It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I really don't believe you have to like the connection, but I wish someone could clarify how it makes Spectre "nonsensical". I mean, in what way?
For me it makes Skyfall slightly more believable. And yes, this is all a post facto invention by the filmmakers, but Darth Vader was also not Luke's father when the first Star Wars was made.
Exactly. Massive +1.
Hearsay? Nope, just simple logic. Silva was established in SF as a freelance terrorist. In SP, Silva was described as "linked" to the organization. Since we know that Blofeld wanted to destroy Bond's world while doing his business - aka paving the way to the Nine Eyes Program - it just make sense for him to chose an ex-agent like Silva for the job. There's nothing nonsensical. Nothing.
Well done for doing the filmmakers jobs for them by providing the links to Silva they didn't actually provide.
Skyfall when it was made was a standalone Bond film. The makers deciding that 'It was Blofeld all along' in SP doesn't change that fact. It just cheapens Craig's first 3 films with an ill thought out connection.
As for Darth Vader not being Lukes father in the first film, he actually always was. Ben telling Luke his father was 'murdered' by Vader was simply to protect him. So very bad example.
No, there's no indication within the film, nor from outside the film, that Vader was Luke's father. Or later, that Leia was Luke's sister. They came up with it as they went along. But I'm glad you can embrace at least some amount of retconning!
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/little-known-sci-fi-fact-vader-wasnt-originally-going-be-lukes-father
I'm still wondering why this retcon makes Spectre nonsensical, though.
The retconning, the lackluster action-scenes pull the movie down to the lower echelons of the franchise.
The car-chase one of the most expensive in history really is a poor example of carchase, the boys from Top Gear would have made a better chase for far less money.
The Train-fight is just boring and like the chase in Rome completely devoid of people which in both locations is rather unlikely.
Which is again the same with the car-airplane chase no people around, an empty action-scene.
When you compare that with the PTS and the crowds and square full of people in panic it feels almost like the PTS and the main movie are directed by two different persons.
The Mendes era made the 007 franchise feel more like a soap series and a ongoing story, undoubtedly with the next one we get the epilogue crammed in of Bonds journey. None of it is subtle and with the retconning in SP the whole Craig era is a complete bloody soap. I do like CR and lesser QoB who did deliver an interesting 007 but with the Mendes era the series looked beautiful but made Craig007 a more lethal creature than Arnie's Terminator, unstoppable, unexplained nor do they attempt to do so (missed the Fleming opportunity of using the TMWTGG opening with 007's return, which speaks for me of a lack of Fleming insight more of Craigs and Mendes ego), and soppy story-lines over a thriller content.
For me it is true that the MI series have picked up the fun and excitement the 007 series used to have and deliver. So while I will watch Craigs last outing I am at no point really excited about the new movie. Mendes and Craig just refused to make the franchise interesting wanting to install their own Oscar baiting content with character-building and so and yet failed to do so in any way. . And funnily enough the title-songs did so and nothing else did.
Can we change the title of the thread again? "Why I don't like Spectre", perhaps? Most comments seem unable to say anything about whether or not the film makes sense.
This is the kind of thing I'd like to see to discussed on this thread. Not just people stating their disdain for Spectre for the zillionth time.
For example - what does Dench's M know about Spectre? Why go to the effort of recording a message in the event of her death if it's about Sciarra only? Does she know about Blofeld and his link to Bond? Is that why she left the message for 007 and if so - why not tell him earlier?
First off the message from M to 'kill Sciara and don't miss the funeral.' How did M know that would smoke out Blofeld? I mean if you were head of a huge crime organization would you want to be seen at a dead members funeral? Bond killing Sciara doesn't guarantee anything.
And why doesn't Bond explain to M why he was in Mexico? Fast forward near the end and Bond rattles it off to M in a few seconds. Another problem with the script is that character's don't communicate. It's all little clues Bond has to follow instead of just being told. Why doesn't Mr White tell Bond L'American is a hotel room with a false wall and not a person? It's just lazy scriptwriting where people not talking to one another moves the plot forward.
