In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1568101151

Comments

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited March 2016 Posts: 11,139
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography
  • TuxedoTuxedo Europe
    Posts: 259
    I watched SP one time at the big screen and didn't want to watch it again so soon. I was a bit disappointed back then. I bought it on iTunes and watched it yesterday for the second time ever. I enjoyed it so much more this time.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    ...and Craig's performance...
    ...and Q...
    ...and Moneypenny...
    ...and M, especially M...

  • Posts: 1,631
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    As a package CR is superior to every other Craig entry by some distance IMO.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    You mirror my feelings too @RC7
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2016 Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    As a package CR is superior to every other Craig entry by some distance IMO.

    The longer I exist on this forum, the more I am coming round to this point of view. I would, however, always like it recognised that CR is itself a very flawed film in certain regards. I resist the idea that certain entries become anointed into some echelon where they are sequestered from criticism. Not that that is what you are advocating, of course. It's just that fan forums can tends towards echo chambers at times.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I'm not a literary Bond specialist or a Fleming purist. I've read a handful of books many years ago and can't remember most of them. I'm essentially a fan of the films.

    CR, to me, captures the essence of what Bond is about. For me. I continue to be surprised by criticisms I hear in some quarters that the Craig era has meandered away from traditional Bond. In my view (and I don't know how or why) CR has more 'traditional' Bond in it than any other Craig film, including SP, or any film since LTK.

    That's just the way I feel. I had a huge smile on my face for most of it. Didn't like the downer ending but that's the way it goes as it was part of the narrative.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not a literary Bond specialist or a Fleming purist. I've read a handful of books many years ago and can't remember most of them. I'm essentially a fan of the films.

    CR, to me, captures the essence of what Bond is about. For me. I continue to be surprised by criticisms I hear in some quarters that the Craig era has meandered away from traditional Bond. In my view (and I don't know how or why) CR has more 'traditional' Bond in it than any other Craig film, including SP, or any film since LTK.

    That's just the way I feel. I had a huge smile on my face for most of it. Didn't like the downer ending but that's the way it goes as it was part of the narrative.

    Yes, I do have many criticisms of the film (I'm would probably be considered a CR hater by some), but considering the IMO uneven films Craig went onto make, Casino Royale represents the strongest creative effort of the Craig era. The excellent far out ways the just OK. The first act is very good, the second act is probably in the top 5 of any Bond film (the casino stuff). However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not a literary Bond specialist or a Fleming purist. I've read a handful of books many years ago and can't remember most of them. I'm essentially a fan of the films.

    CR, to me, captures the essence of what Bond is about. For me. I continue to be surprised by criticisms I hear in some quarters that the Craig era has meandered away from traditional Bond. In my view (and I don't know how or why) CR has more 'traditional' Bond in it than any other Craig film, including SP, or any film since LTK.

    That's just the way I feel. I had a huge smile on my face for most of it. Didn't like the downer ending but that's the way it goes as it was part of the narrative.

    Yes, I do have many criticisms of the film (I'm would probably be considered a CR hater by some), but considering the IMO uneven films Craig went onto make, Casino Royale represents the strongest creative effort of the Craig era. The excellent far out ways the just OK. The first act is very good, the second act is probably in the top 5 of any Bond film (the casino stuff). However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.

    Nothing is perfect. CR, like everything, has its superficial flaws, but as a piece of cinema it is exceptional IMO. It's within a bracket of possibly 3 or 4 Bond films that are transcendent. Bond survives on consistency and is rarely punctuated with genuine brilliance. I find CR to be one of those rare moments. QoS, SF and SP aren't close, by a long, long way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not a literary Bond specialist or a Fleming purist. I've read a handful of books many years ago and can't remember most of them. I'm essentially a fan of the films.

    CR, to me, captures the essence of what Bond is about. For me. I continue to be surprised by criticisms I hear in some quarters that the Craig era has meandered away from traditional Bond. In my view (and I don't know how or why) CR has more 'traditional' Bond in it than any other Craig film, including SP, or any film since LTK.

    That's just the way I feel. I had a huge smile on my face for most of it. Didn't like the downer ending but that's the way it goes as it was part of the narrative.

    Yes, I do have many criticisms of the film (I'm would probably be considered a CR hater by some), but considering the IMO uneven films Craig went onto make, Casino Royale represents the strongest creative effort of the Craig era. The excellent far out ways the just OK. The first act is very good, the second act is probably in the top 5 of any Bond film (the casino stuff). However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.

    Nothing is perfect. CR, like everything, has its superficial flaws, but as a piece of cinema it is exceptional IMO. It's within a bracket of possibly 3 or 4 Bond films that are transcendent. Bond survives on consistency and is rarely punctuated with genuine brilliance. I find CR to be one of those rare moments. QoS, SF and SP aren't close, by a long, long way.

