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
I disagree about what some people here say about SF - for me it’s peak Bond, and I’d argue more so than even DN (I think it understands Bond as a character better anyway). I certainly remember at the time just how well it was received in comparison to QOS. Say what you want about it, but I think it’s a film which renewed the Craig era (and by extension Bond).
THANK YOU =D>
I once heard that the Star Wars prequels served to make someone appreciate Return of the Jedi more, because whilst the ewoks, the second death star, and Luke and Leia being siblings were all silly concepts in and of themselves, what we got with the prequels made them look like citizen kane by comparison.
For me, the Craig era did the same thing for the Brosnan films. I've been a Goldeneye fan ever since I can remember, but his other films I always thought of as falling short of the heights Connery and Moore, but since the Craig era finally concluded I now view Brosnan as the authentic continuation of "traditional" bond updated for the 90's, whereas Craig is very much a departure to something else entirely. But Brosnan truly inhibited bond, with all that entailed, which Craig only began to do at the end of his tenure. If you had to pick one car chase to make it onto the Mount rushmore of Bond chases would you pick the TND BMW chase, or the SP Rome chase? Which sounds more bondian "back seat driver" or "the moors"? No contest.
IMHO, Craig's era is a trilogy... CR, QOS & SP. SF just has a killer title song to a so-so Bond movie, and NTTD is dead to me.
"Make It personal!"
And yet, people want Barbara Broccoli fired. ;-)
I agree with @CrabKey that it probably wasn't the best decision. On the other hand, it doesn't kill the film for me, either.
It’s a bit strange as the dialogue plays up the ‘author of all your pain’ stuff so it plays up their connection (at least on Blofeld’s side). There’s also his comments about his father taking in Bond etc. which I guess would imply to many that Blofeld dislikes Bond because of this. It’s never quite specified why he kills his father if I remember correctly. I think it’s a case where what’s on the page isn’t quite gelling with the story. Honestly, I actually think them not knowing each other is more impactful, especially if Blofeld was the puppet master behind what is essentially Vesper's death. I think there was plenty already there.
Things definitely weren't as planned as they needed to be from the start. That's obvious if you track the Craig era from start to finish. Bear in mind that up until the settlement with the McClory Estate in 2013 Eon didn't have the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE so Quantum was meant to be the villainous organisation instead. Once they got the rights back from McClory they were chomping at the bit to use Blofeld and SPECTRE again and so Quantum was out and Spectre was in.
I like the idea of Spectre as the darker organization 'behind' Quantum. But despite my love for SP, I'm not sure they did what they could to make the best of it.
I think the Craig era was stronger when it had villains that were original, Le Chiffre and Silva being perfect examples
I could agree with you. After all, Spectre was introduced in Bond 24 and terminated in Bond 25. That's why I'm willing to give them the chance to reset things and start anew with Spectre for the next actor.
Personally, I’m not too keen on getting another incarnation for Bond 7. I think stand alone villains working independently are more interesting.
That was my hope. Would've been a lot smarter to wait, flesh out some ideas, and let the organization run through the entirety of a new era. Introducing them four films in in some retroactive manner was a terrible idea to me.
Perhaps if Daniel had a better time on SP, we could have had another film from him in 2017/18, that could have made Spectre more of a recurring threat as an organisation.
I remember thinking that scene was sooo great in the cinema. When Blofeld looked at Bond, with the James/cuckoo stuff, that was creepy as.
SPECTRE is like all the ingredients of a fantastic Bond film, cooked together in a way that didn't quite work.
As daft as this might sound, I think the same of DAD.
Yes, agreed, that scene was great. The shadowy, silhouette outline of Blofeld was very well done and artily shot. Blofeld/Oberhauser addressing Bond directly was very creepy. It was like he had a sixth sense and knew he was there. I really need to watch Spectre again on Blu-ray. Not seen it since I watched it again in preparation for seeing NTTD in the cinema back in October 2021.
Nice idea... Plant something in one act-- especially (Checkhov's) gun-- use it in the last act... Great idea @Venutius 👌👌👌
EDIT to add: three days later and I have to say that while I had a great time with it while I was watching, I'm left with a slightly hollow feeling. Like, the movie was made without a clear idea of what they were doing. I got that same feeling with SF, but at least SP was more fun.
Basically, he had two really good movies up front.
Should have gotten Forster or Campbell to do the others...
CR — lost
QOS — win, and no score draw on the ongoing stuff
SF — outright loss. Doesn’t matter that baddie died, he had one goal, and he achieves that
SP — a win. Completed only missions he was given, and baddie is thwarted.
NTTD — wins, but didn’t need to be in situation in first place, and literally dies at the end, so actually a loss.
This doesn’t mean any of them are *bad* films, or from a certain point of view bad Bond films — but it’s does mean they aren’t in keeping with the borderline genre-romance/genre-action films of the past. There are no ‘Happy For Now’ endings aside from Spectre. Which is undone for the plot of NTTD. I actually like the ongoing story arc, and it redeemed the whole era for me, but maybe that is enough of that. At least in such a melodramatic fashion.
It *may* be time for a back to basics on that front, because audiences may finally be at a point where they like the hero to win again. And without a ‘but at what cost…’ that hangs over all the victories in this era.
This is the best way to watch SP. If you don't think about all the stupid plot moves (and take a break to the other room to fold laundry during the C storyline), it's actually a decent movie.
You know it's bad when the only way it's decent is when you are purposefully dodging large chunks of the film.
If not for my completionist desires with my yearly Bondathons, I'd honestly never watch SP again.
@echo …. That C plot line was brutal and horribly executed. Andrew Scott pantomimed through his “performance” telegraphing his “evilness “…. He dragged down every scene, and his death was laughably bad and terribly melodramatic (and lame).
Cut out C, and the film dramatically improves.
It's almost as though the audience is supposed to immediately realize he's not on the side of the heroes.
💯 💯 💯
Even the music! Ugh.