Was SPECTRE a disappointment?

1151617181921»

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,453
    I have to admit I totally forgot the part where Bond gets kidnapped toward the end.

    Everything after Morocco is so badly plotted, like terrible fanfic (down to the Hildebrand callout--too late for winks, dudes, just wrap up your movie!). I blocked out most of it.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited March 2024 Posts: 2,281
    Spectre is better than No Time To Die, because No Time To Die promises more and delivers way less. The two films don't have any real danger in them, but at least Mr. Hinx looks like a real threat and Spectre feels more like a Bond film. All it took for Madeleine was a cup of tea to disarm Primo. But if you look at Primo from the stills, you would think Bond is really going to face the perfect henchman.
  • edited 11:00am Posts: 199
    I really enjoy watching Spectre and No Time To Die! I love almost everything about it. It is Craig's arch of Bond and I cannot withstand it!

    The cinematography, the music, the actors, the little things which only exist in Bond world. It has Fleming all over it. It has real emotions, which was done the last time with Dalton, though they tried it to a lesser extend with Brosnan.

    I recently got the vinyl scores of Skyfall, Spectre and No Time To Die. The gatefolded and graphic designs are bloody marvelous! And when listening to the scores I immediately get drawn to the atmosphere and the scenes of the movies. It has a lot of emotional melodies, big brass orchestra's, some ambient music, a lot of dynamics, tasteful electronics. Way way better than Arnold in my opinion.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 12:47pm Posts: 17,091
    The weird thing about the brother idea, was it never seemed to register with Bond. I can see that the idea was to make it personal, but there was no indication that Bond was the slightest bit bothered that his half-brother had turned on him. It might as well have been the milkman.

    Yeah it doesn't pay off, it's very odd. And as you say, we never get any attempt to tell us if Bond even cares about this guy- we don't even know if he liked Hannes or not.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose we tend to forget that the implication is that they only knew each other for a few months (if that). They’re not actual step brothers or anything like that. It’s seemingly a coincidence that they even get involved with each other this far down the line.

    It’s a bit strange as the dialogue plays up the ‘author of all your pain’ stuff so it plays up their connection (at least on Blofeld’s side). There’s also his comments about his father taking in Bond etc. which I guess would imply to many that Blofeld dislikes Bond because of this. It’s never quite specified why he kills his father if I remember correctly. I think it’s a case where what’s on the page isn’t quite gelling with the story. Honestly, I actually think them not knowing each other is more impactful, especially if Blofeld was the puppet master behind what is essentially Vesper's death. I think there was plenty already there.

    Yes, you can edit the foster brother stuff out (it really is only a couple of lines here and there and just the plot reason for Bond recognising him) and the film would be the same. I can see why they did it: in the books Bond holds a grudge against Blofeld because he killed someone he loves- it's fair enough to try and adapt that (and fitting it to the plot of Octopussy is quite clever), but it doesn't go anywhere.


    peter wrote: »
    Venutius wrote: »
    Pity they couldn't work out a way to shoot the helicopter down with the prototype rifle that Q had been working on earlier, though.

    Nice idea... Plant something in one act-- especially (Checkhov's) gun-- use it in the last act... Great idea @Venutius 👌👌👌

    Yeah my thought has always been that Q should have given Bond another gadget PPK as he had in the last film, only this one has one explosive round, for shooting locks etc. Make the barrel sort of pop out or something so we know Bond is using the gadget function, and bob's your uncle.
    He even switches to his PPK when he's trying to hit the 'copter and misses with the first pistol.
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I love the way they represented Spectre the organisation in SP, the meeting scene was great and really tense, I was actually nervous for Bond. I just wish it was more like that throughout

    I remember thinking that scene was sooo great in the cinema. When Blofeld looked at Bond, with the James/cuckoo stuff, that was creepy as.

    Oh yes, that's a wonderful scene.
    peter wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    I watched SP casually in the background last night while I was doing other things.

    This is the best way to watch SP. If you don't think about all the stupid plot moves (and take a break to the other room to fold laundry during the C storyline), it's actually a decent movie.

    @echo …. That C plot line was brutal and horribly executed. Andrew Scott pantomimed through his “performance” telegraphing his “evilness “…. He dragged down every scene, and his death was laughably bad and terribly melodramatic (and lame).

    Cut out C, and the film dramatically improves.

