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
At least the Hildebrand reference in SP was fresh, but even that took me out of the film.
I'm not sure if P&W are the problem but it might be time to start afresh (how many Bond stories do they have in them?). I know Babs and MGW think that P&W are the cat's meow when it comes to really knowing the character of Bond but can't Babs and MGW fill that role ("No, Mr./Ms. Screenwriter, Bond wouldn't do that." Repeat as necessary.)?
It's already been mentioned pretty exhaustively in reviews, but the reveal was surprising to no one: to fans it was merely a shrug, to non-fans it was a "who-cares what his alias" is moment
It's bizarre. I think the writing is where Babs, MGW and Mendes have a totally tin ear. Plots, stories, even dialogue are at best derivative and at worst just plain awful.
SP fell into the former category. Uninspired but just about serviceable.
Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
Way to take things absolutely literally. All you say makes very little sense. As I and others have mentioned on more than one occasion, Blofeld takes credit for the actions of his organisation, whether they are directly or indirectly implemented or executed by him personally. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can claim to be the author of many people's pain, does that mean he has orchestrated every last detail of the death of each and every ISIS victim?Bond set foot into Blofeld's world and given the circumstances he responded appropriately.
It isn't. If you don't like the 'connection' established between Bond and Oberhauser that's your prerogative, but to say it's unintelligent is nonsense. The jigsaw fits together and is underplayed and ambiguous enough to satisfy, but not undercooked enough to be incomprehensible. Do you just want every detail laid out for you like a recipe card?
Exactly, why are countless TV storylines with much lower budgets more satisfying than what we got with SP? The confounding part is that it seemed as if Ms. Broccoli/Mr. Wilson were trying to push Bond into the respected critical film circle by bringing in the likes of Academy Award winners Paul Haggis, Sam Mendes, Marc Forster, and Roger Deakins, along with nominee John Logan, yet SP misses the mark. Even looking critically at Skyfall, a film I enjoyed on the whole, the flaws in that film primarily stem from the cracks in the writing.
A lot of great TV writing, but a completely different discipline. Bond could be better, but it's not as easy as saying 'let's get some good writers and we're all set'. Imagine a raft of execs, producers and studio heads fixating over the script for your 'two episode' season launch, but for several years. It can't happen as your show would never see the light of day. The whole issue with film, in particular franchise film is that you're producing two hours of material that has to work and and as such everyone wants their say. You don't have time for your material to pick up pace after episode 5. People are far more used to character development across multiple episodes and series these days.
See above. Film and TV are different beasts. Films are primarily plot led, where TV is primarily character led. It's why the multi-verse phenomenon is gathering pace, because it allows character development outside of a two hour window.
I agree on that point. TV has the advantage of being able to flesh out characters over several episodes, which is part of the current appeal. However, on the point of films being a 2 years in the making production, that's even less of an excuse to have a disjointed script.
I think the issue with Spectre, and this goes back to the original topic and ties into this conversation, is that the film-makers tried to do too much in the 2+ hours of screentime. The storylines were are all forced together without time to flesh them out satisfyingly. The Spectre/Ernst thread feels completely forced into the story and bogs the whole thing down. Add to that, all of the action scenes feel like filler to give the film more 'excitement' (as DC and Mendes begged P&W to do). It really boils down to the old saying of keeping it simple.
It's worse because it just means two years of notes. It's why the argument of 'give them more time' is a fallacy. Scripts don't reach a point where they are perfect, they just reach a point where they go into production and from thereon continue to change. For a big-budget mainstream film to come out the other end as a great film it's almost impossible. There is no right way to do it. The only way to have any semblance of order is for everyone to be singing from the same sheet, but the bigger the production, the more cooks, and the more likely you'll find conflicting opinions.
All very true. I agree. But then at least surely they should get the plot right. This is where the old films were so much stronger (not least because they were sometimes actually based on Fleming). Journeyman directors like Glen also really new how to tell a story. And action was subservient to the plot, not the other way around.
The script and story are nonsense your defence of it is nonsense. You've filled in the plot holes with what you think he must have meant. Yet that's no made clear. It's potrayed as his father neglected him when Bond came to live that everything was about his vendetta which started with killing his father and faking his own death. He didn't do that for any other reason to mask his plans to get revenge on James. Their paths don't cross accidently it's potrayed that it's always been him behind everything that happened.
It's a joke of script and a waste of the best cast ensemble in the history of Bond. It's indefensible in doing so you only give merit to second grade crap.
