Would you rather watch CR 67 OR NSNA?

1114115117119120152

Comments

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,440
    Didn't realize how this would you rather would spark such interesting stories, conversations and discussions. Great stuff here.

    I have grown to like TWINE over the years. At the time of release my expectations were high for this film, perhaps too high. I remember how the producers were looking to dial back the shoot'em up aspects of TND and get back to a character driven adventure. They deployed M in a more robust role. They didn't give Bond a ton of gadgets and in many cases he had to use smarts to get out of situations. I rather like it now and if I am choosing between SP or TWINE. TWINE is going to get my vote.

    SP had such promise and it was all squandered by a bloated creative process with many fingers in the pot, as evidenced by the Sony hack emails. Maybe all eon productions get this level of input, but I feel the creative choices left us with a very uneven film.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 11 Posts: 3,789
    thedove wrote: »
    Didn't realize how this would you rather would spark such interesting stories, conversations and discussions. Great stuff here.

    I have grown to like TWINE over the years. At the time of release my expectations were high for this film, perhaps too high. I remember how the producers were looking to dial back the shoot'em up aspects of TND and get back to a character driven adventure. They deployed M in a more robust role. They didn't give Bond a ton of gadgets and in many cases he had to use smarts to get out of situations. I rather like it now and if I am choosing between SP or TWINE. TWINE is going to get my vote.

    SP had such promise and it was all squandered by a bloated creative process with many fingers in the pot, as evidenced by the Sony hack emails. Maybe all eon productions get this level of input, but I feel the creative choices left us with a very uneven film.

    I also feel like between SP and TWINE, TWINE had a lot of potential to be a great film, meanwhile, SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new), as much as how I find the Central Intelligence Hacking interesting, but the motivation could still be rooted back to Blofeld's personal vendetta against Bond, and you have MI6 and London being the collateral between the personal fights of Bond and Blofeld, just because again, Blofeld was jealous of Bond and he had led the world to chaos because of that shallow of a motivation (I've realized this while watching the film's third act after Bond saved Madeleine, the scenes happened right after that felt like their personal problems had caused the world its stake).

    TWINE had an interesting idea but was butchered by bad execution, and it became a missed opportunity of a film, I feel like the concept of TWINE could be explored in a future Bond film (make it better and more polished), and we could have a great film with real dramatic beats that hasn't felt since OHMSS.

    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad, TWINE, a flawed film, but had an interesting concept and story (female villain and a love interest who could put Bond down to his knees and make him fall in love, get under his skin, only to hurt him within his core, a love triangle between Bond and Renard (who happened to be also Elektra's lover), Renard as a character and maybe there are more interesting concepts in that film).

    I don't hate SP, in fact, I personally prefer it to NTTD (explained my reasons here already of why) and there are a lot of scenes I could rewatch in SP than in TWINE honestly (the PTS, the Italian scenes, the Austrian scenes and the desert scene before they meet Blofeld) it's not the bottom of the barrel for me (that goes to either TMWTGG or DAF), but in comparison to TWINE (in terms of quality), this film had more serious, internal flaws than TWINE, regards of rewatchability.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    ColonelSun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Apted was an excellent director to be fair, and had a big cultural impact; it's just that Bond perhaps wasn't in his wheelhouse.

    I think Apted was a good actor's director, but action wasn't his forte. That shouldn't have been an issue either, since the Bond family has its second units and action crew and such. I prefer the action of TND and DAD to the action of TWINE.

    That was the problem, I guess. This movie has "two directors".

    Every big action film you’ve watched, minus Nolan, has a second unit director in place to shoot the action.

    (Hence why some ppl think Nolan’s action sequences were a little lacking).

    True, but in TWINE it’s quite noticeable.
    Apted was good at character stuff, and Vic Armstrong the second unit.
    But meshing it all together didn’t seem to work.

    I'd blame that more on Armstrong. I thought by TWINE his talents as a second unit were lazy and uninteresting.

    I think the low point is the ski chase: shot in big wide shots from half a mile away with not very fast-moving skiers, it's one of the most deathly Bond action scenes, especially as it's really unimportant to the plot, and you really feel it.

