In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1192022242551

Comments

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I think my views on SP going forward will depend on whether or not it's Craig's last film. I suppose I might view it differently if it somehow sets up a successful payoff in the next film, although I can't for the life of me figure out what the hell that would be.

    As it stands now, it's just the redheaded stepchild of the Craig era for me. It opened my eyes and allowed me to take off my rose colored glasses to see SF's faults in a new light, while also helping me to appreciate CR and QoS all the more.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    GetCarter wrote: »
    I have a theory that the Sam Mendes movies have limited replay value. Sure, they look amazing, and after the first viewing (usually in a buzzing cinema with great atmosphere) you walk out thinking they've done amazing things with Bond, but I am coming to the conclusion that SF and SP do not reward repeat viewings.

    The Mendes template for Bond is sumptuously mounted scenes with high style that fail to register once the discovery factor has worn off. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy both, but I'm not sure if SF or SP will ever have the same replay value as CR or even QoS.

    Yes, I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. Mendes' films tend to be about ACTING, which works for several viewings but then wears off. There is something rewatchable about QoS and of course CR; I believe it has to do with story and atmosphere.
  • Posts: 6,432
    Dare I say Mendes is style over substance
  • Posts: 1,680
    QOS & SP move a bit faster & have more replay entertainment. CR & SF can get boring if watched too often. Skyfall is Craigs slowest film to get going.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 6,432
    Stuffed
    Polished
    Empty
    Careless
    Tainted
    Retcon
    Ending
  • Posts: 1,680
    I could argue the same thing goes for QOS & SF. Spectre at least has some fun & imagination whist doing it.
  • Posts: 1,631
    There is little to no imagination in SP. It is a lot of things, but imaginative isn't one of them. All of the elements that would have made it imaginative were removed from the script as P&W were brought in to "save" the production from John Logan.

    That's not to say that Logan's elements would have been good, but they were somewhat imaginative, as Bond films go anyway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    The retcon was certainly imaginative. Imaginatively ludicrous!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    With regard to the chase sequences: I am not sure but I guess I prefer the ones where Bond is chased instead of chasing the villains. I also rather prefer the unsuccessfull Bond chases. This adds to the physical strength of a henchman or the cleverness of a villain who are able to escape. In the Craig era I find that Bond is too successfull in chasing the villains. Molaka is a great example. The chase itself is great but the character is wasted afterwards. Therfore I think it would have been better if he had been able to escape.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It seems several of the actors went out on a bit of a whimper/dud, or those who managed to get four or more films, anyway: DAF, AVTAK, DAD, and SP.

    Granted, some of us probably rate these higher than others, but overall, it's hard to argue that all four of these have been found toward the bottom of a lot of our rankings. The only out-of-place one could be SP, as it seems to have a lot more supporters (who also rank it highly) than the former three films do.

    It depends on your personal point of view I guess. No two people agree about anything let alone which Bond films are good and which are bad.

    I read the thread title which says 'In time will Spectre me more or less appreciated?' and my first thought is 'Who by exactly?'
    Critics? Fans? Joe Public? All of the above?

    On balance critics were reasonably positive. Mixed reviews (not that I read them - I don't). They don't alter opinions much because they don't multi-view Bond films like we do. So they will probably still give it 3 out of 5 stars when they lend their pomposity to a further viewing.

    The public? Who cares, what do they know?

    Which leaves us Bond fans. My opinion has changed every time I have watched it, which is unusual because usually my initial opinion sticks. With Spectre, I loved it the first time, and the second and third, but noticeably a little less each time. I now only like it, and I do worry if I watch it again I will revert to 'ok'.

    My gripe isn't the story. Blofeld/brother doesn't concern me one iota. Blofeld as a character has always been tossed away in the films anyway with clumsy re-casting decisions, lack of continuity etc. The unseen Blofeld was great in the early films, but boy did it all go the pot when they began to show him.

    My gripe is the length.
    Casino Royale as a re-boot film, a new Bond actor, a celebration of obtaining rights to the first book etc deserved a long running time.

    Skyfall was the 50th anniversary, London Olympic year, all things Bond. It deserved a lengthy running time.

    Spectre? WTF? 2 hours and 10 minutes maximum. Absolute maximum. It feels like an undeserved epic. Too much time has to be put aside to watch this epic film that isn't really an epic.

    That's my gripe.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    @NicNac, by "our rankings," I obviously mean those of us on the forums - which is true. I even mentioned that SP is the only one out of the four that has had more consistency in making it to the Top 10 of our rankings than those other three did.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Ah yes I see. I guess when you shake the 24 films up the overall picture is pretty consistent across the board, and those four will rarely trouble the top 10.

