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
Of all the comments about SF I've read, I most agree with your comments @andmcit. There appears to be a pattern that those fans and critics who loved the very deep, dour etc. tone of SF tended to be a bit, or a lot, disappointed with the lighter, more traditional SP. And vice versa, so I'm hoping I'll fit the pattern and also love SP. My biggest fear about SP was always that we'd get SF2. I'm in the states, and have IMAX tickets for the 6th. I hope I haven't hurt my enjoyment of the film as I've read almost everything but the script.
Dude! Come on! I was so into reading the posts that i cliked your spoiler tag without thinking about it. Can't you just keep it out of the thread entirely?
Ever since they said that this had to be bigger and better than Skyfall, I was pretty sure they were talking about more action, cheesy humour and gadgets instead of characterisation. I won't be able to see the film until it's out here in China on the 13th of November but based on what I've read, it does sound like I'll be somewhat disappointed. I'm sure I'll love the sets, cinematography and enjoy the action but too much action just like throwing in every Bond ingredient is over kill. They need to learn that less is more.
Why construct a loving relationship between the leading Bond girl and Bond when they don't even intend to develop it properly? I would be happy if the two were mere pals and exchanged some natural humour between each other.
Are there one liners that follow Bond's dispatching of someone? If there are then this will further hinder my enjoyment. Campbell had the right idea. He knows how to make a CRAIG Bond film. When he said before CR was released that he had disposed of the "awful one line clankers", I applauded him and knew that this director was on the right track. I just don't think that this sort of humour suits Craig. If they want to do this, bring in someone who has the comedic talent of Moore and revolve the films around comedy. Be consistent and forget a dark, light, dark, light tone throughout the film. I just don't think this works. Anyway, I better shut up now and wait until I see the film... :) Based on what I've read though, it does sound like this film had the potential to be great but sadly fell short just by trying to give us too much of everything instead of actual characterisation/drama which is why Skyfall was so popular with the general audience and myself. Darker, gritter, dramatic Bond films suit Craig better. CR is still my favourite. It also just seems strange and just doesn't sit right that they have rounded up the previous darker films involving Quantum by giving us something in SPECTRE that is light in tone and comedic but still features or references the characters and organisation from the previous darker films. No consistency. After seeing SPECTRE, I won't be surprised in saying that Campbell does it better than Mendes. It's lucky that I'm much more of a fan of the books than the films. The former is where my true Bond passion lies.
Now I'm going to be torn apart from saying all of this when I haven't actually seen the film. LOL.
SF was obviously heavily influenced by Nolan, this might be heavily influenced by the Marvel ascendancy - Bautista's in it after all. Whether or not this is a Good Thing depends on the person but that this film is so different to where we started with Craig is a testament to EON who have always known that their series has to evolve with the trends of cinema at large - it hasn't set the tone since the 1960s after all.
I would maybe agree with that except it's Bond copying Bond not Bond copying Marvel.
I get the point about the tone and being the right time but the films and filmmakers whether intentional or not have been gravitating back to traditional Bond. This time I think they are expecting a higher standard of direction and writing. They may not always hit it of course..or may hit it every other film but I thinks that's the target.
Now back to what you said yes they are reactive to current trends and yes this seems the time to go back. The success of lighter more fanciful cinema like Marvel has indicated this is what we want right now.
The producers maybe see that too or maybe they don't but they are giving us or trying to give us what the majority of long term traditional fans have wanted the Craig era to develop toward.
Good point ...and they do. TDKR borrowed heavily from TWINE and SF and a bit from LTK but we all know that so I'm kinda stating the obvious.
...but yes you are right.
Im not trying yo be a jerk about this but that's what the spoiler tag is for. You saw it and clicked on it anyway. Next time don't click on spoiler if you don't want to be spoiled.
What I don't like the sound of is that there are no cars on the road for this chase even if it is very early in the morning. Rome is a large city. There would always be some cars on the road. Silly and unrealistic.
There hasn't been a single car chase in a Bond film that has topped the car chase sequences in 'Ronin'.
In what way is the tone of the film, strange?
If this is the case, then it's a pity. I'm not really a fan of the Marvel films. It does sound like Batman v Superman will be dark. Maybe I'm wrong though...
I've never really been a fan of action comedies unless they very much revolve around comedy like The Police Academy films which are also in part, slapstick. The Moore films and later Connery outings got away with being action comedies as they did largely revolve around comedy which the Marvel films don't. I like consistency. There is comedy in the Marvel films but I'm not sure if I would go so far as to call them action comedies but there is too much humour in them. Moore and Connery were good at adapting their acting skills for the tone and giving a lightness of touch right the way through. One thing I don't like about the Brosnan films, Marvel films and what is sounds like in the case of Spectre too, is that throughout the course of one film they go from dark to light, dark to light... As I said, I am big on consistency otherwise for me personally, the film just doesn't work as well in terms of execution.
Moore's films were right for the time until the 80s where I think FYEO was on the right track but the next two are at odds with what was needed... LTK is an attempt to enter that Lethal Weapon/Die Hard world but sans that kind of funny.
Brosnan's films are truly perplexing - the first one apes Luc Besson who was all the rage at the time, but the other three display perhaps a complete misunderstanding of what was wanted from filmgoers at the time. DAD is at least an attempt but it's like the corny "dad" (no pun intended) version of an attempt at the ascendant blockbuster of its time, i.e. Matrix, Spider-Man et cetera.
I can guarantee this - if EON sat on their hands and produced CR III instead of SF the film wouldn't have been nearly the success it was.
I was relieved by the time the credits rolled on SF and had no inclination whatsoever to go and watch it again. Not that it was awful - it just didn't have enough entertainment value & left me totally underwhelmed.
I'm hoping SP doesn't have this effect.
I've seen it twice and all I can think about is seeing it again. Which will be either tonight or tomorrow.
I didn't even make it to my midnight showing on Monday as I was so emotionally drained after the premiere, so that's £50 in the pocket of EON, on the house!
It's infinitely more enjoyable imo. If there's one thing I can say from a personal perspective, they did quite a lot of things that conceptually I would have been wary of. I think they took a lot more risks than are immediately apparent and I take my hat off to them. They struck a beautiful balance with the ingredients. I am well impressed with Mendes' work on this film.
I don't disagree, just saying it's more enjoyable, in response to your comment on tone. Whether fair-weather fans enjoy it, I couldn't honestly give a f***. I loved it.
Completely concur with RC7 here - I don't give a toss whether the Sunday tea-time crowd will like it as much as SF.
Richer still - I actually HOPE that it doesn’t have the blood-curdling mass appeal that SF did. It was more a patriotic homage to the Olympics for god sake.
Bond is for people who like James Bond films (or at least for those who don’t require them to be PC’d the hell out of and turned ‘nice & cosy’). The rest can stick to Downtown Abbey. I'll take mine with a razor's edge and a nice dollop of good riddance to the Sunday movie-goers, thanks ever so much B-)
http://m.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/13901055.___A_true_spectacle_____Stroud___s_biggest_James_Bond_fan_Carl_Hewlett_reviews_Spectre/
You are new to the forum obviously :-).
They're not, they're set in an entirely different "timeline" to the original 20.
Of course, but, it's still in the 'origin / prequel' stages as we witness the birth of a well-established Bond villain, so I stick to my contention that it could be viewed as a film which takes place before, say, Dr. No. But then, continuity really isn't EON's strong point.