    I saw the original cut of the ski chase - a good mate was one of the editing team on the film - and it was far superior to the final version. It had a much faster pace, sharper editing, more rugged feel, but for some reason they smoothed it all out and, in doing so, lost the urgency and pace.

    That's fascinating; that matches my earlier comment that this film is one scuppered by the editing, amongst other things! Do you remember if that cut had music on it? I do wonder if Arnold's dull, plodding music doesn't help to kill the sequence.

    It had temp music, I think from TND. Composers don't normally fully score until the film is fine cut, or very close to final cut. Obviously they prepare and write themes and cues as soon as they are shown an early cut of the film. Often, working with the Music Editor, they suggest good pieces of already produced music to add to the early cuts of the film as a guide to the final score and where the cues will begin and end.

    Sure, I was just wondering if you'd seen a cut before they put any music on. I can imagine it being much more lively with a temp track from TND on there.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,268
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Didn't realize how this would you rather would spark such interesting stories, conversations and discussions. Great stuff here.

    I have grown to like TWINE over the years. At the time of release my expectations were high for this film, perhaps too high. I remember how the producers were looking to dial back the shoot'em up aspects of TND and get back to a character driven adventure. They deployed M in a more robust role. They didn't give Bond a ton of gadgets and in many cases he had to use smarts to get out of situations. I rather like it now and if I am choosing between SP or TWINE. TWINE is going to get my vote.

    SP had such promise and it was all squandered by a bloated creative process with many fingers in the pot, as evidenced by the Sony hack emails. Maybe all eon productions get this level of input, but I feel the creative choices left us with a very uneven film.

    I also feel like between SP and TWINE, TWINE had a lot of potential to be a great film, meanwhile, SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new), as much as how I find the Central Intelligence Hacking interesting, but the motivation could still be rooted back to Blofeld's personal vendetta against Bond, and you have MI6 and London being the collateral between the personal fights of Bond and Blofeld, just because again, Blofeld was jealous of Bond and he had led the world to chaos because of that shallow of a motivation (I've realized this while watching the film's third act after Bond saved Madeleine, the scenes happened right after that felt like their personal problems had caused the world its stake).

    TWINE had an interesting idea but was butchered by bad execution, and it became a missed opportunity of a film, I feel like the concept of TWINE could be explored in a future Bond film (make it better and more polished), and we could have a great film with real dramatic beats that hasn't felt since OHMSS.

    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad, TWINE, a flawed film, but had an interesting concept and story (female villain and a love interest who could put Bond down to his knees and make him fall in love, get under his skin, only to hurt him within his core, a love triangle between Bond and Renard (who happened to be also Elektra's lover), Renard as a character and maybe there are more interesting concepts in that film).

    The last bit I think is the fundamental flaw. Bond doesn't fall in love that quickly, and shuts his emotions out when he's doing his job. It comes back in most novels and films like that. So Brosnan's suddenly falling for Elektra even though he has doubts about her honesty, makes no sense whatsoever. That's not Bond. That's exactly why the 'i never miss' and then bending over her is so utterly wrong. There's no love triangle, Bond just does what he needs to do (and enjoy 'great beauty' in the meantime) to get the job done.

    Perhaps I should change my vote to SP. Allthough there's a lot wrong with the plot there too, one can still explain it away as a way of Blofeld to get on Bond's nerves, instead of meaning what he says. He probably was just annoyed by Bond showing up time and time again, but pretending he'd been behind all Bond's suffering is obviously a nice psychological trick to get Bond off-balance.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited July 11 Posts: 9,509
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

  • Posts: 2,270
    The last bit I think is the fundamental flaw. Bond doesn't fall in love that quickly, and shuts his emotions out when he's doing his job. It comes back in most novels and films like that. So Brosnan's suddenly falling for Elektra even though he has doubts about her honesty, makes no sense whatsoever. That's not Bond.

    To be fair you could make that exact same critique about SPECTRE when it comes to Bond falling in love easily. I have never bought the relationship between Bond and Madeleine; nor have I ever believed for a second that she was his one true love and the one to get him to settle down. If anything, NTTD has to do the heavy lifting when it comes to making that relationship come across as genuine and sincere; and that's pretty indicative of the writing behind SPECTRE as a whole.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,268
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    Can they call Craig back to film the missing pieces? I like these ideas.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    Can they call Craig back to film the missing pieces? I like these ideas.

