed to argue points without drowning them in that kind of language. I don't like to see the nastiness that pops up here not only because my background in debating and writing makes me a bigger fan of arguing for only the production of work itself sans the barbaric language (in short, the proper and dignified way), but also because the fans that cross that line and throw that mud make us all look bad. As Bond fans I think it's important to respect the human element at work behind these films and the genuine work that goes into them, despite our impressions of any individuals' successes and failures. If we lose that, I fear we've also lost a vital connection that brings us all the closer to the very PC internet outrage culture we all want Bond to kill more than his most vile adversary.
Well said.
I'm never offended by what I read here. Even the most vitriolic and spiteful comments about a film, an actor or a director interest me, because they show what negative impact something has had on someone & I can learn from that. Even if someone is expressing themselves poorly & rudely, I don't see them as necessarily trouble makers. Just that they are passionately upset at the product that was delivered for some reason and are expressing themselves openly and without a filter. Is that correct or the best way to go about it? Probably not, but I'd prefer that to any form of self or mod censorship. It's also what gives this place its personality. Where I do get offended is when members go after one another. That was happening a lot on the political threads we had here last year, and it was disappointing to witness.
I agree with you that the quality of discourse has declined due to twitter, the internet and other technology. I too am a bit of an old school chap at heart, although I am also a big user of the latest gadgets. I can see the effect it's having. We are evolving positively in some ways (the ability of the current generation to multi-task and absorb snippets of data is outstanding) but not in other ways (the power to properly interpret data is just as weak as it ever was, even as the quantity of that data increases in volume and complexity).
This bears repeating and stressing. Every film in the series has received criticism on here. As the newest film, just a year and some months old, Spectre of course is receiving the most discussion. But some films, even years upon years after their release, continue to be heavily criticized, as with your TMWTGG, @bondjames, or a favorite of my own, TWINE. Some films are dragged through the mud in their own "Appreciation" threads—the one and ONLY place on this board where critical comments should not be welcomed. Now, I will speak favorably of The World Is Not Enough. I will defend its strengths. I will concede to its weaknesses (few to nonexistent as they are ;) ). But I will not and do not attack the opinions of those who think differently from me.
Over the past few months, I've seen critics of Spectre being called idiots too thick to comprehend what makes Spectre so brilliant, hypocrites, incessant whiners, just plain biased (whatever that's supposed to mean, as if they don't genuinely dislike Spectre and are just on some agenda to hate the film). I've seen them blanket-dismissed as being Skyfall fans who can't accept something new. Now they're "hysterical," too. My God, Spectre hasn't taken half the abuse as have those who have dared to speak critically of the film! And these are actual people being called these things as opposed to a film being criticized. I think a little perspective is called for. Before slamming other posters for their opinions (and worse yet, attempting to shut down other opinions), perhaps we should all think how we would feel if our own opinions were treated the same way.
I didn't see Swann and Bond ending up as a couple, but maybe I understood the ending wrong. She first says 'i can't do this' and he accepts it and goes off on his job. Then she gets dragged into it by Blowers anyway. Finally Q says 'I thought you left' and Bond says something in the line of 'i came to pick something up', which by chance is the symbol of his work, him beeing him, the DB5. I read this as he's not leaving at all, he stays whom he is, and in the end he still takes the girl home for a sha.... lovely time, like he did with Tetiana, Domino, etc. etc. etc. But maybe everyone was so gobsmacked that this time Craig's Bondgirl lives they also think he's going to settle on a chicken farm. For me it was proof he was staying the character. If it is Craig's last, it's just a goodbye to the actor 'this never happened to the other fellow' style.
@Thunderfinger, the Thames is polluted enough, so I don't think a PPK sinking to the bottom is going to hurt it much. Brits can get antsy about gun rights, however, so I may be wrong. ;)
I think it was done in this manner not only to allow the option for Craig to return, but also for a continuation story if this film clicked with audiences. They knew that a distributor shakeup was coming and that Craig didn't want to commit to more than one film at a time. So big changes were a possibility in the future when SP was made. Moreover, from what I've read, the SP experience was somewhat contentious, with injuries and script leaks and so on.
So it makes sense that it was crafted in this manner.
Similarly, I recall fans hoping (praying in my case) that Nolan/Bale would return after TDKR, precisely because that ending left that possibility open. Alas, it was not to be.
The big question now is which way will they go?
I think Dan and Mendes have said as much on this. It's actually quite expertly done, in that they left doors open for the future depending on certain factors. There's finality there, but also the promise of more. I know my hope for Bond 25, but I've repeated it elsewhere ad nauseam, so I'll refrain.
True, for me the throwing away of the gun shows he isn't just a killing machine, for killing Blofeld there would be nothing less then an execution, and that was enough for Madeleine to see the difference.
So @bondjames is probably right in this regard, we can all see what we want to see. Indeed, I was also hoping for another Bale/Nolan film..
