In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1679111251

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Bond bias?
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Bond is love, Bond is life. All movies/Bond movies have flaws. Don't dwell on them and enjoy the movies accepting those flaws and every film will be a great viewing. :D
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond is love, Bond is life. All movies/Bond movies have flaws. Don't dwell on them and enjoy the movies accepting those flaws and every film will be a great viewing. :D

    Dr No. Now that film is the closet thing to perfect I have ever been.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    Murdock wrote: »
    Bond is love, Bond is life. All movies/Bond movies have flaws. Don't dwell on them and enjoy the movies accepting those flaws and every film will be a great viewing. :D

    Dr No. Now that film is the closet thing to perfect I have ever been.

    While I'm (almost) always happy to sit down and watch any Bond movie, DN is one of the few that I'm always in the mood for, happy to watch it at any point. It's so damn good.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.

    or maybe it's called not being 'nitpicky'?

    based on your definition of "exceptionalism" none of us should like any of the Bond movies - or almost any movie, or work of fiction for that matter... GF by far has some of the most inexplicable reasons for what characters do throughout that film - and an overabundance of happenstance - yet that is widely considered one of the best entries (if not in many circles, THE best).....

    I don't think i've seen one movie, much less a Bond movie that is 'perfect' - each film has it's share of problems... but yet, you feel like this train of thought, this "exceptionalism" is only specific to CR - perhaps because you are not a fan of it, you tend to deconstruct every little nuance of it more than those who enjoy it..... so, with all due respect - i think your rationale is a bit skewed... i have no problem with why you don't like it - but don't perceive to know why others like it - and then in a very back door way, explain why they shouldn't..
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 11,189
    The more times I watch SP the more in love I am with Madeline Swan. She may be put into a few cliché scenario's at times (getting captured twice) but Léa Seydoux has a naughty twinkle in her eye and gives her character personality.
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 12,837
    doubleoego wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.

    Vesper in my opinion was a far better written character. Hard to compare with what Seydoux had to work with.

    My thoughts on this too.

    I think the only real problem with Madeline is the "I love you" line. I don't know who thought that was a good idea as there's no build up to it. It's so unbelievable and forced and it's perhaps the only real actual issue (not a nitpick) that I have with SP.

    I don't remember that being in any of the drafts I skimmed pre release, which makes me think that it was a late addition by Mendes or one of the writers. But whoever added that line in clearly misunderstood the Bond/Madeline relationship and why Bond quits at the end.

    Bond doesn't quit MI6 for Madeline. She's just his way out. She's not Vesper or Tracy, she isn't the love of his life, she's just something else for him to live for. His job is no longer all he has. And the reason that this applies to Madeline and not any of the other Bond girls is because, like Blofeld said, she understands his situation. She's the daughter of an assassin, she understands him. True there are a handful of other Bond girls this applies to, but those are all young agents. They're not looking for an out like Bond is. But Madeline is. She doesn't want to be involved in this world, she's only involved because of her father, so Bond is a way out for her just as she is for him. Someone to protect her, so she can finally stop hiding. That's why I liked how the OHMSS "we have all the time in the world" line was used in one of the earlier drafts. It was perfect because that's what it's like for them now. A new lease on life, an escape. But it's not love, and trying to turn that into a love story was the biggest mistake of the film imo, which is why the "I love you" during the torture scene was such a shit line. Maybe in time they would end up falling in love. But that certainly didn't happen during the film.

    Maybe I'm reading too much into it and it was always just a half arsed love story. But still, it's a crap line either way and the only black spot on what's probably my favourite Bond film (I think it is, but I always struggle to decide whether I should place it over LTK or not, because that had been my favourite for so long and SP is still fairly new, my opinion could change).
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 11,189
    Maybe the "I love you" line was intended to be a result of Swann's fear of seeing Bond tortured in front of her? But yes, there wasn't a lot to suggest that they were IN LOVE.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    What irritates me is that Swann attempts to come across as Vesper 2.0 without even coming close. Agreed, @thelivingroyale: the 'I love you' line and, to me, the seriousness of their relationship, were bad ideas that should've been 86'd. We finally got Craig to the point of being the Bond we know and love (after dealing with the fallout of what happened with Vesper), so did we really need to inject another one like her in SP? Backed them into a corner with what to do, wish she had just been another Bond girl instead of one that magically falls in love with Bond out of the blue.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.