    Thanks for the nice comment, @CommanderRoss ! It's appreciated very much!
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 11 Posts: 16,431
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    For 1) do you mean that Nine Eyes is a step on the way to the plan, rather than the plan itself? A bit like stealing the GoldenEye? Yeah that makes sense, I like that.
    I like the other ideas. As you say, they were in the middle of a lot of events and voices, and I think this story is a hard one to find the focus of so I totally understand them losing track of it. I still can't entirely figure out why it doesn't work myself.
    There's so many odd bits; like why have Oberhauser Sr murdered but Bond seemingly feel no emotion about that? But if he did, would it help the story or confuse it further? If you were to separate Blofeld and Franz into two different people, would that help the story (you'd certainly get rid of the naffness of Blofeld being Bond's foster brother), or would you be adding more clutter to the film and an extra character where you don't need one?

    Maybe there should have been no Franz: maybe Blofeld had created the spectre of him (ho-ho) for Bond to chase after as he was still upset about the death of his mentor, but it was all some big trap which Blofeld had set for Bond because of his previous meddling in Spectre's affairs, and Blofeld had dug up the story of the real Oberhausers with his surveillance gags. The real Franz (or Smythe I guess) having died many years previously, Blofeld was setting Bond breadcrumbs to follow and trying to tap on childhood memories to torment him.
    That could be fun, but then equally it removes having an actual connection between them, and that's more dramatic isn't it? Maybe Blofeld could have known Franz as a boy (but not Bond) and pushed him into being a murderer? So Blofeld was always kind of behind the scenes? Could that be the reveal? Is that trite?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,283
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    Can they call Craig back to film the missing pieces? I like these ideas.

    That would mean he'd have to slit his wrists. Sorry about that.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited July 11 Posts: 3,789
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    For 1) do you mean that Nine Eyes is a step on the way to the plan, rather than the plan itself? A bit like stealing the GoldenEye? Yeah that makes sense, I like that.
    I like the other ideas. As you say, they were in the middle of a lot of events and voices, and I think this story is a hard one to find the focus of so I totally understand them losing track of it. I still can't entirely figure out why it doesn't work myself.
    There's so many odd bits; like why have Oberhauser Sr murdered but Bond seemingly feel no emotion about that? But if he did, would it help the story or confuse it further? If you were to separate Blofeld and Franz into two different people, would that help the story (you'd certainly get rid of the naffness of Blofeld being Bond's foster brother), or would you be adding more clutter to the film and an extra character where you don't need one?

    Maybe there should have been no Franz: maybe Blofeld had created the spectre of him (ho-ho) for Bond to chase after as he was still upset about the death of his mentor, but it was all some big trap which Blofeld had set for Bond because of his previous meddling in Spectre's affairs, and Blofeld had dug up the story of the real Oberhausers with his surveillance gags. The real Franz (or Smythe I guess) having died many years previously, Blofeld was setting Bond breadcrumbs to follow and trying to tap on childhood memories to torment him.
    That could be fun, but then equally it removes having an actual connection between them, and that's more dramatic isn't it? Maybe Blofeld could have known Franz as a boy (but not Bond) and pushed him into being a murderer? So Blofeld was always kind of behind the scenes? Could that be the reveal? Is that trite?

    It's getting a bit complicated 😅
  • SeanoSeano Minnesota. No, it's not always cold.
    Posts: 44
    mtm wrote: »
    For 1) do you mean that Nine Eyes is a step on the way to the plan, rather than the plan itself? A bit like stealing the GoldenEye? Yeah that makes sense, I like that.

    I agree that's a big piece that is missing from the film. Presumably SPECTRE is planning something with all the information, right? Otherwise, what's their interest in making sure Nine Eyes is online (in fact, one has to wonder, given all the capabilities they already had before Nine Eyes was online, how much were they really gaining)? That's something I thought might end up being explored in Bond 25 -- Blofeld/SPECTRE using what intel they had already gleaned to extort or use to carry out other plots or sell to other bad guys.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    SP is not a missed opportunity, it's an anomaly, well made film, technically, but plot and story wise, it's really bad
    SP, given its already a technically well made film, there's nothing much to be done, whatever one may do, the fault of the film lies with the creative process, the plot itself, the central idea of having Bond's mortal enemy be his step brother and add another insult to the injury was he made all of those plans because of his jealousy towards Bond (his step brother), and with that, there's nothing much to be done, unless, one could rewrite SP from scratch (new idea, new plot, all are new).