@CommanderRoss, in sparing Blofeld Bond opens him up to serious pumping by the government as he did with Yusef in QoS (and setting him up for a rough time behind bars) while also doing as you point out: showing Madeleine that he can make his own choices, and isn't bound blindly to his job. It reminds me of his comment to M in CR about being a half monk, half hitman. ;)
I've actually found the discussion much more fair and balanced than after SF came out. I can understand feeling alienated when a lot of fans seem to hate it (I really like the film myself), it's never nice when something you're a fan of gets what you feel is undeserved criticism, but you have to remember that in their eyes it is deserved and it all seems rather fair and balanced imo. Whereas with SF we had the likes of @TouchMyButtons (or whatever name he was using then) going on about how it was irredeemable crap and its biggest fans seeming almost unable to let anyone criticise the film at all (even the likes of @Getafix who was always quite reasonable about it seemed to get a lot of unneeded hostility just for disliking the film). Seemed a lot more hostile imo. It got a bit personal, whereas now SP gets a lot of undeserved flack but nobody is borderline insulting other members for having an opinion or being as whiney and over the top in their criticisms as @TouchMyButtons was.
Setting aside the PTS, the action scenes in SP are plodding and rather unexciting. This was an issue in SF too, but in that one Mendes smartly kept cutting back to the unparalleled Dame Judi.
I also agree with you about the cold and distant characters in SP. Ironically, White comes across as hot-blooded compared to his previous films (what a great actor).
For example, I feel Deakins should've stayed on to make the film proper feel like a sequel. For example, the first and second Kingsman feel very similar in tone and cinematography that I feel more confident in the film as a sequel.
Would love to hear people's thoughts on that question :D
I don't want 'proper' sequels. Despite the more prominent connection, they're all different beasts and that's how Bond should be. I appreciate Mendes making SP a different proposition from SF.
I think sequel is probably the wrong choice of words on my part. I just think Skyfall felt like such a big introduction to this new era of Craig's Bond that when Spectre's tone went much darker and the story felt weaker.
By the way, I'm happy to see that you find SP to be a very dark film, as I do. Some think it's Craig's Moore film, and that has blown my hair back a little with surprise. There's some heavy content in it, and it has an ominous feeling from start to finish.
His last post before the big ban. Shall we make it so it's not in vain?
I think that's the main problem with this film: the whole nine-eyes program just isn't threatening in itself. Bond is supposed to stop acute threats, not lingering powernetworks that may or may not be used for bad things. Just like people still go 'i have nothing to hide' when surveillance is expanded. They just don't see the dangers. And I guess that transmitted to the whole film. Bond never feels truly in danger, except fr in the torture chair. Funny thing is, that is straight out of Colonel Sun, so P&W are good at using someone-elses ideas, but don't come up with anything themselves it seems.
Tech plots are always the hardest, as there's an element of disconnect when it comes to the threat of a plan of that nature. It's never going to be as thrilling to watch a race to stop an upload as it is to see Bond physically fight a foe. This was a weak element of SF too, which was so computer and hacking based, more so that even SP, really, that it's hard to feel the impact of Silva's acts at times. There's no great way to make a hack look cool, and all we really get is the aftermath. We watch the files of agents from the drive being released, we watch the explosion of MI6, we watch Silva's computer knock out MI6's network, etc. It's just harder to get invested in.
I lament this all the time, but things were so much easier in the 60s to the 80s, as the pre-tech era and the pre-ubiquity of technology made for schemes where Bond was in direct conflict with his enemies without any fancy keyboard magic. With plots like SF and SP, the enemy is at times people with keyboards, and the effect that has on the impact of a story isn't grand. It's why so many spy writers make the conscious decision to set their plots in period piece locations, either pre-WWII, in the middle of it or in the Cold War. Nowadays technology is everywhere and it's hard to write around it, especially when you can find out so much about anyone with a simple click.
One of the reasons why I worry for the future of Bond is that the stories we get told could lack the power they once did. Technology muddles everything, and is rather boring and convenient as a plot device, beyond dumbing down our species.
well Goldeneye did it very well. The most important thing is: You need a satisfying climax and we need to see Bond struggle to succeed in his mission. And Spectre does not deliver in this regard. Destroying the crater base is much much much much much too easy. And it only needs a few shots and everything blows up. Wow. If a single man can destroy the villain's plan so easily there is no real threat.
If there had been a big and well written climax in the crater I would probably like the entire film more. I mean this film somehow tries to rediscover some of the franchise's roots and I am actually thankfull that they were going in this direction. But films like YOLT have shown us how to make use of an iconic set piece so why does Spectre show us such a lazy shoot out in the crater? What for do we even have such a specific lair if it is not even used in the film.
There are parts in the film that I quite enjoy but since I already know that the third act is so disappointing I am hardly ever in the mood to watch it.