The biggest nonsensical stuff in SP for me is the whole 'Nine Eyes plot' where SPECTRE are trying to install a plot to gather info and intel from countries around the world. They already seem to know everything! Bond gives a brand new phone to Moneypenny yet it's hacked and Bond's entire conversation to her is played back by C!!!!
Why is Hinx trying to kill Bond when it's obvious Blofeld is hoping to meet Bond sooner or later?
Why does Bond simply go to Blofeld's lair with no plan and no back up? It makes no logical sense. What was his plan exactly?
Regarding the stepbrother farce would Blofeld still have been a master criminal if Bond hadn't gone into the spy business? Would Blofeld feel the same if Bond had become a landscape gardener for instance?
When Bond is firing at Blofeld's Helicopter why doesn't the pilot go left or right where a boat can't follow...?
Apart from CR and QoS being a continuation, the Craig films have nothing to do with each other. With SP the makers are pretending they did. That is the biggest nonsense of all.
I think the biggest downfall for SP is that the Third act had to be changed at the last minute as what they had wasn't apparently working. What we got is unsatisfying and bland.
This is more like it!
I do think Dench's return is some fairly hokey writing. I don't think, however, that there's anything nonsensical about her having access to intelligence that Bond doesn't. She also doesn't necessarily know anything more than that the people who show up to a terrorist's funeral would be worth observing. No reason to think she believes it will "smoke out" Blofeld. In fact, he isn't smoked out at the funeral at all.
I assume Bond doesn't tell Ralph M about Mexico because Judi sent Bond the message and not Ralph. It's part of the hokey writer's idea to bring Judi back for a scene.
Now, to me it's perfectly clear why Mr White didn't tell Bond exactly what L'Americain was. He wants to ensure that Bond actually protects his daughter. If that doesn't make sense to someone, that's not lazy screenwriting, it's lazy film viewing. Mr White spilling the beans totally would be more nonsensical.
Nine Eyes makes sense to me. Apparently Spectre doesn't have access to everything. Yes, they do have access to a call Bond made from a car issued by a section of government led by a Spectre member, but that doesn't suggest what you may think it does.
Is it obvious that Blofeld wants to meet Bond?
I'm not sure why Bond would go to the base with no clear plan and no backup. It worked well enough in DN, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, etc etc, though.
Ignoring the helicopter nitpick, I liked the last point: apart from 2/3 of the Craig films being a back-to-back direct continuation, the Craig films have nothing to do with each other. Really?
+1000
Also why does Hinx kidnap Madeleine? What does he want from her?
Moreover, what's the point of stopping the Nine Eyes plot at the end of the movie if Blofeld's lair has been destroyed anyway?
Agreed @Shardlake ... gotta get cracking on second draft!!!
Presumably, Hinx, who is trying to kill Bond, imagines that would attract Bond's attention? And it did?
This kind of thing tends to happen in Bond films, Incidentally.
Why stop Nine Eyes when a Spectre member will have access to it, and make CNS a new base for Spectre? Seems almost self-explanatory.
Look, it's okay to hate this movie for whatever reason. But don't pretend it's because you don't like Bond movies where Bond goes to the villains base with no backup, or the henchman kidnaps the girl. Come on now.
Or would they have waited until they got him to where Blofeld was? The red arrows just as useful for the goons to navigate their way to Blofeld as well.
Why do they ant to kill the widow or Mr. WHite (especially as he is already Thaliumed by his phone and should die quickly, why not shoot him to begin with, stupid assassination attempt I would say)
What was the purpose of the car-chase, with an inside man they could have tracked 007 the whole bloody time, why the smart blood a plot-point that has no purpose or makes any sense in the whole story.
Also the daddy issues the bad guy has seem to have no better motivation than that of the bad guy in DAD, both kill their dads. And then want to kill 007.
How can one man just having his brains tortured blow up the SPECTRE lab and escape so easily shooting up the main lair and every bloody shooter on the way out, just after having his brains fried. Even Fleming would scratch his head on that one, his 007 got seriously mangled but never did do such superhuman acts after them. I find that they stretched believability a tad too far.