    While I would argue that not all of CR's flaws are strictly superficial but structural in some cases, I can see this is about as close as we are ever likely to be to agreeing on the matter.
  • RC7RC7
    edited March 2016 Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.

    I think you're right. They tried to add a bit of visual heft to it. I personally think it's original, iconic and works exceptionally well. The moment Vesper lets go is heartbreaking. Nothing in the canon compares.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.

    I think you're right. They tried to add a bit of visual heft to it. I personally think it's original, iconic and works exceptionally well. The moment Vesper lets go is heartbreaking. Nothing in the canon compares.
    True. It's much better imho than the similar (perhaps too similar) attempt at the end of SF (complete with uplifting Bondian epilogue ending), which seems a lightweight in comparison. Craig and Green sell the scene.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    RC7 wrote: »
    As a package CR is superior to every other Craig entry by some distance IMO.
    In terms of film-making, CR is probably the best Bond since OHMSS.
    But I still like QOS & SP better.
    :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    But I still like QOS & SP better.
    :D
    Nothing wrong with that. At all.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    dalton wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.

    Vesper in my opinion was a far better written character. Hard to compare with what Seydoux had to work with.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2016 Posts: 6,277
    Bringing in Mr. White's daughter was a genius move, a nice callback to Tracy/Draco, but...

    I find it hard to believe that they didn't do "chemistry reads" with Craig and Seydoux. IMHO her best scene with Craig is the first one when she is at her prickliest, but Craig had infinitely more chemistry not with her, but with Jesper Christensen (surely one reason why he appeared in three films).
  • Posts: 1,631
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.

    Vesper in my opinion was a far better written character. Hard to compare with what Seydoux had to work with.

    I would agree with that. Green had a better character, a Fleming character, to work with. I thought that Seydoux, however, rose above the material she had to work with. For me, if that part was played by someone with less talent than her, the whole film might have fallen apart more than it already had due to a faulty script. At least for me, all of the things that worked about Spectre were in some way tied to Seydoux and her character.

    They're both very good, though. Both are in my top 3.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm not a literary Bond specialist or a Fleming purist. I've read a handful of books many years ago and can't remember most of them. I'm essentially a fan of the films.

    CR, to me, captures the essence of what Bond is about. For me. I continue to be surprised by criticisms I hear in some quarters that the Craig era has meandered away from traditional Bond. In my view (and I don't know how or why) CR has more 'traditional' Bond in it than any other Craig film, including SP, or any film since LTK.

    That's just the way I feel. I had a huge smile on my face for most of it. Didn't like the downer ending but that's the way it goes as it was part of the narrative.

    Yes, I do have many criticisms of the film (I'm would probably be considered a CR hater by some), but considering the IMO uneven films Craig went onto make, Casino Royale represents the strongest creative effort of the Craig era. The excellent far out ways the just OK. The first act is very good, the second act is probably in the top 5 of any Bond film (the casino stuff). However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.

    Nothing is perfect. CR, like everything, has its superficial flaws, but as a piece of cinema it is exceptional IMO. It's within a bracket of possibly 3 or 4 Bond films that are transcendent. Bond survives on consistency and is rarely punctuated with genuine brilliance. I find CR to be one of those rare moments. QoS, SF and SP aren't close, by a long, long way.

    This!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Agreed. There isn't much in Spectre that can rival Casino Royale. I'd put Lea Seydoux on par with or slightly ahead of Eva Green (both are excellent), but that aside, Casino Royale is better in every imaginable way. Much better performance from Craig, better villain, better and more coherent story, etc.

    Vesper in my opinion was a far better written character. Hard to compare with what Seydoux had to work with.

    My thoughts on this too.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2016 Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Well put @Mendes4Lyfe.
  • edited March 2016 Posts: 6,432
    doubleoego wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I already appreciate it. Bond movies change tone frequently.
    IMO it's the best overall Bond in this Century. Some might say CR... and personally I like QOS a teensy bit better...
    But SPECTRE delivered the Bond goods. Highest possible re-watch value as well.
    Funny last time I watched Spectre I was deliberating whether it was better than CR. For me its too early to decide, like yourself QoS I rate highly also. As great as CR is it does have a few weaknesses, right now one thing is for sure Spectre is the classiest DC bond film.


    tumblr_n4ad0495eg1sky7ayo1_250.gif

    SP is nothing compared to CR. It's not even worth deliberating let alone being up for debate. Every Bond film, heck every film ever made has weaknesses but one thing's for sure, SP is nowhere near in the same league
    as CR in every respect.....except maybe cinematography

    Heaven forbid someone having a different opinion to yourself.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.