    Weird how that works out. Four actors with opening films that are always well thought of, and closers (or latest in Craig's case) that fall short
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ah yes I see. I guess when you shake the 24 films up the overall picture is pretty consistent across the board, and those four will rarely trouble the top 10.

    Weird how that works out. Four actors with opening films that are always well thought of, and closers (or latest in Craig's case) that fall short

    Weird, indeed, I always find it intriguing how a lot of my favorites can be found in the first film of an actor's tenure, where a lot of the overall least favorites are found in an actor's final film. Odd, how that has managed to consistently play out over the decades.
  • GBFGBF
    edited January 2017 Posts: 3,197
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Ah yes I see. I guess when you shake the 24 films up the overall picture is pretty consistent across the board, and those four will rarely trouble the top 10.

    Weird how that works out. Four actors with opening films that are always well thought of, and closers (or latest in Craig's case) that fall short

    Weird, indeed, I always find it intriguing how a lot of my favorites can be found in the first film of an actor's tenure, where a lot of the overall least favorites are found in an actor's final film. Odd, how that has managed to consistently play out over the decades.

    I guess there are many reasons:

    1. By the first film, the producer usually have to care more about the overall quality of a film in order to establish a new actor.

    2. The actor himself also has to give his best in order to leave a mark and convince the Bond fans that he is the "new Bond" now.

    3. Usually there is a bigger time gap before the film (especially between LTK and GE and DAD and CR), hence the writers have more time for writing a good script, developing new ideas and inventing good dialouge. These time gaps also reveal technical improvements in favour of the new actor. (Most obvious was the change in title sequence between late Binder in LTK and early Kleinman in GE)

    4. Usually the producer milk the success and popularity of a particular Bond character to death. In the end, Moore was a bit too too old, Brosnan films became way too action packed and silly and Craig's emo Bond character might have become a bit boring meanwhile. I guess at some point, people just wish to have the franchise renewed. The last film of a Bond actor's tenure is therefore often regarded as the film where they finally crossed the line. Negative reviews lead to a change in the direction which even emphasizes the negative reputation of the previous film. (For istance, had Moore even made one more film, only few people would ciritcise Moore's age in AVTAK).


  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    I would also say that the way it is keeps the franchise going on. If Connery had an amazing swan song, it would have been much more difficult for Moore to establish in LALD. Had Moore retired earlier, people might not have accepted his successor. DAD was a big mess but it made CR even bigger and helped Daniel to reach his high popularity. On the contrary, DAD is even a bigger mess since CR is such a good film :-)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Indeed @GBF, complacency is probably key.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    GBF wrote: »
    Had Moore retired earlier, people might not have accepted his successor.
    It's my understanding that some people, particularly quite a few in the North American market, never really took to Dalton despite Moore leaving much later than he should have. That could have been on account of Brosnan waiting in the wings though.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,197
    The whole "battle of the Bonds" conflict in 1983 shows that the producers prefered to rely on Moore's popularity instead of chosing a new actor. Especially Cubby seemed to rely on the formular "Never change a winning team".
  • Posts: 19,339
    SP lies at #13 for me on my list...the lowest of all the Craig Bond films by some margin.
  • SP will be seen as a disappointment in the years ahead.

    Personally, I think both the Sam Mendes films will be less revered as time goes by. I think Mendes’s bloated and self-involved approach will make the films less appreciated over the years.

    Personally, I think SF is a masterpiece, but I’m already feeling the general tide turning against it. Mainly as it makes a very deliberate decision to go off-piste by being slightly more esoteric and ‘arty’. There are elements of the film that I can understand people naturally not having a strong affinity towards. For example, the decision to make M the female lead and have her die in Bond’s arms feels a far cry from the traditional Bond girl. Also there is a big bump given to the MI6 supporting characters making them fully-fledged supporting roles. Bond is given an emotional arch to overcome. The villain doesn’t really have a grand scheme – more an emotional one that makes no logical sense. For me, many of these elements make SF a rarity in the series and a true one-off.

    SP will either be dismissed as a generic paint-by-numbers affair (think TND) or an outright failure (how badly Mendes screwed up Blofeld). It’s ironic as SP had all the flair of a traditional Bond film, something the diehard fans were craving. However, it simultaneously distances the hardcore by making silly story decisions (Blofeld and Bond are brothers?). I’m very curious how the Bond purists feel about it.

    I’m a big Bond fan – but I support innovation in the series. Some bemoan the suggestion of Moneypenny as a field agent, or M being a woman – as it flies in the face of tradition. SP must have been both seen as catnip and misjudged for the hardcore.

    So in summary….both SF and SP will be less regarded in the fan community in the years to come.

    A lot depends on the next Bond though. If he’s crap (Tom Hiddlestone), the Craig era will be more loved. If he’s great (Tom Hardy), everyone will rush to attack Craig’s movies.
  • Tuck91 wrote: »
    The plane/ Rover chase was okay. I would have preferred Hinx taking Madeline on the cargo plane & Bond boarding & giving fight.