I don't 'hate' the film. I don't hate any Bond film.
The potential was for SP to be a great Bond film, complimenting the previous 3 films.
What we got was a colossal mess of a film with some of the worst plot decisions in the entire series.
There's some good stuff in the film but this isn't the thread for that.
Well, glad you don't hate it!
But some of the complaints are so absurd, it's hard to see where else they come from but crazy hatred.
I mean, the comment above yours offers, as an example of Spectre not making sense, the fact that Spectre tries to kill Sciarra's widow. Sciarra's widow, who knows a lot about Spectre, and who has just become useless to Spectre. The guy can't figure out why a suddenly useless person who knows about a massive criminal organization would ever be killed by that criminal organization. I mean, really
I think the trouble with SP is that the more you watch it the more the whole thing just falls apart. Why for instance would Moneypenny have a 'good idea where Bond is' as she looks over at the empty MI6 building? How would she know Bond had gone there? Did Blofeld send her a quick memo for what he was planning?
As i stated, i don't hate the film or even strongly dislike it, but the topic of the thread is 'does it make sense' and i've tried to address the discrepencies and questionable plot as honestly as possible.
As per my list, no, i don't think a lot of the film makes sense.
Yeah, your explanation for Hinx kidnapping Madeleine makes sense. As for Bond going with no backup, it doesn't bother me. It shows that sometimes he has too much self-confidence and it makes him more human and more relatable.
But wasn't M going to arrest C for working with Blofeld anyway?
Well since he was going to blow his brains out anyway and the fact that his daughter was quite safely hidden away at the Crows clinic why wouldn't i think that?
Mr. White was so careful he blurts out where his daughter is in hiding right under a video camera recording everything....
I can point out plot holes in every single bond films or other action film's even more than SP but three is no point in that. What i do want is a decent plot and sub plot which SP offered like any other bond films may be even more so I don't have any complain in that.
Mr white knew his daughter will be unsafe the moment he saw bond entering his house that's why he wanted his daughter out of that clinic but wanted to make sure bond keep her safe. He offered L'american for his daughters life.
Another thing which is amusing is constant comparison with MI franchise. People complain about SP car chase or plane chase but forget that the same thing happened in fallout where one helicopter chasing another. I live in India if this was actually happening in kashmir there will be military helicopters surrounded them(isn't that what normally should happen in films as well) we won't see such helicopter stunts but it is still a film so I can let these small plot holes pass.
Because White has no reason to make Bond waste time.
You're Mr White. You have just decided to exchange information about Spectre with James Bond in exchange for him protecting your daughter. There are a couple of ways to go about this.
1) the option presented in the film. You give Bond info on where to find your daughter, and a cryptic clue about Spectre, and tell him she knows about it. Then you kill yourself. If Bond wants to make use of the Spectre info he will have to find your daughter.
2) you tell James Bond exactly how to find Spectre, and hope that the honor system is enough to get this man you don't trust to protect your daughter, who he has no personal need to find. Then you kill yourself.
Now, to some, the first option might make no sense, and is a sign of bad screenwriting. To those with a bedrock-level understanding of character motivation and reasoning, it appears to be the more logical choice for Mr White.
EDIT: I mean, seriously?
I think a bad screenwriter would have done what they did in the movie, but also have Mr White explain his obvious motivations so certain people in the audience can follow along. You do see that sometimes.
Then why didn't he ask Bond to switch off the camera in the room?
1) This has nothing to do with Mr White's reasons for not explaining L'Americain to Bond, reasons you didn't seem to understand
2) it's a plot convenience
3) it would add some dullness to an otherwise well-regarded scene
4) if for some reason someone were to come along and look at that footage, Bond will have already been on his way to Madeline
Yeah great, but that still doesn't explain why Mr White blurted the whole thing out while being recorded...
But then the scriptwriters needed Hinx to discover this to get to Madeleine. Logic be damned!
Didn't 'deduce' that he was being recorded by his own video camera no less, did he?
I like how you can move swiftly from not understanding broad, basic character motivations to this minor nitpick, but you can imagine your way out of this issue, or just read my comment above.