In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1434446484951

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,043
    It won't for me, it will remain bottom of the rankings.

    The missed opportunity and the Blofeld situation are what makes it one of the worse, at least DAF has that Barry score and one of the best theme tunes of the series, SPECTRE hasn't even got that going for it.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 676
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The difference being that SF is entertaining enough (for me) to bury the flaws.
    Agreed.

    Also, agreed with @TheWizardOfIce. Expectations were very high for Spectre. Mine certainly were, and I have no problem admitting that my high expectations contributed to my disappointment.

    People had very specific expectations, too - SPECTRE and Blofeld were back after 30 or 40 years and no doubt every single Bond fan had an idea of what they wanted to see. Hell, I don't think any previous Bond film was ever burdened with such expectations! Mendes was faced with reinventing SPECTRE/Blofeld while also keeping them recognizable. Personally, there are many directions I would have enjoyed... A plot about surveillance and a paint-by-numbers Blofeld with a tacked-on childhood connection to Bond is decidedly not one of them.
  • Posts: 11,425
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    SF was the Shakespeare one, if anybody's asking. ;)

    That's the guy who invented the ballpoint, isn't it?


    Anyway, @Brady and @Wizard, time to cool off a bit guys. @Brady, you have bravely defended SP on a Bond-forum, which is admireable. It's been an interesting discussion up until now, with fair points made on both sides. Why stop now? We don't have to agree here, and I think everyone has played nicely on topic until now. Nothing wrong with that now is there?

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I would say that is a fair assessment.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.

    It seems brutally cruel to say SP jumped the shark when about 85% of it is far more competent, stylish, dark, beautifully made, well acted, impressive than most of the 70s output and the majority of Brozza's tenure. But, alas, there's no other term for it.

    Stuff like the elephant winning the slots, the kung fu schoolgirls, the Bondola, the fire truck chase, the invisible car and parasurfing are all blatant jumping the shark moments that cannot be argued with.

    The key difference between the above and SP is that those are just moments which can be forgotten in an instant. With SP it's shark jumping is woven into the plot and character motivations so that it permeates the entire fabric of the film.

    The other shark jumping moments are like Dr No's radioactive contamination - superficial and you can just rinse it off with no ill effects.

    With SP it's like you were one of the guys ordered to lob lumps of graphite off the roof at Chernobyl - the contamination has permeated into your bone marrow.

    It affects not only the earlier films of the Craig era but will ripple into the future also as wherever they go from here I can't see how they can satisfactorily resolve the issues it has raised without even more convoluted writing; but as they've got P&W on board I'm sure they'll give it a crack.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I do greatly admire your luxuriously rich vocabulary and the utmost witticism and sophistication you compose in your comments, @TheWizardOfIce. :D
  • Posts: 19,339
    Me too @ClarkDevlin x shame he spoils it all by supporting Liverpool ... ;)
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Me too @ClarkDevlin x shame he spoils it all by supporting Liverpool ... ;)
    Doesn't Craig support FC Liverpool, as well, @barryt007? ;)
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Me too @ClarkDevlin x shame he spoils it all by supporting Liverpool ... ;)
    Doesn't Craig support FC Liverpool, as well, @barryt007? ;)

    Oh shit ,I forgot about that....*runs out to quickly buy a Liverpool shirt !*

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.

    It seems brutally cruel to say SP jumped the shark when about 85% of it is far more competent, stylish, dark, beautifully made, well acted, impressive than most of the 70s output and the majority of Brozza's tenure. But, alas, there's no other term for it.

    Stuff like the elephant winning the slots, the kung fu schoolgirls, the Bondola, the fire truck chase, the invisible car and parasurfing are all blatant jumping the shark moments that cannot be argued with.

    The key difference between the above and SP is that those are just moments which can be forgotten in an instant. With SP it's shark jumping is woven into the plot and character motivations so that it permeates the entire fabric of the film.

    The other shark jumping moments are like Dr No's radioactive contamination - superficial and you can just rinse it off with no ill effects.

    With SP it's like you were one of the guys ordered to lob lumps of graphite off the roof at Chernobyl - the contamination has permeated into your bone marrow.

    It affects not only the earlier films of the Craig era but will ripple into the future also as wherever they go from here I can't see how they can satisfactorily resolve the issues it has raised without even more convoluted writing; but as they've got P&W on board I'm sure they'll give it a crack.
    I completely agree. The fact that these Craig entries are all so deliberately interwoven now serves to possibly stain all of them forevermore with the unpleasant indiscretions of SP.

    Thankfully it hasn't yet spoiled my enjoyment of his prior efforts (I just choose to ignore the uncomfortable revelations of childhood jealousy spouted by Blobherhouser). As an example, when viewing QoS last night, not once did I consciously connect the White we see here with the frail old man in SP (even though I obviously knew he was supposed to be the same man). The fact that he looks so different in the last film helps me to ignore the connection.

    I am concerned however that a future entry could ruin all of this for me though, especially if they choose to go down the continuation path. As you note, they have created a few roadblocks for themselves on account of this hubris and misjudged recklessness.