    Unfortunately, I whole heartedly disagree. Spectre was such a let down because there were incredible elements in the story that weren’t executed well.

    Taking a shot at improving Spectre, with the Spectre we have, here are three simple things that I think would be the start of making the film/script tighter/better:

    1/ explore the stakes of Nine Eyes. When Blofeld takes over this surveillance how can he use that to take advantage. Find the answer and you will have something terrifying.
    2/ Blofeld is NOT Bond’s step brother. Bond spent two winters with the family. But it’s an easy omission (but I wouldn’t; I’d keep that but make it clearer that they spent a total of a few months together as boys. Very simple to do).
    3/ cut out the entire third act and rebuild it at Blofeld’s HQ.Forget the head drilling (that in the end made zero sense). Put back the dinner and card game. Perhaps go for a Dr.No call back and at the end of the dinner, have some thugs work Bond over, dumping him in a cell, and figure out a way of his escape, saving Madeleine and destroying Blofeld’s base.

    All this is hindsight. When you’re in an actual production and 20 thousand things are going on at once, it’s easier said then done.

    For 1) do you mean that Nine Eyes is a step on the way to the plan, rather than the plan itself? A bit like stealing the GoldenEye? Yeah that makes sense, I like that.
    I like the other ideas. As you say, they were in the middle of a lot of events and voices, and I think this story is a hard one to find the focus of so I totally understand them losing track of it. I still can't entirely figure out why it doesn't work myself.
    There's so many odd bits; like why have Oberhauser Sr murdered but Bond seemingly feel no emotion about that? But if he did, would it help the story or confuse it further? If you were to separate Blofeld and Franz into two different people, would that help the story (you'd certainly get rid of the naffness of Blofeld being Bond's foster brother), or would you be adding more clutter to the film and an extra character where you don't need one?

    Maybe there should have been no Franz: maybe Blofeld had created the spectre of him (ho-ho) for Bond to chase after as he was still upset about the death of his mentor, but it was all some big trap which Blofeld had set for Bond because of his previous meddling in Spectre's affairs, and Blofeld had dug up the story of the real Oberhausers with his surveillance gags. The real Franz (or Smythe I guess) having died many years previously, Blofeld was setting Bond breadcrumbs to follow and trying to tap on childhood memories to torment him.
    That could be fun, but then equally it removes having an actual connection between them, and that's more dramatic isn't it? Maybe Blofeld could have known Franz as a boy (but not Bond) and pushed him into being a murderer? So Blofeld was always kind of behind the scenes? Could that be the reveal? Is that trite?

    I don’t know why I hit quote, 😂!

    Yes @mtm , exactly! nine eyes has to lead to something bigger. Something that makes Spectre in control. Something that puts Spectre on the map and sends governments around the world trembling in fear. It has to be a means to something more valuable than listening in on M giving a speech!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804


    The last bit I think is the fundamental flaw. Bond doesn't fall in love that quickly, and shuts his emotions out when he's doing his job. It comes back in most novels and films like that. So Brosnan's suddenly falling for Elektra even though he has doubts about her honesty, makes no sense whatsoever. That's not Bond. That's exactly why the 'i never miss' and then bending over her is so utterly wrong. There's no love triangle, Bond just does what he needs to do (and enjoy 'great beauty' in the meantime) to get the job done.
    Yeah, that's the worst part of the movie to me. Brosnan was playing Brosnan there, not Bond. I bought it with Paris, but not with Elektra.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,440
    Wow that was quite a pairing and quite a discussion!

    Lets try another pairing:

    Would you rather watch OP OR TLD?

    Both feature some good old fashioned Cold War espionage. Both have a duo of villains making life difficult for our man. Both feature a Russian General going rogue. Both films have a John Barry score. The films feature action galore. Both have some romantic vibes woven into the plot. Both have a henchman who is a bulking brute. Both films feature smuggling.