    It's a fucking awesome movie. Period. And it deserves every bit of praise it gets. This isn't science, it's art.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The more times I watch SP the more in love I am with Madeline Swan. She may be put into a few cliché scenario's at times (getting captured twice) but Léa Seydoux has a naughty twinkle in her eye and gives her character personality.

    Yes! Because of that fact, she one of my favs in the series.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2016 Posts: 11,139
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.

    The exceptionalism I spoke of was to do with the fact that people will forgive laziness in CR, or FRWL that they wouldn't forgive in DAF or MR. So people make an exception, and don't mark CR down for it. They make excuses for a film they WANT to be a masterpeice, thus it becomes a masterpeice because they ignore the negatives.

    The funny thing is, that's the way I view most people here and most Bond fans in general. I think it was maybe 2 years ago in one thread when I mentioned that, yes I'm a fan of the movies and a life long Bond fan but honestly speaking, and speaking for myself here the Bond films overall are in general quite average and it's something I still stand by. The history, the bygone eras, certain interesting elements contribute to making the series what it is and you get people that without a doubt do indeed make excuses for these films in general to want and validate how great the series we've spent our entire lives so far watching is.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    CR is perfect.
    QOS would be if properly edited, even so, it is in the upper half of the franchise.
    SP is perfect.
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 11,189
    SP certainly isn't "perfect" but it is entertaining enough. Sadly it starts to fall down and go into generic territory after Bond goes all Arnie in Total Recall and escapes from having his memory erased.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    What irritates me is that Swann attempts to come across as Vesper 2.0 without even coming close.
    There's a line in SP something to the effect of (sorry, I don't have it memorized verbatim... YET :)) ) 'What better woman for an assassin than the daughter of an assassin?'.
    They told us how the movie would end right there.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.

    or maybe it's called not being 'nitpicky'?

    based on your definition of "exceptionalism" none of us should like any of the Bond movies - or almost any movie, or work of fiction for that matter... GF by far has some of the most inexplicable reasons for what characters do throughout that film - and an overabundance of happenstance - yet that is widely considered one of the best entries (if not in many circles, THE best).....

    I don't think i've seen one movie, much less a Bond movie that is 'perfect' - each film has it's share of problems... but yet, you feel like this train of thought, this "exceptionalism" is only specific to CR - perhaps because you are not a fan of it, you tend to deconstruct every little nuance of it more than those who enjoy it..... so, with all due respect - i think your rationale is a bit skewed... i have no problem with why you don't like it - but don't perceive to know why others like it - and then in a very back door way, explain why they shouldn't..

    You misunderstand me, sir. I was using CR as an example, a film I happen to think is overrated. The same rule applies to FRWL which I love. I am not using my logic to prove anything other than a simple law of human nature. That law states that, you are more likely to trust your deepest friend over a complete stranger, even if they were to tell you the exact same thing.

    There is a groupthink which tells us that DAD is a PoS and CR is the second coming. This is written into culture, I did not put it there myself. As soon as you begin to swim against the tide of popular opinion, you will be met with a resistance, which, however slightly, is greater than the degree to which you are wrong. Again this can vary, but provided you have a valid point, chances are some people will disregard it unfairly. This is because there is safety in numbers, and no matter how much what you say makes objective sense, people feel more comfortable to stay with the majority.