    As I think Q Branch suggested (apologies if it was someone else): put Helen McCrory in the role and the film improves instantly.
    Plus it gives the added benefit of retro-fitting Blofeld's plan into the previous movie and selling the idea that he really was in the background all along, because she's in Skyfall and would have been Blofeld's evil puppet in the Government then, trying to bring down M.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,843
    That wasn't me, I think that was @echo. I wanted McCrory as Moneypenny in SF. Her returning as the C character though is inspired.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,220
    mtm wrote: »
    put Helen McCrory in the role and the film improves instantly. Plus it gives the added benefit of retro-fitting Blofeld's plan into the previous movie and selling the idea that he really was in the background all along, because she's in Skyfall and would have been Blofeld's evil puppet in the Government then, trying to bring down M.
    Yes. That would've worked better, and been more satisfying from a story perspective, than any of the retcons that they opted for instead.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,091
    QBranch wrote: »
    That wasn't me, I think that was @echo. I wanted McCrory as Moneypenny in SF. Her returning as the C character though is inspired.

    Thanks, apologies echo; I always forget. It is inspired though, yes: I really wish it was possible to will that film into existence!
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 120
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose we tend to forget that the implication is that they only knew each other for a few months (if that). They’re not actual step brothers or anything like that. It’s seemingly a coincidence that they even get involved with each other this far down the line.

    It’s a bit strange as the dialogue plays up the ‘author of all your pain’ stuff so it plays up their connection (at least on Blofeld’s side). There’s also his comments about his father taking in Bond etc. which I guess would imply to many that Blofeld dislikes Bond because of this. It’s never quite specified why he kills his father if I remember correctly. I think it’s a case where what’s on the page isn’t quite gelling with the story. Honestly, I actually think them not knowing each other is more impactful, especially if Blofeld was the puppet master behind what is essentially Vesper's death. I think there was plenty already there.

    Yes, you can edit the foster brother stuff out (it really is only a couple of lines here and there and just the plot reason for Bond recognising him) and the film would be the same. I can see why they did it: in the books Bond holds a grudge against Blofeld because he killed someone he loves- it's fair enough to try and adapt that (and fitting it to the plot of Octopussy is quite clever), but it doesn't go anywhere.

    The weirdest thing about it is that the foster brother stuff was totally unnecessary. Bond already knows Blofeld is responsible for deaths of Vesper and Mathis, and he finds that out long before he actually finds out that Blofeld had killed Hannes. Even Blofeld's involvement with M's death is revealed long before the Oberhauser reveal.
    Bond already had a personal reason to go after Blofeld, and that resonated with the audience more than the Hannes thing ever did.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 1:30pm Posts: 17,091
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I suppose we tend to forget that the implication is that they only knew each other for a few months (if that). They’re not actual step brothers or anything like that. It’s seemingly a coincidence that they even get involved with each other this far down the line.

    It’s a bit strange as the dialogue plays up the ‘author of all your pain’ stuff so it plays up their connection (at least on Blofeld’s side). There’s also his comments about his father taking in Bond etc. which I guess would imply to many that Blofeld dislikes Bond because of this. It’s never quite specified why he kills his father if I remember correctly. I think it’s a case where what’s on the page isn’t quite gelling with the story. Honestly, I actually think them not knowing each other is more impactful, especially if Blofeld was the puppet master behind what is essentially Vesper's death. I think there was plenty already there.

    Yes, you can edit the foster brother stuff out (it really is only a couple of lines here and there and just the plot reason for Bond recognising him) and the film would be the same. I can see why they did it: in the books Bond holds a grudge against Blofeld because he killed someone he loves- it's fair enough to try and adapt that (and fitting it to the plot of Octopussy is quite clever), but it doesn't go anywhere.

    The weirdest thing about it is that the foster brother stuff was totally unnecessary. Bond already knows Blofeld is responsible for deaths of Vesper and Mathis, and he finds that out long before he actually finds out that Blofeld had killed Hannes. Even Blofeld's involvement with M's death is revealed long before the Oberhauser reveal.
    Bond already had a personal reason to go after Blofeld, and that resonated with the audience more than the Hannes thing ever did.

    Yes, excellent points, especially about how the audience care more about people we've seen than people we haven't.
    I can't quite remember though, what's the involvement in M's death you mean?

