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
Thats the thing...it never sets out to be anything more than what it is...although the depreciation after Bond gets in the Bondola etc kills it for me.
And both very watchable.
It's silly, but after that it still keeps rolling along. The lab scene is excellent, love most of Rio, and Adam's Mondrian control room set is beautiful. I also think the space scenes are excellently realised coupled with, again, some excellent work from Adam and an exceptional score from Barry. Also, I always really enjoy the final scene in pursuit of the globes.
This all sounded well and good I'm sure when you wrote it but you're overlooking one crucial point - if all the above is true and Blofeld wants to meet Bond and toy with him then why the hell does he send Hinx to kill him on the train?
Either he wants him dead so after Hinx fails he sends a posse of bad bastards with guns to the train station or he wants him alive in which case he doesn't send Hinx at all. Can't have it both ways. I suppose you're going to tell us that this is just another piece of brilliant characterisation illustrating Blofeld's capriciousness that he suddenly changes his mind after Bond disposes of Hinx and instead of wanting him dead decides to invite him in and taunt him instead?
Now we're talking Sir! M goes rogue and either pulls some strings with some of his old mates at Hereford or (my own personal preference) rounds up all the other OOs and with a rousing, Churchillian speech tells them that the OO Section (yes you heard me right SECTION not f**king PROGRAM YOU CRETINS! Like what some bloke called Fleming wrote) has been closed down and Bond is stuck in the desert on his own. He can't order them any more only ask them to join with him and risk their pensions and careers (not to mention their lives) for Bond, Harry and St George.
A black Hercules flies over the crater and to the strains of Barry's 007 theme six or sevem OOs plus Ralph jump out and pull Union Jack parachutes and we have a battle royale in the crater.
Possibly a bit too much fan wankery and we'd all slag it off but better than what we got.
After his failure in Austria Hinx could've been told to bugger off, and his action in the train then becomes his own personal one to get Bond back. Or he's still working with Blofeld and he's there to incapacitate Bond, so that he could then be taken with Madeleine to Blofeld. Or, Blofeld could've order him to kill Bond on sight, knowing the pain of the moment would be hell for Bond, but when Bond ended up surviving he decided to play his own game directly at the crater base.
It's one aspect I wish the script would've fleshed out more, as Hinx was an interesting character. One of the problems with following the Bond tradition of the mute killers is that you miss a lot of chances to build their character beyond their physical presence. Hinx is easily the scariest/most intimidating henchman for me far and away, but I wish they would've played with him more beyond his function as a human boulder. I didn't need a lot of backstory on him, but if we knew his true relationship with SPECTRE and his overall purpose for joining them in the first place, I think it'd be all the better. Even a dialogue or two with Bond could've been interesting. In some cases mystery is better for creating character for villains, but because it's a Craig Bond film I think I've just been programmed to expect more than the usual you see in all the other films.
We also had a mute Patrice in SF, so having a mute Hinx in SP too just felt like the teams were repeating themselves unnecessarily. It's one of the many similarities SF and SP have, which I guess you could chalk up to the Mendes approach of a Bond film.
I can think of a few people that care about it.
Agree entirely. Hinx is terribly underwritten. We have no idea why he kills that chap at the start (contrast with TB where the SPECTRE member's crimes are laid out before him - and more importantly us!). Is it because the guy has committed some affront or is the just how SPECTRE choose their members; by brawling to the death? Seems a surprise if they do as the likes of Kronsteen and Osato wouldn't get too far. They'd just be made up of thugs.
Then why does Hinx kidnap Madeline? White is already dead and SPECTRE already know that so of what use could she be? What does she know apart from L'Americaine?
When Hinx tries to kill Bond on the train has he gone rogue or is it on Blofeld's orders? Who knows?
To say SP's plot is shoddily constructed is doing a disservice to the little pig who built his house out of straw. When the wolf turns up at the door and blows reason and logic at it SP collapses like an old woman's hip after a fall down a flight of stairs.
Lazy, sloppy, illogical and borderline incoherent, once we leave Austria the third act really does jump the shark narratively speaking and no amount of hamfisted magic rings, links to the previous films and 'it was me James' speeches can prevent it collapsing under the weight of its own ineptitude.