    There is a theory in gambling which states that you are always more likely to win if you bet on the underdog because the chances of a bookie underestimating the odds of the underdog far out weight the chances of the bookie overestimating the odds of the favourite. So if I had to bet on CR objectively being better than it is currently thought of, objectively exactly the same as it is currently thought of, or objectively worse than it is currently thought of, I would pick the third option every time because it is statistically most likely.

    I am not claiming that CR isn't a top tier Bond film. Far from it, in my opinion it is definitely top ten or higher. I am saying that however good the film is, it is almost certainly overrated precisely because it is so loved. The majority opinion can be misleading sometimes. To learn more about this I would recommend watching the film Twelve Angry Men.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @Mendes4Lyfe, so CR isn't as good as everyone says but it's as good as everyone says? Doesn't particularly make sense. I'm not sure what re-watching the classic (and not overrated) '12 Angry Men' would help with.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.

    or maybe it's called not being 'nitpicky'?

    based on your definition of "exceptionalism" none of us should like any of the Bond movies - or almost any movie, or work of fiction for that matter... GF by far has some of the most inexplicable reasons for what characters do throughout that film - and an overabundance of happenstance - yet that is widely considered one of the best entries (if not in many circles, THE best).....

    I don't think i've seen one movie, much less a Bond movie that is 'perfect' - each film has it's share of problems... but yet, you feel like this train of thought, this "exceptionalism" is only specific to CR - perhaps because you are not a fan of it, you tend to deconstruct every little nuance of it more than those who enjoy it..... so, with all due respect - i think your rationale is a bit skewed... i have no problem with why you don't like it - but don't perceive to know why others like it - and then in a very back door way, explain why they shouldn't..

    You misunderstand me, sir. I was using CR as an example, a film I happen to think is overrated. The same rule applies to FRWL which I love. I am not using my logic to prove anything other than a simple law of human nature. That law states that, you are more likely to trust your deepest friend over a complete stranger, even if they were to tell you the exact same thing.

    There is a groupthink which tells us that DAD is a PoS and CR is the second coming. This is written into culture, I did not put it there myself. As soon as you begin to swim against the tide of popular opinion, you will be met with a resistance, which, however slightly, is greater than the degree to which you are wrong. Again this can vary, but provided you have a valid point, chances are some people will disregard it unfairly. This is because there is safety in numbers, and no matter how much what you say makes objective sense, people feel more comfortable to stay with the majority.

    There is a theory in gambling which states that you are always more likely to win if you bet on the underdog because the chances of a bookie underestimating the odds of the underdog far out weight the chances of the bookie overestimating the odds of the favourite. So if I had to bet on CR objectively being better than it is currently thought of, objectively exactly the same as it is currently thought of, or objectively worse than it is currently thought of, I would pick the third option every time because it is statistically most likely.

    I am not claiming that CR isn't a top tier Bond film. Far from it, in my opinion it is definitely top ten or higher. I am saying that however good the film is, it is almost certainly overrated precisely because it is so loved. The majority opinion can be misleading sometimes. To learn more about this I would recommend watching the film Twelve Angry Men.

    What you're describing here is SF.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe, so CR isn't as good as everyone says but it's as good as everyone says? Doesn't particularly make sense. I'm not sure what re-watching the classic (and not overrated) '12 Angry Men' would help with.

    Twelve Angry Men is a film which demonstrates that, one dissenting opinion, on average, over thousands of instances, has a greater chance of being correct, because people don't tend to dissent unless they truly feel like the majority is or could be in the wrong. It's much easier to stick with the majority, so there it is a tendency for people to go easy on films that are extremely popular because there is an inherent sense then majority must be correct on some level. This has been studied in psychology for decades now, it shouldn't be news to anyone. For instance there was an experiment where 4 actors deliberately answer questions wrong by putting their hands up to obviously false questions. After a few questions, the one guy who wasn't an actor went along with the rest, even though the questions were so easy. He answered wrongly on purpose.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    HASEROT wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.

    or maybe it's called not being 'nitpicky'?

    based on your definition of "exceptionalism" none of us should like any of the Bond movies - or almost any movie, or work of fiction for that matter... GF by far has some of the most inexplicable reasons for what characters do throughout that film - and an overabundance of happenstance - yet that is widely considered one of the best entries (if not in many circles, THE best).....