    I wonder if her videotape cameo could have more explicitly tied Spectre in with Silva and her death, or if that would have been a bit too much continuity to ask the audience to remember.
    I guess the thing is though, if you could have written it so that part of the main plot is that Blofeld had found Silva and manipulated his grudges to try and expose MI6 and bring down M so that he could install his puppet C in place and take control of the intelligence forces, that's actually quite decent, matches up with everything in both films and doesn't really retroactively spoil anything in Skyfall (other than maybe taking away a bit of Silva's agency I guess). If they'd just concentrated on Silva and made it a sequel to SF without trying to hint that Greene or whoever was involved too, I wonder if that would have made it a bit stronger.


    Even something like that bit where Q (inexplicably) connects the rings to the old baddies, if there had been screenshots of Vesper and M with 'deceased' splashed across them also on his screen, and a flash of anger from Bond, there's a bit of motivation right there.

    As you say, clever though it is, foster brother goes nowhere. Funnily enough it could be an example of wanting to put some Fleming in there and it actually getting in the way of the story.
  • I think the "orders of magnitude" are off with Spectre. The plot should advance from smaller threats to bigger threats: Goldfinger smuggles gold and the plot spirals to bombing Fort Knox.

    The problem is with Spectre the goal is an intelligence based one. It tries to have Nine Eyes be this despicable surveillance program. The problem is, to get to that point, Spectre have committed terrorist attacks.

    Add in the fact the Nine Eyes resemble Five Eyes and the PRISM/ECHELON worldwide surveillance programs in action, and we have a plot that involves terrorist attacks to reach a reality where we as citizens don't feel impacted day to day.

    Also, with the framing of Nine Eyes. We're supposed to hate it the minute it gets mentioned, and M detests it even before the reveal because it is undemocratic. Blofeld is just another problem on another bad plan. But we live in a world where this plan exists! While some may find it suboptimal, mass surveillance barely causes problems for the average person. Whereas a criminal's control of mass surveillance would certainly cause more fear in the population (I still don't know how Blofeld would make any money from this plan).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,091
    I guess if you control the intelligence forces you control what governments take action on, you can intercept all kinds of things to your own advantage etc. I know it's not really explained in the film but it's not a question I ask myself while I'm watching it, it just sort of makes sense that it's A Bad Thing, or enough to make the film work while you're watching it I think. Like the missile toppling in Dr No: I know it's bad but to be honest I can't quite remember why, is it just a ransom thing? It works while you're watching it.

    It would certainly be awful if a nefarious unelected villain got into the workings of government intelligence and started disassembling it, I'd be scared.
  • edited 5:24pm Posts: 329
    mtm wrote: »
    I guess if you control the intelligence forces you control what governments take action on, you can intercept all kinds of things to your own advantage etc. I know it's not really explained in the film but it's not a question I ask myself while I'm watching it, it just sort of makes sense that it's A Bad Thing, or enough to make the film work while you're watching it I think. Like the missile toppling in Dr No: I know it's bad but to be honest I can't quite remember why, is it just a ransom thing? It works while you're watching it.

    It would certainly be awful if a nefarious unelected villain got into the workings of government intelligence and started disassembling it, I'd be scared.

    With Dr. No there are plethora of easy cash options he can take: he can sell the technology to the Soviets (in the novel I think that's his goal), he can ransom the Americans as you say, he could land the rockets where he could clone them, use insider knowledge to invest smartly and all the rest.

    With Nine Eyes its true that they could influence governments. Manipulate intelligence forces, find WMDs where there are none, etc. But government control has an end goal: ideological or profitable. Spectre works sans ideology and the only potential quick cash out is selling surveillance to foreign powers. Or maybe getting the intelligence operatives to ignore Spectre operations.

    But both of those are plans that could be run within British intelligence: Nine Eyes would just be the scaling up worldwide. Again there's no particular reason why the program itself as a new thing is bad for the public (and so hated by M) or profitable for Spectre. Certainly not worse for the public than the terror attacks, which are brushed over.

    And that last paragraph is exactly the point. People have qualms with the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc. but if Elon Musk asked for a merger, the main point that people would have problems with is that it's Elon Musk, not that unified American intelligence violates privacy or whatnot. (and also in the analogy, Elon Musk already runs the CIA pretty much, so a merger doesn't really serve much more for him)
Sign In or Register to comment.