    I think the only safe way forward would be to entirely ignore it, or alternatively mention something 'in passing', like they did in QoS when there was a brief mention of Le Chiffre at MI6 HQ (during the discussion about tagging notes). Blink and you'll miss it, but the connection is there for those who want to see it.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.

    It seems brutally cruel to say SP jumped the shark when about 85% of it is far more competent, stylish, dark, beautifully made, well acted, impressive than most of the 70s output and the majority of Brozza's tenure. But, alas, there's no other term for it.

    Stuff like the elephant winning the slots, the kung fu schoolgirls, the Bondola, the fire truck chase, the invisible car and parasurfing are all blatant jumping the shark moments that cannot be argued with.

    The key difference between the above and SP is that those are just moments which can be forgotten in an instant. With SP it's shark jumping is woven into the plot and character motivations so that it permeates the entire fabric of the film.

    The other shark jumping moments are like Dr No's radioactive contamination - superficial and you can just rinse it off with no ill effects.

    With SP it's like you were one of the guys ordered to lob lumps of graphite off the roof at Chernobyl - the contamination has permeated into your bone marrow.

    It affects not only the earlier films of the Craig era but will ripple into the future also as wherever they go from here I can't see how they can satisfactorily resolve the issues it has raised without even more convoluted writing; but as they've got P&W on board I'm sure they'll give it a crack.
    I completely agree. The fact that these Craig entries are all so deliberately interwoven now serves to possibly stain all of them forevermore with the unpleasant indiscretions of SP.

    Thankfully it hasn't yet spoiled my enjoyment of his prior efforts (I just choose to ignore the uncomfortable revelations of childhood jealousy spouted by Blobherhouser). As an example, when viewing QoS last night, not once did I consciously connect the White we see here with the frail old man in SP (even though I obviously knew he was supposed to be the same man). The fact that he looks so different in the last film helps me to ignore the connection.

    I am concerned however that a future entry could ruin all of this for me though, especially if they choose to go down the continuation path. As you note, they have created a few roadblocks for themselves on account of this hubris and misjudged recklessness.

    I think the only safe way forward would be to entirely ignore it, or alternatively mention something 'in passing', like they did in QoS when there was a brief mention of Le Chiffre at MI6 HQ (during the discussion about tagging notes). Blink and you'll miss it, but the connection is there for those who want to see it.


    And earlier in Sienna when M tells him the Americans wanted Le Chiffre alive,and Bond says they should have made a deal with a priest.
    It all works in brilliantly without dragging the past out,as you say.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Precisely @barryt007. I think that's probably the best way to go in order to extricate themselves from this mess. If the plot of B25 is engaging and thrilling enough, that's where the viewer's attention will be focused, so any connections to SP can be minimized, but still made.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Precisely @barry7007. I think that's probably the best way to go in order to extricate themselves from this mess. If the plot of B25 is engaging and thrilling enough, that's where the viewer's attention will be focused, so any connections to SP can be minimized, but still made.

    Definitely...although I would still love a stand-alone film with no references at all.
    Whether that can happen with Craig now though,i doubt it unfortunately.

    They've made their bed now with Craig's Bond I feel.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    What worries me is that someone at EON signed off on this and we have a case of history repeating itself. Babs or MGW (or both) greenlit the invisible car and the parasurfing when a toddler could tell you that it was a shit idea that should've been filtered out at the brainstorming stage.

    Ok you can say they learnt from their mistakes and gave us CR but then just 3 films later they do exactly the same and foist stepbrothergate on us.

    I haven't read much of the Sony leaks stuff but what I have read it mostly seems to be the studio execs saying this won't do and needs more work.

    That's two out of five films now where EON have been unable to see the iceberg looming before them and correct their course before steaming straight into it. How are these things being allowed to slip through the net into the final script?

    So whilst I have reasonable faith that the next film will be decent enough (although God alone knows the best way to dig themselves out of this narrative cul de sac) I have absolutely no confidence that two or three films after that we shall once again be asking 'How could they possibly think that was a good idea?'
  • Posts: 676
    Historically, EON's track record hasn't been the hottest when trotting out ol' Ernst, and SP only continues that trend. SP is more on par with YOLT and DAF than with OHMSS, sad to say. Over time, I think it will be seen as a mid-pack Bond film at best.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.

    It seems brutally cruel to say SP jumped the shark when about 85% of it is far more competent, stylish, dark, beautifully made, well acted, impressive than most of the 70s output and the majority of Brozza's tenure. But, alas, there's no other term for it.

    Stuff like the elephant winning the slots, the kung fu schoolgirls, the Bondola, the fire truck chase, the invisible car and parasurfing are all blatant jumping the shark moments that cannot be argued with.

    The key difference between the above and SP is that those are just moments which can be forgotten in an instant. With SP it's shark jumping is woven into the plot and character motivations so that it permeates the entire fabric of the film.

    The other shark jumping moments are like Dr No's radioactive contamination - superficial and you can just rinse it off with no ill effects.