    Which one is likely to end up in your player or on your screen?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    thedove wrote: »
    Wow that was quite a pairing and quite a discussion!

    Lets try another pairing:

    Would you rather watch OP OR TLD?

    Both feature some good old fashioned Cold War espionage. Both have a duo of villains making life difficult for our man. Both feature a Russian General going rogue. Both films have a John Barry score. The films feature action galore. Both have some romantic vibes woven into the plot. Both have a henchman who is a bulking brute. Both films feature smuggling.

    Which one is likely to end up in your player or on your screen?

    Oof. I really enjoy both, and TLD resides in my top ten, OP just outside of it, but if I’m in the mood for “comfort food” in movie form, then I’ll likely watch OP….

    But I probably watch TLD more than I do OP in any given year.

    Tough one, but I’ll have to go with TLD by a whisker.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    Daylights is probably my favourite Bond movie, so I'd got with that, but I love OP too. As with Peter, it's marginal for me.
  • Posts: 2,270
    Daylights takes the win for me. Nothing against Octopussy as a film; but I feel like John Glen’s direction on the series went to a whole new level when Dalton took over the role.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,218
    TLD, for sure.
  • Posts: 12,479
    TLD by a fairly substantial margin for me. OP is a good time, but still a lower tier Bond film for my tastes. TLD isn’t in my own Top 10 but I think it’s a solid Bond film that could have been elite with better villains and a better third act.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    FoxRox wrote: »
    TLD isn’t in my own Top 10 but I think it’s a solid Bond film that could have been elite with better villains and a better third act.

    Even though it's possibly my favourite for more sentimental reasons, I can't disagree with that. I might even say it could have done with a better Bond too... but I love it how it is.
  • edited July 12 Posts: 1,372
    TLD.

    OP is fun but the 3 edings are too many. TLD only have 2 ;)
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,044
    OP is my second-least favourite Roger Moore film, with AVTAK being only very close behind and constantly poised to change places. I like it as a curiosity, especially the scenes filmed in Berlin (which include much of the race to "Feldstadt", not just the Checkpoint Charlie sequence). But it's an inferior Bond film. And I prefer its more or less direct competitor in cinema distribution, NSNA, even after 40 years.

    I'd never say anything like that about TLD, so this is my choice.
  • meshypushymeshypushy Ireland
    Posts: 143
    TLD - particularly since I had the chance to see it in the cinema for the 60th anniversary, which made me reappraise it. I’d love to catch it again on the big screen. An excellent Bond movie.
    OP is fun but somewhere in the middle of Roger’s movies for me.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    TLD is top 5 for me so Daylights. That first hour is perfect Bond
  • Posts: 2,000
    I know there is much love on this site for OP, but I am hard pressed to describe the storyline. About all I remember are the silly bits. TLD any day.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,191
    There's always a good reason to see OP, but TLD is an irresistibly attractive Bond film in my book. Dalton is an excellent Bond, his "chemistry" with Maryam is easily felt. If only the villain(s) had been a tad stronger... But hey, then there's Barry doing what Barry does best, which is to add even more fun to the entire experience. TLD is always in my top 5. There's a reason my avatar shows Dalton. It's this movie.
  • Posts: 4,174
    I'm a fan of both, and for sure there's lots to love about these two films. Personally, I lean slightly more towards OP, but I can list individual things I prefer about TLD (ie. the PTS trumps OPs). I think the villains and the Bond girl are better in OP though.

    And honestly, no one can convince me the clown costume isn't a genius idea.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    edited July 12 Posts: 2,848
    While I enjoy both OP and TLD, TLD strikes a better balance for me - kind of the midpoint between the Moore years and LTK ( which I found a bit too violent and dark -an unpopular opinion around here I know). For me it's Dalton's FYEO but with a welcomed degree of physicality. And I really love the interactions between Bond and Kara with Dalton just hitting all the marks IMO.

    And as a fan of THE THIRD MAN (1949) I've also come to really appreciate the call backs to that film during the Vienna sequences. If I not mistaken, TLD director John Glen had an uncredited production role (assistant sound editor) in that film. A Bond film with a touch of classic era Noir? Can't beat that!

    Plus .....
    The-Living-Daylights-880.jpg
    :x
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    TLD. Timothy Dalton IS James Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.