    The opening sequence is magnificent, except for the Moore-like couch gag.
    The Rome car chase was okay, ruined by more silly Moore stuff.
    The Austria chase was okay.
    The fight on the Train started off great but had a horrible gag at the end.
    The escape from the SPECTRE base was silly. Just silly.
    The end stuff was anticlimactic and worthy of the lesser Lethal Weapon sequels.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    SP will either be dismissed as a generic paint-by-numbers affair (think TND) or an outright failure (how badly Mendes screwed up Blofeld).
    From my perspective, it's more the former, but not as successful. Both films are very generic in my view, but TND executes much better on the formula to my eyes. It's at least tonally consistent, light & breezy with excellent execution of the action sequences.

    I've come to appreciate the uncomfortable feeling that permeates SP however. There's an underlying element of foreboding which is unusual for a Bond film. I think that was certainly by design.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    The opening sequence is magnificent, except for the Moore-like couch gag.

    Wasn't that more of a homage to YOLT?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Wow just watching SF now. ..such a superior film to SP. What happened? Doesn't even feel like the same director.
  • mcdonbb wrote: »
    Wow just watching SF now. ..such a superior film to SP. What happened? Doesn't even feel like the same director.

    TOTALLY agree.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    It will settle to the middle, or slightly upper middle , of the pack.

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 6,844
    Mendes evidently had nothing left to say on Bond. Roger Deakins expressed it best himself when he said he'd done everything he could creatively with Skyfall and to do another would just be repeating himself. (Shame as I think Deakins still could do a lot for the series, but the sentiment certainly holds true for Mendes.)

    I personally suspect appreciation for Spectre will drop in years ahead. A year out that trajectory has already begun. Spectre currently holds the same rating on IMDB as where QOS has settled after nearly a decade, and will likely drop further as new blockbusters tend to do once the new car smell has evaporated.

    Furthermore, (and I just mentioned this in another thread), the general sentiment in just about every film news article I read these days is that Spectre was underwhelming/disappointing/a let down. Waltz himself has come out less than a year from release and said he was unsatisfied with his Blofeld. Public opinion of the film has been shaped already and will only continue to be further defined by whatever comes next. If history has anything to say about it, that doesn't bode well for the fate of Spectre.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited January 2017 Posts: 40,959
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I genuinely have never seen what others love about it. I was shocked at how disengaged I was that first time. I went back two days later and liked it even less. I just don't get it. And I've tried. I find it to be the dullest entry in the series. By a far margin. DAD, TWINE and a few others may ultimately fail, but there is plenty of fun in there that I can get excited about.

    I was lucky enough to enjoy it with my first viewing (I wonder why...), but after that, it went downhill very quick.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I genuinely have never seen what others love about it. I was shocked at how disengaged I was that first time. I went back two days later and liked it even less. I just don't get it. And I've tried. I find it to be the dullest entry in the series. By a far margin. DAD, TWINE and a few others may ultimately fail, but there is plenty of fun in there that I can get excited about.

    I was lucky enough to enjoy it with my first viewing (I wonder why...), but after that, it went downhill very quick.

    I liked it the first time too despite having major reservations about the ending. I think the enjoyment the first time round came from the novelty moreso, though. Like you, the novelty wore off quite quickly.
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 6,844
    I think I feel pretty much the same as you about Spectre, @Birdleson. Took me forever to pick it up on Blu-Ray. Then after my second viewing, I still didn't feel like watching it again. There's just nothing to get me jazzed about watching this movie (and I even kind of like the torture scene which I know you're not fond of). But the opening helicopter fight, the Rome meeting and chase, the biplane chase—all just dull beyond belief. The 9 Eyes plot and Mi6 HQ finale make me groan more than anything. Waltz is a non-presence. Hinx has a cool fight, but apart from that the character is just there, another colorless henchfigure. Seydoux has a few well done scenes with Craig (their clinic interview, L'Americain, her goodbye fake-out), but overall the two are lacking in believable chemistry. Even the Mr. White stuff doesn't interest me much anymore after just a couple of views. So what's left? The train fight, the opening rooftop stroll, handful of Seydoux scenes, "...not bring back one piece!" and enzyme shake laughs, Vesper tape discovery, Colonel Sun inspired torture scene, Hildebrand Rarity reference. Not a whole lot considering the 2 and a half hour running time. That could probably all be condensed into about 15 minutes or less. Bottom line, there's just nothing to get me excited about watching Spectre. Sure I'll still watch it in marathons and ultimately, sure, having 24 Bond films is better than having 23, but how hard should it be really to make a James Bond film that's not dull at least?

    Edit: I liked the CGI mouse too.
Sign In or Register to comment.