    With SP it's like you were one of the guys ordered to lob lumps of graphite off the roof at Chernobyl - the contamination has permeated into your bone marrow.

    It affects not only the earlier films of the Craig era but will ripple into the future also as wherever they go from here I can't see how they can satisfactorily resolve the issues it has raised without even more convoluted writing; but as they've got P&W on board I'm sure they'll give it a crack.

    Funny, SF is a monumental shark jumper for me.

    Bond 'dieing', then inexplicably popping up in Thailand with some hot chick a scene or two later. CGI flesh eating monsters, pointless tube train crashes, mummy issues. M haunted by some twdious nonsense from her past (again - thanks P+W). DB5 yawn inducing scenes. It smacks from start to finish of a writing team that have hit the buffers.

    SP if anything dials it back. Yes Brofeld is an abomination but as you say 85% of the movie is pretty good - that's a high hit rate by historical Bond standards.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    OK, let me get in and try to calm things down, as a friend.

    Spectre, like all of the Bond films that came before, is full of its faults. True. And even I dismissed their relevance, because it tried to be something it couldn't, a combination of a realistically relevant world and an escapist fantasy, trying to please every crowd. It couldn't. Die Another Day did a different thing, trying to appeal to the trend of over-the-top action (like your favourite infamous parachute surfing tsunami scene with CGI, for example) and before that, when Miami Vice was popular, Licence To Kill tried to blend in to the genre. All the 24 films have their fans. And all of them, like anything else, have their detractors.

    But, let me be clear. Spectre, to answer the titular question of this thread, will be appreciated in the future, just like Die Another Day, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever gained some sort of forgiveness and appreciation for what they are, now. Every film that made its detractor feel like one is touched in the wrong nerve, found some sort of a renaissance among the crowd. Love it or hate it, that's how things are.

    So, no need to piss each other off. It is what it is. Hope you all feel better now.

    Carry on.

    Thing is I don't even understand why you're comparing it to DAD, DAF or MR. It's a totally different type of Bond film.
    Because they're the most hated Bond films among the fans?
    I think it's appropriate because they all sort of jumped the shark in comparison to what had come before from the respective actors in question (and especially compared to their best outings). That's certainly the feeling I have about SP.

    It seems brutally cruel to say SP jumped the shark when about 85% of it is far more competent, stylish, dark, beautifully made, well acted, impressive than most of the 70s output and the majority of Brozza's tenure. But, alas, there's no other term for it.

    Stuff like the elephant winning the slots, the kung fu schoolgirls, the Bondola, the fire truck chase, the invisible car and parasurfing are all blatant jumping the shark moments that cannot be argued with.

    The key difference between the above and SP is that those are just moments which can be forgotten in an instant. With SP it's shark jumping is woven into the plot and character motivations so that it permeates the entire fabric of the film.

    The other shark jumping moments are like Dr No's radioactive contamination - superficial and you can just rinse it off with no ill effects.

    With SP it's like you were one of the guys ordered to lob lumps of graphite off the roof at Chernobyl - the contamination has permeated into your bone marrow.

    It affects not only the earlier films of the Craig era but will ripple into the future also as wherever they go from here I can't see how they can satisfactorily resolve the issues it has raised without even more convoluted writing; but as they've got P&W on board I'm sure they'll give it a crack.



    Bond 'dieing', then inexplicably popping up in Thailand with some hot chick a scene or two later..

    Is that really Thailand? I doubt it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Wherever then. Location seemed unimportant. Somewhere with scorpions and wild beach drinking sessions.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Wherever then. Location seemed unimportant. Somewhere with scorpions and wild beach drinking sessions.

    Wherever it was it looked utterly depressing.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I think it was supposed to be some tourist destination in Turkey.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It was Turkey. One of their drum-like instruments, middle-eastern style, was playing up as Bond had his glass of scotch with the scorpion on his hand.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Still a cruddy sequence wherever it's supposed to be. More Bourne homage than Bond. All we needed was a shot of Craig sprinting along the beach
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Agreed.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2017 Posts: 4,043
    Stop feeding @Getafix, he needs to ween himself off his hatred of Skyfall, it's over 5 years now you need to let it go.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Come on @Getafix ,its time to go to the 'James Bond Home for Fans'....

    As you can see,by the long queue,most of the members here are there already,including me due to my obsession with killing Kara Milovy.

    OneCheswickMcmurphyChief.jpg

  • Posts: 11,425
    Looks familiar! Think I recognise a lot of you guys in that photo.

    I however am completely sane!
  • Posts: 15,124
    For me it wasn't so bad because Skyfall and Quantum are overrated and therefore SP wasn't a let down. In fact, I like it more that Craig's previous two films, since they at least made a cursory effort to include some of the tropes that had long been ignored.

    SF overrated maybe but QOS? It may be the least appreciated of the Craig Bonds critically! If it is overrated then what is an underrated Bond movie?

    But back on topic I think Spectre will be overall more appreciated with time. Not as a great Bond movie but a good if flawed Bond movie that is part of a solid tenure.
Sign In or Register to comment.