    I don't think i've seen one movie, much less a Bond movie that is 'perfect' - each film has it's share of problems... but yet, you feel like this train of thought, this "exceptionalism" is only specific to CR - perhaps because you are not a fan of it, you tend to deconstruct every little nuance of it more than those who enjoy it..... so, with all due respect - i think your rationale is a bit skewed... i have no problem with why you don't like it - but don't perceive to know why others like it - and then in a very back door way, explain why they shouldn't..

    You misunderstand me, sir. I was using CR as an example, a film I happen to think is overrated. The same rule applies to FRWL which I love. I am not using my logic to prove anything other than a simple law of human nature. That law states that, you are more likely to trust your deepest friend over a complete stranger, even if they were to tell you the exact same thing.

    There is a groupthink which tells us that DAD is a PoS and CR is the second coming. This is written into culture, I did not put it there myself. As soon as you begin to swim against the tide of popular opinion, you will be met with a resistance, which, however slightly, is greater than the degree to which you are wrong. Again this can vary, but provided you have a valid point, chances are some people will disregard it unfairly. This is because there is safety in numbers, and no matter how much what you say makes objective sense, people feel more comfortable to stay with the majority.

    There is a theory in gambling which states that you are always more likely to win if you bet on the underdog because the chances of a bookie underestimating the odds of the underdog far out weight the chances of the bookie overestimating the odds of the favourite. So if I had to bet on CR objectively being better than it is currently thought of, objectively exactly the same as it is currently thought of, or objectively worse than it is currently thought of, I would pick the third option every time because it is statistically most likely.

    I am not claiming that CR isn't a top tier Bond film. Far from it, in my opinion it is definitely top ten or higher. I am saying that however good the film is, it is almost certainly overrated precisely because it is so loved. The majority opinion can be misleading sometimes. To learn more about this I would recommend watching the film Twelve Angry Men.

    What you're describing here is SF.

    Yes, and to a lesser extent, CR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.

    Vesper in my opinion was a far better written character. Hard to compare with what Seydoux had to work with.

    My thoughts on this too.

    I think the only real problem with Madeline is the "I love you" line. I don't know who thought that was a good idea as there's no build up to it. It's so unbelievable and forced and it's perhaps the only real actual issue (not a nitpick) that I have with SP.

    I don't remember that being in any of the drafts I skimmed pre release, which makes me think that it was a late addition by Mendes or one of the writers. But whoever added that line in clearly misunderstood the Bond/Madeline relationship and why Bond quits at the end.

    Bond doesn't quit MI6 for Madeline. She's just his way out. She's not Vesper or Tracy, she isn't the love of his life, she's just something else for him to live for. His job is no longer all he has. And the reason that this applies to Madeline and not any of the other Bond girls is because, like Blofeld said, she understands his situation. She's the daughter of an assassin, she understands him. True there are a handful of other Bond girls this applies to, but those are all young agents. They're not looking for an out like Bond is. But Madeline is. She doesn't want to be involved in this world, she's only involved because of her father, so Bond is a way out for her just as she is for him. Someone to protect her, so she can finally stop hiding. That's why I liked how the OHMSS "we have all the time in the world" line was used in one of the earlier drafts. It was perfect because that's what it's like for them now. A new lease on life, an escape. But it's not love, and trying to turn that into a love story was the biggest mistake of the film imo, which is why the "I love you" during the torture scene was such a shit line. Maybe in time they would end up falling in love. But that certainly didn't happen during the film.

    Maybe I'm reading too much into it and it was always just a half arsed love story. But still, it's a crap line either way and the only black spot on what's probably my favourite Bond film (I think it is, but I always struggle to decide whether I should place it over LTK or not, because that had been my favourite for so long and SP is still fairly new, my opinion could change).
    I agree, and the problem also, apart from that 'I love you' line, is how to explain this piece of genius below, which apparently was written from Bond's perspective according to the songster himself.

