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
The fact that EON, Mendes and whoever else went with this, is baffling. The reintroduction of Spectre and Blofeld should've been much bigger and grand than this.
However as many fans dislike the foster brother story, (which is justified) I can overlook it. It's far less convoluted than SF. At least to me it is.
How much better would we have thought it would be if the films were reversed. Obviously many areas would have been different.
and Craig said it was too good an idea to be left unused.
Source?
I don t remember where I heard/read that, but it struck me as funny so it stuck in my mind.
It's a slightly odd Bond. Mendes can flat out direct and he seems to understand that it's a Bond film directed by Sam Mendes, rather than a Sam Mendes film featuring James Bond. SF was gritty and the script meant it had limited locations. Mendes more or less makes up for his sacrifices in that film by taking Bond to Mexico City, Morocco, Rome and the Austrian mountains. The film concludes in London anyway so much of this is pretty gratuitous. We also get an exploding wristwatch, "smart blood" and a bullet proof DB10 filled with gadgets. (Even if they aren't all fully operational when Bond gets hold of the car)
Mendes seems to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of Craig as an actor, as do the screenwriters. For instance the script adds a needed splash of humor around Craig rather than through him - such as when he lands on a couch after escaping a collapsing building, or when the atmosphere button in the DB10 plays some sleazy pick up music, or when a poor fellow Bond noses into a low collision impact airbag goes off.
Where it falls apart slightly is in the pacing and editing. This is baffling. Spectre is a two and a half hour film and yet much of the substantive part of it seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor.
How long a run time did Mendes expect to receive? There is obviously a large subplot surrounding Andrew Scotts character Max Denbigh or "C", most of which has been ditched for the final release. Q, for example, has moved into secretive digs for reasons but these are never explained. Bond and Blofeld confirm through dialogue that C is a Blofeld plant but we don't get any more scenes or dialogue to develop this. The smart blood script element was a seemingly significant part of this subplot that goes more or less nowhere in the final cut. We get a scene with M, Q and Moneypenny in London debating the level of aid they should supply Bond. M ends the scene ordering the data on the smart blood project deleted. You suspect if Spectre had been filmed today they likely would have reshot and cut the whole element out. It adds nothing.
Two and a half hours would seem to be plenty of time to integrate these extra elements into an otherwise straightforward script. Especially for a director of Mendes ability. Instead we get an almost glacially slow first act that does not set up enough of these elements to include them. The film then has to pick up the pace to finish in time forcing it to omit some details that definitely should have been included. In the cut I watched offscreen Bond finds a plane he knows how to fly on the side of a mountain in five minutes.
So odd. Did Mendes think he was getting three hours? Did the producers think that the plot was too convoluted? The final version we get is straightforward and ultimately unsatisfying. It's a missed opportunity.
Because what we do get, works. It works really well. Craig seemingly only has three modes. Sardonic, intense and hyper-intense. Mendes alternates these to get the best from his material. Spectre has a damn good cast but the editing means we don't get a sense of a cogent or complete performance from anyone other than Craig himself. But even as a scene by scene proposition the acting is more than adequate.
Mendes has a genuine reverence and respect for the series, and it shines through. There is literally a nod or homage to every single Bond film made to that point and they are done with an ingenuity and imagination that is very refreshing and natural. Marvel this isn't. (My personal favorite might be the Moonraker call back when Bond and Dr Swann are in Blofelds dark control room or the Live and Let Die style fight on the train). Mendes is able to subvert the reboot eras grittier image and we get the gun barrel at the start, the exploding watch, Bond suavely landing a parachute in a street - the View To A Kill callback - and a silent enormous throwback sub villain in Hinx. There is a lot of classic Bond fun in here in what was otherwise a largely joyless Craig era as Bond.
I even like the score even though we don't hear it often enough. The intensity of the first act followed by the genuine fun Mendes gives us in the second and final acts carry this film to favorite status in the Craig era for me. But it really is a case of what might have been.
Welcome to the forum, and can I just say: excellent post. I'm a fan of SP. Like you, I believe CR is by far the better Bond out of those two, but I do think that over the years, SP has been heavily criticised for a few "blunders", while its many merits have often been overlooked. I actually prefer the film over SF, which is still a very well-made Bond flick, no doubt about it. But while SF may be the better film, SP is the better Bond film for me. Am I rooting for the unfairly maligned underdog? Possibly. I simply know one thing: no matter how often I've seen the film at this point, SP never fails to excite me.