    The exceptionalism I spoke of was to do with the fact that people will forgive laziness in CR, or FRWL that they wouldn't forgive in DAF or MR. So people make an exception, and don't mark CR down for it. They make excuses for a film they WANT to be a masterpeice, thus it becomes a masterpeice because they ignore the negatives.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.

    The exceptionalism I spoke of was to do with the fact that people will forgive laziness in CR, or FRWL that they wouldn't forgive in DAF or MR. So people make an exception, and don't mark CR down for it. They make excuses for a film they WANT to be a masterpeice, thus it becomes a masterpeice because they ignore the negatives.
    Yes, that is a form of cognitive bias. That is the psychological term for it. I can't remember which one you are referring to. "Halo effect" bias comes to mind but I could be wrong.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,392
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    However I will defend to my grave that the third act, compared to the two prior, is a big let down. I don't think the film required another action set piece, and in my opinion the love story was rushed, with poor dialogue. What could have been a near perfect 2hr movie, becomes a 2hr 20min merely excellent one.
    I can agree with that. I'm personally not a fan of anything after 'ball buster', except of course for the incredible "Bond, James Bond" ending.

    Having said that, I'm not sure how else they really could have done the 'love' story and I'm glad they focused on the casino parts rather than overdoing time with the romance angle, because that's what makes CR so special (the casino scenes imho).

    I agree. They clearly focused the majority of effort to make sure the Casino scenes worked, and that's why the later scenes with Bond and Vesper alone, with nothing in the way of plot or objective to support them, seemed more like an afterthought. I honestly don't think the collapsing house set piece adds anything to the film other than serve as a set up to an overly melodramatic death scene. I recognise the thematic importance of Vesper's death in solidifying Bond's character, but once the main plot is sorted with you cannot simply coast on a burgeoning relationship. I think there is a touch of self-indulgence in the storytelling, perhaps treating the material with slightly more reverence than it deserves. IMO streamlining the third act and making a few choice edits elsewhere (that parkour chase is simply too long to be convincingly plausible) would help to truly earn CR the reputation it currently enjoys.
    I think I agree with you on the third act. It did have a touch of self indulgence to it & it could have been a little tighter at the end without the building theatrics. However, this probably translates better on screen than the novel ending, and general fans normally demand and expect a big finale (keeping in mind this was the first Bond film in 4 years and since DAD) so they probably really had no choice. It's a no-win situation really.


    This is the type of exceptionalism I'm talking about. This is exactly why CR has the 'gold dust' reputation it does. seventy-five percent of any great work is perceived in the work itself (i.e. it is quantifiable), the other twenty-five percent is conceived in the mind of the viewer. Once a film, book, album whatever reaches the threshold of seventy-five percent, the brain will change it's reality so it can achieve the rest. This comes from our built in instinct to see value in things, and our tendency to overestimate value in order to remain optimistic about our prospects of survival. Problem is, this makes ascertaining the 'actual value' of content (i.e being objective) rather than it's perceived value (groupthink) difficult. Part of the issue is that often something which, in isolation, would be considered 'weak' is excused due to it's relationship with the surrounding material. This is why any perceived issues the content does have are downplayed as being 'superficial'.
    Wow. That went over my head, despite a couple of reads. I believe you are referring to a cognitive bias, rather than 'exceptionalism'. Yes, you are correct, there is a bias which leads to people overpraising certain things, and underpraising other things. Hot buttons if you like, which can turn off someone or impress someone beyond reasonableness. Marketers rely on this, as do politicians, film makers, salespeople and scriptwriters.

    Regarding the Venice part of the film, I'm really not too keen on it and truth be told, if it wasn't in the film, I'd probably watch CR much more than I do, because it does bring me down quite a bit. However as I said, I believe EON made the right decision here, for box office reasons and for general audience expectations reasons. They needed Vesper's death to resonate emotionally on film, and the way they went about it does (too much for me actually).

    I understand why they did it & I'm sure some liked that part, although it was indeed heavy on the emotions.

    Interestingly, they were able to make an entire follow up film partly based on the impact of that death.

    The exceptionalism I spoke of was to do with the fact that people will forgive laziness in CR, or FRWL that they wouldn't forgive in DAF or MR. So people make an exception, and don't mark CR down for it. They make excuses for a film they WANT to be a masterpeice, thus it becomes a masterpeice because they ignore the negatives.
    Yes, that is a form of cognitive bias. That is the psychological term for it. I can't remember which one you are referring to. "Halo effect" bias comes to mind but I could be wrong.

    Confirmation bias maybe?
Sign In or Register to comment.