Like Lucia post-Sciarra's death, she was another loose end that had to be tied off. Wipe the slate clean.
I suppose the product placement team didn't want any of that.
I thought it was just flawed but more and more I'm coming to the conclusion is one of the worst films of the series.
DAD is utter rubbish but it was the end of that era and Bond was looked at as a joke by this time despite it's large BO haul.
The difference was that the Craig era has hauled Bond back from the ridicule and reinvented for new era and to me they were doing a pretty good job and then this film comes along and undoes all that.
SPECTRE gets my blood up because it could have been so good and it wasn't it was bordering on utter rubbish.
Thanks for that, @TheWizard...
You just get to a point as a fan where you don't take everything about a film so seriously and get pissed at it like it threw your clothes out on the lawn. The only Bond film I could ever get even a little ticked off at is DAD, as its problems are obvious and it lacks anything to distract from them. It also has an embarrassing aspect to it as well, with all the dialogue, bad effects, moments that are jokes but aren't meant to be, etc. Every other film, though, I just don't get all heated about, even Moore's, because it's just not worth it. They're movies and play to a very specific genre filled with tradition. Every film has head scratchers but you roll with them because it's Bond and its all a part of the crazy escapist ride.
So an organisation that has 'people everywhere' (including at the heart of governments and secret services) is worried about some girl who has changed her name and hides away at the top of a mountain and dumps a bloke she loves because she wants nothing to with that life? What is she going to do exactly? Assassinate Blofeld? Front up at the police station and say 'There's a shadowy group trying to take over the world'?
If SPECTRE are truly worried about her 'threat' then they are a long way from as powerful as we are meant to believe. Also they need to bet their members more carefully if they are all blabbing the crown jewells to their wives and daughters.
Very kind Sir. I came up with another version months ago that had uncredited cameos by the likes of Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, Clive Owen etc (and Gillian Anderson if you must) as the other OOs but I think that might be pushing it somewhat.
This, right here, is why I'm a lot more particular and judgmental about the Craig era. It's grounded, it's realistic, but with that comes the need for consistency, which the era lacks considerably. I can ignore plot holes in most films except for these recent four.
Let's also not forget that White and Blofeld were partners in crime and used to respect each other, so Blofeld didn't expect to one day have to kill White off. Blofeld seemed to know Madeleine well enough, sort of as a pseudo uncle might, from his visits to their family home to talk "business" with White. At that time in their business relationship White was still supporting Blofeld in their criminal dealings, and there were no reasons to be paranoid about Madeleine growing up to be a danger to the organization. It wasn't until White's life went to hell (his wife and daughter leaving, Quantum getting exposed) that he became a liability to Blofeld. It only makes sense that if White was ordered to be killed, Blofeld would also want Madeleine out of the picture too to stop her from being a bother and blabbing or doing something else stupid. Bond's involvement in all the mess and the possible utility he could get out of what Madeleine knew was further proof she needed to be taken care of somehow.
So on the one hand Blofeld wants to lure Bond to his base to toy with him but on the other he needs to kill Madeline to stop her leading Bond to the base? Which is it?
You're fighting manfully to make sense of it all old son but ultimately you're a kite dancing in the hurricane of SP's appalling script.
I'm sure Blofeld did want Madeleine dead to rights, but then Bond got her from Hinx and then (possibly) killed Hinx, leaving her in the wind. Knowing she was still alive and that Bond was making a play to go to the crater base (which he was too late to stop the spy from uncovering), Blofeld then got two for the price of one and seemingly decided to play with both of them. His plan and response adapted to fit developments.
This could be closer to what I was getting at. I can only assume there's a plot hole(s) to be found in CR and QoS, but if there is, they don't bother me because I'm too busy loving the films themselves. The inconsistencies were very apparent in SF and SP for me.
For a general consensus, that could be possible. For me, I can't imagine what type of film it would take for me to prefer SP to it.
I hear this rationale from a lot of people, and in a way it's appreciated because the Craig era has made people expect more from Bond than the usual, which is a grand compliment.
