The SPECTRE vs Skyfall battle! (simple question)

1235715

Comments

  • Canon_108 wrote: »

    If the reveal of Blofeld (which intentionally modeled itself after the Bond of the 60s) crushed your soul as you claim, you need to rethink your life.

    It's a figure of speech! I know it's only a film but was really underwhelmed by the final third - Blofeld / Bond personal history, Blofeld's motive being 'daddy issues', destroying Vauxhall Cross, bringing back the DB5...again... First 2/3rds were great but ultimately unsatisfying - for me.
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    dinovelvet wrote: »

    I'm actually finding it hard to separate them right now. After one SP viewing I'm seeing them both as very similar - maybe its the Mendes-ness, and the Thomas Newman score that repeats cues in both films, the political goings-on at MI6. SF and SP could be one near 5 hour long film, just as people like to say CR and QOS could be one long film (though in that case I think CR is miles better than QOS and stylistically very different).

    Yes, I have a similar, lingering feeling that Skyfall and Spectre could have been merged together(obviously with some rejigging) and no-one would see the difference. I don't mean literally merged, but they could have been part of the same film or atleast one being a very direct sequel. Well I suppose SP is a direct sequel but hopefully you understand what I am getting at(rather clumsily).

    I enjoyed Spectre more than Skyfall but again, Bond films are rarely seemless for me. There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre. If I had my way, it would have been done like this;

    Casino Royale 2006
    QoS 2007
    Spectre 2010
    Madelaine is assasinated in between these films.
    Skyfall 2014-15, picking up a good 5 yrs or so after Spectre, and it would make much more sense for Bond to be an older, jaded man, having lost Madelaine.

    As it stands I believe Skyfall came too early. We only got two films of Bond on form before seeing him as a battered old dog, and even in those two films he still behaved like a reckless, wayward teenager, instead of a (slightly) more intelligent, refined agent in Spectre.

    Spectre could have filled that gap. M could have simply sent him to Mexico unofficially and in secret and in that sense we needn't have that Bond gone rogue schlock again, and furthermore it would have created more tension between M and Denbigh and his bosses.

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    AVB wrote: »
    There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre.

    That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.

    In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 582
    Spectre is just slightly better than Skyfall for me, 5th and 6th respectively in my rankings.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    w2bond wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre.

    That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.

    In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.

    Couldn't this comment have waited another minute or two..?
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    1. SP
    2. SF

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 11,425
    w2bond wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre.

    That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.

    In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.

    Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.

    I have to agree as well that Seydoux and Craig seem to have virtually no chemistry, which is a shame. It looks likely that Eva Green will remain forever Craig's number one Bond girl, in every sense.

    I also felt, as someone mentioned above, that despite whatever Craig himself says, he felt much less invested in the role here than he did in CR and QOS. What worked for me about Craig in those first two was this impetuous, rooky, energy-fuelled agent - intelligent but maybe just a little too cock sure and gung ho. As Craig relaxes into the role I actually find him less convincing as Bond - there's less energy and danger about him.

    Having said all this, I think SP is a decent Bond movie. Hoping to rewatch it this week. I think it's a lower mid table entry for me.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,731
    Getafix wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre.

    That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.

    In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.

    Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.

    I have to agree as well that Seydoux and Craig seem to have virtually no chemistry, which is a shame. It looks likely that Eva Green will remain forever Craig's number one Bond girl, in every sense.

    I also felt, as someone mentioned above, that despite whatever Craig himself says, he felt much less invested in the role here than he did in CR and QOS. What worked for me about Craig in those first two was this impetuous, rooky, energy-fuelled agent - intelligent but maybe just a little too cock sure and gung ho. As Craig relaxes into the role I actually find him less convincing as Bond - there's less energy and danger about him.

    Having said all this, I think SP is a decent Bond movie. Hoping to rewatch it this week. I think it's a lower mid table entry for me.

    Which is why Mendes needs to stick to character drama. He cannot handle the scope or style needed for a Bond film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    AceHole wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    w2bond wrote: »
    AVB wrote: »
    There are moments in SF which were excellent but as a whole it didn't work for me, and the same can be said for Spectre.

    That's how I feel about both SF and SP. There's fantastic moments in both but to watch it from beginning to end uninterrupted is a chore.

    In fact SF is great in little chapters: PTS, Bond on holiday, meeting with Q, etc. I didn't feel SP was as episodic but I will enjoy it more if I watch it in parts.

    Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.

    I have to agree as well that Seydoux and Craig seem to have virtually no chemistry, which is a shame. It looks likely that Eva Green will remain forever Craig's number one Bond girl, in every sense.

    I also felt, as someone mentioned above, that despite whatever Craig himself says, he felt much less invested in the role here than he did in CR and QOS. What worked for me about Craig in those first two was this impetuous, rooky, energy-fuelled agent - intelligent but maybe just a little too cock sure and gung ho. As Craig relaxes into the role I actually find him less convincing as Bond - there's less energy and danger about him.

    Having said all this, I think SP is a decent Bond movie. Hoping to rewatch it this week. I think it's a lower mid table entry for me.

    Which is why Mendes needs to stick to character drama. He cannot handle the scope or style needed for a Bond film.

    And I'm not convinced by his 'character' work on SF and SP either - surely it was done better in CR?

    Not for the first time as a Bond fan, I'm bemused by what is popular with the general movie going audience.

    Still, while I don't really rate Mendes as a Bond director, things could be worse. And even though I really don't like SF, it's nice to see a director return and provide a little consistency for the fist time since Glen in 89. It's nice when you can identify specific periods or styles of movie via the director's touch.
  • stbell wrote: »
    It's a figure of speech! I know it's only a film but was really underwhelmed by the final third - Blofeld / Bond personal history, Blofeld's motive being 'daddy issues', destroying Vauxhall Cross, bringing back the DB5...again... First 2/3rds were great but ultimately unsatisfying - for me.

    What's wrong with bringing back DB5? It's a wonderful legendary car of 007.

    BTW I didn't like Bond/Blofeld connection too.

  • Posts: 3,274
    Getafix wrote: »
    Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.
    I agree 100%. Maybe it's just me, but when reading the script I probably envisioned Martin Cambell's direction, so my expecations were very, very high. "They can't go wrong with this one", I thought.

    But somehow they partly did. For the reasons you mentioned.

    It's still a much more enjoyable ride, than SF, IMO.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Allow me to throw my hat into the ring:

    1.SP
    2.SF

    ( very difficult, but I love campy Bond much more than serious Bond. I don't care what Flemings say about it.)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Both films suffer from Mendes's lacklustre direction IMO. He can't do action and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either. And he doesn't handle tension/danger well either. Both films are full of good ideas, but they're often poorly executed.
    I agree 100%. Maybe it's just me, but when reading the script I probably envisioned Martin Cambell's direction, so my expecations were very, very high. "They can't go wrong with this one", I thought.

    But somehow they partly did. For the reasons you mentioned.

    It's still a much more enjoyable ride, than SF, IMO.

    I agree. It's a much more steady as she goes entry to SF, which I think conceptually was quite interesting but failed to deliver. SP is a more straight down the line Bond film, and better for it frankly.

  • Posts: 613
    1.SP
    2.SF

  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    SF over SP. Both have lots of holes (SF actually probably has more) but I think it's the better made film. It doesn't go overboard with Bond's past and has great rumination on Bond in the modern world file embracing aspects of the past. SP is fun, but clearly the lesser film thanks to major contrivances in the third act.
  • Posts: 11,425
    SF over SP. Both have lots of holes (SF actually probably has more) but I think it's the better made film. It doesn't go overboard with Bond's past and has great rumination on Bond in the modern world file embracing aspects of the past. SP is fun, but clearly the lesser film thanks to major contrivances in the third act.

    I found the stuff about old dog new tricks in SF totally forced and unconvincing. I've never actually heard anyone suggest that we don't need undercover or secret field agents any more. It's all a bit of a red herring. It sort of sets up a non-thesis that no one actually believes in any way and then tries to prove the opposite (which just turns out to be common sense).

    And meanwhile the main problem MI6 face in SF is not external threats or political interference but their own complete ineptitude - M's, Moneypenny's, Q's, even Bond - they're all completely amateurish and useless throughout the film.

    When I first saw SF I assumed Mendes deliberately portrayed MI6 as useless to make a point but now I think it was actually not intentional. SF is just a narrative disaster - a total mess from start to finish.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Yeah. I think we got beat over the head at points with "old vs new" in SF, but I still liked that they addressed it seeing how SF is such a different Bond anyway. I think the point they were making was that old espionage techniques and sensibilities had changed radically since Fleming invented Bond in CR. To imagine that espionage and Bond were exactly the same since then is an illusion.

