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
Honesty :-)
The Good
- The color scheme (midnight blue, ivory and pale gold) is very elegant.
- The ivory tux and the pose is a good classic reinvented.
- After a mysterious absence from the SF posters, the 'Albert R. Broccoli's presents Daniel Craig as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in...' line is back.
- Seeing Daniel credited as co-producer.
The Bad
- The skeleton in the background looks odd. There's something wrong about the scale and it really doesn't work with Daniel's photo.
- The composition looks way to similiar to SF UK poster.
- Where's Waltz? Where's Seydoux? Where's Bellucci? Did they miss the photo shoot for the poster?
- There is good minimalism and lazy minimalism. The poster is tending towards the last.
The Curious
- There are two Bonds in the poster. The one with the white tux and the one disguised as a skeleton in Dia de los Muertos parade. SPECTRE, a film starring Daniel Craig and Daniel Craig.
- The inclusion of Jez Butterworth in the credits.
- Like many have said, the title song artist must be signed to Universal Music Group, hence Decca being the one realesing the soundtrack album. This also means that the title song will be included in the soundtrack album (unlike CR and SF soundtracks), otherwise it would have been released by Sony Classical.
The Verdict
It's not an amazing poster. It's not a terrible one either. It's a poster with some tasteful decisions but with an immense lack of creativity. Simple at best, lazy at worst.
Nowadays it is normal for actors/actresses that have a lot of money co-producing the movies they are starring in. The same is true for TV Shows.
Daniel Craig may have no creative control at all but just earning big, big money, when the movie makes a billion dollars.
People read too much into this.
As for the poster: Another huge clue that Spectre will have the 60's look, fashion, style and feel. Tom Ford is the clothes designer, that alone speaks volumes.
As associate producer credit is usually a joke, even when it is a star involved, what they gave Connery on RISING SUN and Sigourney on RESURRECTION. So it is no news at all really, and a godawful lousy poster (par for the century.)
http://websta.me/p/1066215757206512425_6563575
That's why you buy two: one to drink and one to save. ;)
But it's purpose is not to be a piece of art. It's purpose is to advertise the film to millions of movie goers, most of whom are not committed Bond fans. People walking by a movie poster are glancing off of the poster for one second, 2 at most. It must instantly show what this movie is about, and I think it does that very well. In a year of 1000 spy movie imitators, it instantly nails Craig/Bond as killer and stylish playboy, and as noted above, while subliminally channeling Connery. Works for me.
Good point. If anything these posters are for everybody *except* us die hards who are going to see the film regardless. Of course they can still be art, and I still have issues with this poster, but it is growing on me.
Amazing. The post production schedule on these Bond films is incredible. Just over a month now until it hits UK cinemas! How do they do it??
For me the criticism isn't whether it's art, it's whether it's good art. The minimalistic approach might work for those that have difficulty absorbing lots of information, but my brain is more than capable of digesting a tastefully designed collage and appreciates the efforts involved that made the great illustrated posters of Connery and Moore's Bond so desirable and collectable. It's not just age that make these vintage posters so highly sought after, it's their orginality and beautiful artwork that makes them unique and so highly prized. Which brings me back to the new SP poster... what's so unique about it that it warrants any praise, and what does it tell you about SP?
Also, if it's such an unnecessary marketing tool for today's minimalistic and savvy audiances who just want to know when the new movie is out then why did Disney bother getting Drew Struzan back to illustrate the Star Wars Ep 7 poster?
The poster is bloody fantastic, lightyears better than anything we got so far in the Craig-era.
They finally got their act together and have a decent campaign.
The poster is only one more thing that suggests the movie is an homage to the 60's James Bond movies, this was worked out in great detail, Tom Ford as clothes designer (another stroke of genius), the OHMSS theme in the trailer, some still photographs of Spectre could be taken out of Caprice or North By Northwest (59) or other 60's cult classics.
The background colour with the haunting skull image is brilliant as a contrast to James Bond in the white tux striking a pose that says, hey look at me, I'm the Connery of my generation!
While simplistic it gets the message across within a second. Furthermore this poster is a true eye-catcher! It will stick out everywhere it gets shown.
For the first time in the Craig era, I have the feeling they finally know what they're doing and maybe Spectre will be that truly great film that can actually be compared to the Connery movies and even surpass them.
And yet CR achieved greatness by apeing nothing. It did it's own thing. Why is modern society so obsessed with homages. 'Oh look, that's like that other thing that was good!' DC apes Connery in this and Moore in the first. Why can't we have a 'Craig' look?
I find it almost patronising to DC.
Yes, actors often do produce in film and TV it's nothing new but to be officially credited as a co-producer and have the leading role in a Bond movie is unheard of and not something trivially handed out.
Well as Craig is Co-producer and funnily enough in case you missed this tidbit of information, this isn't rising sun or alien resurrection, its laughable you're even drawing comparisons to a Bond movie. Believe it or not this actually is significant news. If you can point out to me the last time EoN gave co-producer credit to their leading actor then I'm happy to be proven wrong.
As for the posters they remind me of...
Honesty :-)
I actually love the new poster too. But then again, people out here call genuine opinions flawed cases of sarcasm. Which is a bit sad really :-(.
By the way @BondJasonBond006, I think if you look at the four Craig posters as a collage, you can actually see wonderful development:
Start at the "Casino Royale" poster and go down. He starts off as that blunt, cold-blooded thug, who hasn't got his emotions in check, into the suave, happy looking, comfortable Connery-esque secret agent we all want to see.
What I find genuinely sad is people who just lap up anything that's put in front of them because it's Bond related. If people like this poster that's their prerogative, but for the vast majority I think this is another case of a missed opportunity. Three years wait for something cobbled together in
10 mins. Simply not good enough.
That still makes it the longest Bond film in history...
That's your opinon @RC7! Have some bloody respect for other's people's opinion too ok?
Really, we are all Bond fans. But as there are 24 (26) Bond films, you can't expect the entire global fan community to be a Soviet Politburo for God sake :-). Have respect for other people's opinions, because never 100% of the fans agree with you. And by now.....we DO know that you firmly dislike the poster.
Yes, it is my opinion. Hence why I typed it and posted it.
Sometimes, dear @RC7, you just can't say "Yeah, you're right" no? In all honesty, I have been rightfully accused of that several times in here. But from your side, there's simply no self-critical modestness present no?
Perhaps you shouldn't let yourself get too emotional about these things. It's a discussion forum and I tend to believe what I say, otherwise I wouldn't bother saying it.
In this particular case I'm by far emotional. Anyway, don't bother :-).