This sums it up perfectly for me. Great shout.
Maybe it’s just me, but I really can’t see that.
Maybe (for me personally) at best SP is the better ‘Bond film’. But SF is the better Bond adventure. Always will be.
It's certainly not just you. Twenty five films is a wild sample size that no other single movie character can threaten as a number.
When Bond does emotion it does it brilliantly. But it is not a consistent theme throughout the series. I have reverence and respect for everything OHMSS does as a film. But the genuinely shattering finality of the ending removes a large part of the happy entertainment value of the film. It elevates the film into, ironically, "better than a typical Bond film" territory. Yet the "typical" Bond film this references is the reason Bond has persisted and survived decade after decade.
Watership Down is incredible as well. And so is Bambi. But it would not be my first choice as entertainment. SF is similar to OHMSS in that it has an unusually moving and final ending for a Bond film. It's in a similar theme I'll take SP over SF and LALD over OHMSS. Whilst freely conceding they are likely critically and objectively inferior as films.
Yeah, I can understand the personal preference aspect. It’s about which film you find the more entertaining/engaging.
Honestly though, I’d still go for SF in that area myself. I wouldn’t say it’s a film comparable to Bambi or Watership Down. It’s simply a blockbuster with some cerebral ideas and a couple of emotional moments in there. It’s not that different and more in line with, say, The Dark Knight in this respect.
For me, Skyfall is perhaps a bit too much like The Dark Knight for my personal liking, particularly in the 3rd act. It’s the reason why I have a hard time calling Skyfall one of the very best in the series honestly. I think it’s a good movie, but by the time we get to Silva being captured, that’s when the “Nolanisms” start, and things start to get a bit too convoluted around then. But I’ll also say that in many ways, SPECTRE takes a lot of these issues and magnifies them even more, so I too prefer SF to SP.
Nolan is expensive.
I wouldn’t want a Nolan Bond film either if I’m being honest. I don’t think it’d be much different stylistically speaking than what we just had with Craig.
To each their own. For me it’s a bit like saying FRWL borrows too much from Hitchcock. Or LTK is too much like an 80s action movie. It doesn’t affect my enjoyment of the actual film and they stand on their own merits. I’m sure you can apply that idea to many other Bond films. Anyway, I’d say SF and TDK are pretty different (the ‘villain gets captured to escape’ thing is there, but even Avengers did that too).
But maybe I’m a bit biased. I’m actually not a big fan of TDK.
I’m perfectly alright with admitting the influence of North by Northwest on FRWL, or Lethal Weapon on LTK. In fact those influences don’t bother me as much, but something about Nolan’s influence on SF seems a bit too on the nose for me. Even down to giving Bond an “Alfred” in Kincaid, and the comparisons between Silva and The Joker. But like I said, these issues don’t become as apparent to me until the movie reaches its 3rd act. Plus I’m way more bothered by the influence of Jason Bourne on QOS.
C’mon now, it’s way more than just the editing style. It’s in the tone of the movie itself, the plot of the film, and the staging of the action scenes. Even going so far as to hire Dan Bradley who actually worked on both Supremacy and Ultimatum.
It’s not without reason that people have compared QOS to Bourne the most out of all of Craig’s era.
Joker and Silva are pretty interesting to compare. There are some similarities (both are ‘tricksters’ without morals, and both devise elaborate plans to bring down the institutions of MI6/Gotham. Both have facial scars, but that’s a bit of a tenuous similarity). I think what separates Silva from Joker is the fact that his motives are very overtly personal, whereas Joker’s priority seems to be proving that deep down everyone is capable of great evil. Silva’s much more a twisted mirror image of Bond (ie both were M’s ‘favourites’ and both were badly wounded fulfilling her orders, and both go AWOL after these events… one can easily imagine Bond becoming a version of Silva). It’s more to me a Cain and Abel type thing with a dash of villains like Alec Travelyan and Scaramanga. I don’t think it’s a dynamic you get with Batman and Joker (if anything it’s more similar to Batman and Riddler in the Matt Reeves film).
I don’t personally see much of Alfred in Kincaid beyond the superficial similarities.