    I think this threw me quite a bit, becuse it is more in tune with the 'I love you' rather than how Craig plays it (which is pretty cool and detached) in SP. :

    "How do I live? How do I breathe?
    When you're not here I'm suffocating
    I want to feel love, run through my blood
    Tell me is this where I give it all up?
    How do I live? How do I breathe?
    When you're not here I'm suffocating
    I want to feel love, run through my blood
    Tell me is this where I give it all up?
    For you I have to risk it all
    Cause the writing's on the wall"
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2016 Posts: 11,139
    After reading those lyrics, we need a healthy dose of...

    [img]http://static1.squarespace.com/static/522a2049e4b0a0ce717e990c/t/54a80a9be4b0ac4256e42c4e/1420298915733/? format=1500w[/img]

    ...Ahh much better.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    doubleoego wrote: »
    After reading those lyrics, we need a healthy dose of...

    [img]http://static1.squarespace.com/static/522a2049e4b0a0ce717e990c/t/54a80a9be4b0ac4256e42c4e/1420298915733/? format=1500w[/img]

    ...Ahh much better.

    As a massive DAF fan, this is hilarious.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm going to watch it tonight. I was trying to figure out which Bond to see, and this sold it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2016 Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm going to watch it tonight. I was trying to figure out which Bond to see, and this sold it.

    It battles with octopussy to be my most underrated Bond film.

    If I was trying be to objective I would give it 6/10 but to me it is a solid 8/10.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DAF is my go to Sunday afternoon Bond. Sheer indulgence.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    DAF is my go to Sunday afternoon Bond. Sheer indulgence.

    :D :-bd
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    doubleoego wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.

    The exceptionalism I spoke of was to do with the fact that people will forgive laziness in CR, or FRWL that they wouldn't forgive in DAF or MR. So people make an exception, and don't mark CR down for it. They make excuses for a film they WANT to be a masterpeice, thus it becomes a masterpeice because they ignore the negatives.

    The funny thing is, that's the way I view most people here and most Bond fans in general. I think it was maybe 2 years ago in one thread when I mentioned that, yes I'm a fan of the movies and a life long Bond fan but honestly speaking, and speaking for myself here the Bond films overall are in general quite average and it's something I still stand by. The history, the bygone eras, certain interesting elements contribute to making the series what it is and you get people that without a doubt do indeed make excuses for these films in general to want and validate how great the series we've spent our entire lives so far watching is.

    It's called being a fan, for Fleming's sake. And most of us don't need to make excuses to see how great the franchise is. It's quite obviously done great things with great talent on board for over half a century. If it was a rubbish product, it wouldn't have lasted a tenth as long.

    A majority of the Bond films have a depth, complexity and relevancy that is fruitful to the eye if you only open them and see. I certainly won't stand to see these films relegated to such a low level in the cinematic pantheon.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    After seeing DAF only recently and again liking it quite a lot I will think hard if I can finally save it from being at the bottom of my ranking.

    19 TWINE
    20 TB
    21 YOLT
    22 AVTAK
    23 TMWTGG
    24 DAF

    But how? That's my bottom 6 movies. How can I shuffle this without doing injustice to another?
    And don't tell me that DAD is missing in that list :))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    After seeing DAF only recently and again liking it quite a lot I will think hard if I can finally save it from being at the bottom of my ranking.

    19 TWINE
    20 TB
    21 YOLT
    22 AVTAK
    23 TMWTGG
    24 DAF

    But how? That's my bottom 6 movies. How can I shuffle this without doing injustice to another?
    And don't tell me that DAD is missing in that list :))

    Please, no. DAF is a guilty pleasure/legitimately good Bond film. Have mercy. [-O<
Sign In or Register to comment.