    Bond needs to modernize to ensure his own survival, but that doesn't mean he can't retain aspects from his past (old office, PPK, MP, male M, gadgets, humour, etc.) You can tear down the old stuff (signified literally by blowing up the DB5 and Skyfall), butt he essence of the character is still there by the end of the movie, just revitalized for a modern audience and whatever political ramifications there are now. Like M says, "Our world is more opaque". Ostensibly straightforward and peaceful, but needing Bond to sort out the mess.

    I don't think that MI6 was shown as amateurish; Bond is still a swaggering badass and steps ahead of everyone else. Silva represents the new modern cyber threat. M is trying to survive but ultimately is out of place. Mallory is the old guard that still has a definite place in the world of counterespionage. MP defiantly doesn't belong int he field and can make herself useful in the office being a foil/ally to Bond. The narrative may not be airtight, but how these themes are articulated in the movie are quite cogent and ultimate more successful than SP (though I enjoyed both to varying degrees).
  • Librarian wrote: »
    What's wrong with bringing back DB5? It's a wonderful legendary car of 007.

    BTW I didn't like Bond/Blofeld connection too.

    I just felt it was too cheesy. Despite many opinions to the contrary I thought it was great in SF - 50th anniversary and all that... It was a great nod to Bond history. And the way they destroyed it was a great way of saying goodbye to all that history and moving on. It was utterly destroyed, beyond repair. So bringing it back now just feels so fake. SP feels like they suddenly realised lots of things they forgot to mention in the 50th anniversary movie and crammed them in here. Give him Tim's Aston if you want to be nostalgic. Love to see

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    stbell wrote: »
    Give him Tim's Aston if you want to be nostalgic. Love to see
    Absolutely agree. Or George's even.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • Posts: 11,425
    HASEROT wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    ... and doesn't seem to have a good second unit either.

    i assume you are talking about Alexander Witt? - the same Alexander Witt who was the Second Unit Director on not just SF, but on CR too....... say what you want about Mendes when he is the one behind the camera.. but Alexander Witt is a phenomenal Second Unit director - his resume' speaks for itself.

    Well, the second unit stuff and action on SF was woeful IMO. The action in CR was better but I've never been a huge fan of the Miami airport sequence.

    The action in QoS, for all its frenetic camera work, is generally better IMO. The opening car chase is better than the one in SP for sure.

    But generally speaking I don't think Bond has hit the mark on action ever since Dalton's last movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Scottish Proverb says "Peking Duck is different from Russian Caviar but I love them both." That's how I feel about Skyfall and Spectre. :)
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • nunoloulenunoloule Portugal
    Posts: 4
    Top Craig movies:
    1. Skyfall;
    2. Casino Royale;
    3. Spectre;
    4. Quantum of Solace.
  • Casino Royale
    Spectre
    Skyfall
    Quantum of Solace
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Probably Spectre, but only just. It just feels more like Bond, and that's pretty much the only reason I'd give it the edge.
  • AVBAVB
    Posts: 97
    Skyfall didn't add anything new to the 'cyber-warefare is the new threat' concept. That has been in movies for yonks. Watch Enemy of the State(1998) and beyond that even. Bond just seems a little behind the curve in SF and SP, whereas in QoS and to an extent in CR the films themselves seemed to be doing and saying something new.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AVB wrote: »
    Skyfall didn't add anything new to the 'cyber-warefare is the new threat' concept. That has been in movies for yonks. Watch Enemy of the State(1998) and beyond that even. Bond just seems a little behind the curve in SF and SP, whereas in QoS and to an extent in CR the films themselves seemed to be doing and saying something new.
    Yes, that's true, but in both instances (SP & SF), the cyber-warfare/surveillance subplot was incidental. It wasn't primary.

    In SF it was incidental to the real story which was Silva's revenge for betrayal by mommy. That was the driving force of that film for me at least.

    In SP it was incidental to the big reveal that Blofeld had been killing Bond's loved ones for interfering in his affairs and stealing daddy's love.

    Both are pure 'Mendes drama' narratives.

    The SF drama worked on many levels, which is why many ignored the incidentals. The SP drama did not works so well (poor, half-assed execution.....they backed off at the end during the script rewrites), and so the cyber plot & its weak underpinnings is more apparent imho.
  • Posts: 1,165
    Skyfall for me!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Just seen SP again and definitely SP.
Sign In or Register to comment.