But again, to each their own. We all have different opinions when it comes to Bond. I suppose my question here is this: even if TDK influenced SF (it likely did impact some ideas, but to a certain extent) or if the Bourne films had an influence on QOS, why would it make those Bond films any less entertaining or ‘great’? Films aren’t made in a vacuum, they’re always influenced by something - very often other films. I mean, if Akira Kurosawa could be influenced by American Westerns, use the genre as a broad template to make Seven Samuai, and have his film effectively remade later in the form of The Magnificent Seven, why can’t Nolan be influenced by Bond, make TDK, and later on have the actual Bond series adapt certain themes/broad ideas from his movie in the form of SF? Each of those movies are still distinct and have their own identities. So yeah, I don’t personally see why Bond taking influence from other films would be a detriment, especially when it’s doing something interesting or different with those ideas.
That reappearance of Hinx would be epic as you said, @talos7.
I didn’t say that they were any less great, merely the influence they’ve taken prove to be a bit too on the nose for me to consider those films to be amongst the best of the series, especially in the case of QOS, which to me seems like a fundamental betrayal of the series, and the character. Of coarse, it’s entirely down to subjective opinion, but I also think that there is perhaps a bit of a double standard. Personally my belief is that if some fans are alright with criticizing LALD, TMWTGG, and Moonraker for how overtly they riff on other films/genres, then we should apply that same criticism to both Skyfall, and QOS to be consistent.
You’re 100% correct. Films aren’t made in a vacuum at all, and the problem that I have isn’t when Bond takes influence and improves on those ideas in new and interesting ways; It’s when Bond takes influence from those other films/genres and does nothing new to improve upon them. It’s not a secret that that the Helicopter chase in FRWL is an obvious riff on North by Northwest, but I also think it improves upon that sequence by actually having location work, actually having Connery trying to outrun the Helicopter, and the way in which Bond dispatches of the helicopter. Or in Casino Royale which, like QOS, is very much influenced by the Bourne series, but also has an incredibly strong script, superior action scenes to that of Bourne, source material that is more “rich”, and a strong ensemble cast.
But then I think about QOS, I can’t figure out what was so different/unique about that film compared to the Bourne series. When I think about SF, I’m blown away by some the visuals, and the action scenes, but I then find myself wondering what was it that SF did differently than TDK in some places. It’s not like the precise intricacies of Silva’s plan are different than that of the Joker. The Home Alone inspired climax? Yeah it’s fun to watch, and it’s also a nice way of showing how resourceful Bond is, but now I’m not only making a subconscious connection to TDK, but also Home Alone now.
At the end of the day, I just think there’s a bit of a difference between taking influence from another piece of work because your inspired, and actively ripping off other movies to chase trends, and EON has definitely done the latter throughout the history of the series.
I can understand criticising something that doesn’t feel organic to Bond as a character, or the world he inhabits for the film. But yeah, I’d say there’s not much point criticising Bond for riffing off other films/genres in itself.
I think QOS is a pretty unique Bond film for all its flaws. They use that Bourne-esque distrust of government authority/power to depict Quantum (or indeed SPECTRE I suppose) as a shadowy ‘New World Order’ type organisation who work with politicians, officials etc. to attain power in secret. It’s generally not something we see with Bond villains, and I do wish that SP had ran with that idea a bit more as it’s set up quite well in QOS (ie. They’re not an organisation out for money but power, and even have people working for them in quite high places - ie C).
Bond going ‘rogue’ for most of the film in that Bourne-esque way sets up some interesting dynamics between him and other characters - M learning to trust him, him discussing with Felix the CIA’s moral ambiguity in dealing with people like Green, Camille’s revenge subplot which culminates in that great and rather Fleming-esque final scene between the two. It’s pretty unique stuff for the series and none of it feels (to me) derivative of Bourne.
Like I said, the dynamic between Bond and Silva is pretty different to Joker and Batman. In TDK it feels like the two are essentially opposing forces, with Joker trying to break Batman and Batman trying to stop Joker. Again, Silva by comparison is twisted mirror image of Bond. I dunno, for me it just feels very different to TDK. More Bondian.
I mean, I’m not gonna lie, if that’s how you think while watching a film (or these particular films) and get taken out of it for those reasons, I genuinely feel bad for you (that’s not me trying to be snarky by the way). I think we all tend to recognise similarities with other stories/films/media when watching something, but if you’re engaged with a film then you pretty much go with it. Like I said though, we all have our likes/dislikes when it comes to Bond. I’m just sorry these particular things don’t allow you to enjoy the film for whatever reason.
I mean, not having been there at the time EON developed these films I can’t say for certain what their intentions were. They may well have been ‘chasing trends’ or they may have thought such influences would keep the series fresh/modern, and allowed them to adapt Bond in the best way possible for their films.