But when something doesn't add up in a film, it doesn't add up. Whether it's a Craig or Connery film, we should be aware of it and call it out. People say tones have changed, but to me the Craig films, despite their unique nature, are still of the same spirit as films dating from the very start of the series and have the same fantasy elements that can only be at home in his world. Every Bond is an escapist adventure, and in every script there will be moments that, for the sake of excitement and spy magic, some things will seem too wild to believe because a story with Bond has to be told. Acclaimed films of the past like GF and OHMSS take gigantic leaps, as do the modern films, but some seem to forget that we're watching entertainment. It's not the nature of this genre to present everything as it would happen, as the movies must tell an exciting adventure for the audiences taking them in. Bond must be bold, his action must be staggering and out of this world, and his circumstances and missions wild beyond belief.
That's the only reason I point out the bizarre response to some of SP. Parts of it are picked apart into ash for playing by the rules the Bond world was built on and that were instituted by other films long before it that *gasp* do it all far worse (if you view its elements as negatives and not mechanisms of entertainment). Bond scripts will present things that on the face of it seem too wild. They won't fill in all the gaps for you in a villain's plan or their persona. At times Bond will act without explanation and we just have to follow him on his journey. That's what they do, what they've always done. We live for the wild moments where Bond walks into the villain's den and says, "You're mine." When a villain acts unpredictably and turns the tables. When a mute villain has no backstory, and simply lives to kill and demolish Bond.
It's then become very weird to read accounts of many who seem to forget what they're watching since 2015. I foresee a lot of, "But it's all about execution" replies, which I'll be ready to refute as they arrive.
Precisely. Well I actually think QOS is underrated but that's a seperate discussion. But yes it's highly amusing to see the same culprits who will defend SF's blatant incoherence and frankly shoddy plotting to the hilt having a go at SP for not making sense.
I am not going to defend SP's plot - it's clearly pretty weak. But after SF my expectations were rock bottom on this front anyway, so when I saw SP I was actually pleasantly surprised. I could pick plenty of holes in it but overall I enjoyed it a lot more than SF.
Putting the plot to one side, the PTS, Q scenes, Spectre meeting, Monica B scenes, train fight are all better than anything in SF.
If people are going to go to town on the SP plot then they also really need to reassess their absurdly high opinions of SF, which really isn't as great as so many want to make out.
Bond getting up from the torture chair can be raised with a gigantic fall into water that he survives. Blofeld's scheme can be raised by Silva's seeming omnipresence in London where he predicts time itself to use the subway on Bond. The mute and characterless Patrice is awesome, but Hinx is the absolute worst, and on and on and on.
Of the Criag era films I actually prefer QOS and SP as entertainment, which clearly puts me at odds with most on here as well as the general viewing public. CR I appreciate but find it a rather drawn out experience - something to endure rather than simply sit back and enjoy.
Tbh there's an element of this about the entire Craig era. A result of the Bourne and Batman influence I think, as well as Craigs rather relentlessly downbeat take on the character.
I do look to Bond for a bit of well made escapist fun to be honest. And when I say fun I don't mean bad quips and tired cliches. I just think there's something a bit worthy about the Craig era. Don't get me wrong, it's a massive improvement on what came immediately before but it still doesn't quite hit the spot for me.
It's as if Dan's Bond is on some rather awful endurance race which involves a lot of being depressed and soul searching. I think what the Craig era has exposed is that frankly a real James Bond would not be a very happy bunny most of the time. His life is rather empty and lonely. Which is fine, up to a point. But as many others have pointed out, this was almost taken for granted in the past, which is why previous Bonds so clearly took pleasure in material comforts and brief assignations with beautiful women - it's all a balm for a wounded soul. But Dan's Bond doesn't seem to take many of those moments. May be we see a little more of that in SP, which might be why I quite enjoy it.
You bring up good comparisons between SF and SP there. I don't know why SP is far more frequently picked on in those respects - coming from someone who still prefers SF overall. These kinds of flaws don't bother me all that much when I watch a Bond film. I am pretty forgiving of flaws in action/adventure films in general, really.
This article from Soon after SF's release sums it up for me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/08/06/the-10-most-overrated-films-of-all-time/
Of course that includes the suggestion to check out TLD!