----
Some (but very few) have commented negatively on Craig's portrayal as well.
From my point of view, regarding Craig, I thought he did a great job, given what he was given. However, I would have preferred a little more consistency to his performance over the entire run. The change from caring / brooding Bond to uncaring total Bond is a little jarring, given he's done so few films. If he'd have done one more transition film between SF and this one, or even between QoS and SF, it would have helped me.
----
Whatever one may say about Marvel, they do get the characterizations right imho. The main characters stay consistent throughout their universe, even if some of the films are more fantastical / spectacle oriented and some are more dialed back and espionage driven. We know how Stark will react to a situation, or Cap.
----
I agree with the earlier comments about bringing in superstar directors. The issue I see with this is they want to put their own stamp on the character, and do this at the expense of the universe that they are supposed to be operating within. A John Glen, whatever one may think of him, stuck to the script (no pun intended) and even though he may have been a journeyman, he didn't let his ego get in the way of anything. He knew Bond and the universe were bigger than him.....rightly so.
We had to wait 3 years because of Mendes. In retrospect, I think we shouldn't have had to have this wait. He was responsible for bringing in Logan and the delays in the script changes.....firing P&W and then bringing them back as well. I didn't think it was worth it ultimately.
I think he got lucky with SF, because the Dench/Bardem story was very compelling and those actors were able to sell it. That was his area (character drama) and he had a compelling story to tell, so it worked. Ultimately, I don't think he's all that suited to a 'traditional' Bond film though, and hope he moves on so we can get back to business.
'Mexico City rang a distant bell', hardly the words of a man whose sole existence is to seek revenge. Script issues, yes. Story issues, yes. Indefensible, no. It all works and offers enough for the viewer to build a picture of the man, the organisation and the motives. This story is Bond-centric, for him it is everything, while in the world of Blofeld it is a small part of a much bigger world. There is no talk of vendettas, Blofeld merely states that Bond made him realise his father had to die. If it was about Bond why not kill him as a child? As he states, Bond entered his world and (with his power, influence and resources) he decided to destroy Bond's.
Completely. It's like starting to build a house and the blueprint isn't complete and saying, "Well, we have to break ground today so that's what we're going to do." "But, wait, the load bearing beams won't hold the ceiling up and the foundation isn't engineered properly!?" "Eh, no big deal, we'll figure that out later. We've got marble columns and antique Brazillian wood! So it will all turn out fine"
This is big budget film making in general. Nothing new with SP.
While SF did have some illogical moments in the plot, it still worked as a story narrative. SP just collapses on itself in the third act. I just can't fathom that nobody involved noticed or bothered to consider tidying things up in the last 45 minutes of the film.
It's all a matter of perspective, but I respectfully disagree. Blofeld also explicitly says that Bond is responsible for the path he took. Therefore, Bond de facto becomes the reason why SPECTRE exists, and the reason why all of the events from CR onwards have taken place. To me it's very clear they made Bond the center of the universe instead of just an agent who tries to stop the bad guys.
Interesting...SF worked to me because Silva was an embittered ex-agent out for revenge. Sure, some of his means for exacting revenge were a bit implausible to say the least, but the overall narrative seemed plausible (in a fictional movie sense at least): a rogue former agent living on a hidden island plotting his revenge on his ex boss. SP by contrast bases an entire global criminal organization on one guy who was jealous of Bond's daddy attention, and therefore concocts a decades+ long plan to unleash all the past villain schemes of the last 3 films and this one to get back at Bond. It's a bit of a stretch for me.
SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.
I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.
If you want to take everything literally. I think the actual words are more along the lines of, 'you could say he's responsible for the path I took', he wasn't explicit, but toying with Bond, suggesting Bond is in some way the author of his own downfall. I don't buy that he means it literally, it is a psychological play. As you say it's a matter of perspective, if one wanted to be negative they could use that rather flimsy butterfly effect scenario and take it to the extreme. I find that rather silly myself. I tend to believe there's a bit more nuance, a bit more ambiguity. It's why I find it quite fascinating and not at all as b+w as others.
That's not the plot. Watch it again.
+1
I don't want to be negative, that's just the way I see it. I can't help it. I do like some other aspects of the film, though.
Funny. Almost everything you say about SP I would say about SF.
At the end of the day SP is the only one of those two that I might rewatch.
I didn't say that was the plot. It is the premise however, that the plot is based on, and apparently it's now the premise that the other Craig stories are now based on, which IMO guts the unique stories of the past films.