In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1222325272851

Comments

  • pking_3pking_3 Punting under the Bridge of Sighs
    Posts: 33
    Birdleson wrote: »
    And what is LTK doing on that list? That is a well-loved Bond film around here.

    Yes, not sure if that list is meant to reflect the mindset of the general public or the Bond fan community. If the former, you may as well put The Living Daylights down there, too. If the latter, Licence to Kill is indeed pretty highly regarded.

    General consensus. The topic is the General's appreciation after all, nothing personal was requested of us.

    He's quite significant, whether you agree with him or not.

    And, terms like "etc." and "more" were included to cover your TLD bases. Not that they were utilized, but they were and are there for posterity's sake.

    Also want to point out that even if QOS inches past SP by some site's metric, someday...they would both still reside midpack in general appreciation of the franchise, unless there is some sea change unmentioned. Whether a given film's impression fluctuates as its themes/style/etc resonate with different eras or audiences is a given, but there simply aren't examples outside of OHMSS of a film shifting about that much in rep in the years after the reaction it received when released. Though there are always hopeful/hyperbolic peccadillo holders willing to campaign, as it should be.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    For the record QoS has actually fallen from a 6.7 to 6.6 on IMDb. In the Bond community QoS is becoming more and more praised but seems to be falling even more out of favour among the mainstream audiences. I want to do a Craig marathon to see exactly how these two square up but honestly it's pretty close at this point, with QoS getting incrementally better every time I see it (which has been the case since it came out) and SP having the opposite effect.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    peter wrote: »
    I just don't think SP had anything to say, like the filmmakers did with the previous three films. It was almost as if they did their best, knowing they had to get a film out by such and such a date, but not really knowing, beyond this, why the film had to exist.
    I think that's why there are all these rich scenes, but as a whole, they really don't lead anywhere (and I think that's why many find it boring).

    Pretty much.

    SP is spectacularly forgettable and quite frankly a wasted entry. There were some good scenes and a lot of potential but they all failed to create any lasting memorable impact. It may not be the worst Bond film of the last 30 years and even that's highly debatable but it's definitely, for me, the most disappointing.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I picked it up for a fiver this week and have watched it for the first time in over a year tonight.

    In the words of Marlon Brando in On The Water Front, "I coulda been a contender" SPECTRE the third time round is more infuriatingly a missed opportunity.

    While it's not a Die Another Day or a Diamonds Are Forvever due to the way it leaves a black mark on an otherwise quality Daniel Craig tenure and makes a mockery of the most iconic villain of the series I have to declare it one of the worst of the series.

    I won't be rushing to have another viewing of this, it will be more than year before I subject myself to this again.

    I want Craig back if only to try and make up for this travesty.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2017 Posts: 17,801
    At worst, people will look back at SP fondly as Craig's YOLT. At best it will be considered Craig's TB.
    Either works for me. :)>-
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    SP is much more popular than YOLT.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,807
    I don't think that was the intended comparison. It's just specific to Craig's films how they'll be looked at: I'm thinking THUNDERBALL was mentioned as the box office blockbuster but lesser than the previous 3. Or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as big iconic spectacle but also lesser in a lot of ways than what came before.

    There's absolutely no recreating the Golden Age of Bond from the 60s. But Craig's Bond is doing a similar thing in our 21st Century in some ways.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I'm quite a fan of the Craig era, or at least I was. SP is a tarnish on what has otherwise been a great run. No, I don't think this is a TB or YOLT situation. Not even a DAF. To be quite honest, I'd prefer to erase it from my memory bank entirely. I found it curious, but was also somewhat thankful, that I didn't once make the connection between any of those characters (including White) and SP while watching and enjoying CR last night. The same goes for right now as I finish off my viewing of SF.

    SP is more of a TWINE or AVTAK situation for me.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SP is much more popular than YOLT.

    Based on what?
    DVD and Blu-Ray, Box office, Search Traffic.


  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    edited March 2017 Posts: 1,187
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Adjusted for inflation, YOLT ranks much higher. On IMDB they are the same, with SP having the obvious advantage of being a recent film. YOLT is still referenced in popular culture, do you think the same will be true of SP 50 years hence? 30 years after it's release will there be a series of films spoofing SP? I seriously doubt it. Oscar or not, WRITING'S ON THE WALL is never referenced. YOLT (the Title Track) is still used in popular culture.
    Can't say I've heard Nancy Sinatra's track lampooned.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2017 Posts: 9,509
    @bondjames, you seem very reasonable, and I understand yours (and others) displeasure with SP... But you seem to be an advocate of Craig... Taking this assumption, I was explaining to my son why I kept with the spin-off Wolverine series:

    Hugh Jackman is excellent in the role. Working opposite to DC's Bond tenure, his first film was much like Sp: boring, and good-looking; his second film, much improved with flaws; his third, the pinnacle (after playing the role for 16 FREAKING YEARS....)...

    Isn't SP a hiccup, like the first Wolverine spin-off? And, much like HJ, so excellent in his role, can't DC bounce back from a mediocre film (although he continued to perform well)? Can't he have his LOGAN-type ending?
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SP is much more popular than YOLT.

    If we're talking cultural cinematic significance then you're dreaming.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @peter, you make a great point, and actually raise the big question.

    Can he do it? Yes, I'm sure he can, although he doesn't seem to have the same intense fire in his performances as he did when younger (similar to Connery in this respect). It's clear even as I finished off SF a few minutes ago.

    Will he be able to do it even if he can? That will depend on the support he gets, in the director, composer, producer, screenwriter, co-star & cinematographer department. Does this team have a vision, drive and desire to make a first class Bond film again, or is the pressure of a new Bond actor necessary to make them all reawaken their collective creative juices?

    I like Craig a lot as Bond, but I'm not wed to him. Like Connery and Moore before him, I think he's become a little creaky as he's gone on and brought some ticks into his performance which I'm not too keen on.

    I will say that when I finished CR yesterday (first watch since SP's release) I realized that a lot of the elements that were first broached in that film were revisited in SP, with different results. It was almost like SP was closure to his interpretation and characterization. The ride off into the sunset moment, if you will. They probably did this intentionally to give him the out if he wanted it.

    I just hope he does give us a Hugh Jackman 'Logan'-like (I haven't seen it yet but have heard great things) performance if he comes back one more time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Robbie Williams incorporated a bit of it into his hit song Millennium. That's the instance I remember most vividly.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP is much more popular than YOLT.

    If we're talking cultural cinematic significance then you're dreaming.
    I've already specified my OP.
  • Posts: 1,680
    A placement cant be exactly certain on SP until the next film comes.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Adjusted for inflation, YOLT ranks much higher. On IMDB they are the same, with SP having the obvious advantage of being a recent film. YOLT is still referenced in popular culture, do you think the same will be true of SP 50 years hence? 30 years after it's release will there be a series of films spoofing SP? I seriously doubt it. Oscar or not, WRITING'S ON THE WALL is never referenced. YOLT (the Title Track) is still used in popular culture.
    Can't say I've heard Nancy Sinatra's track lampooned.

    A season ago on THE SIMPSONS. The episode YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE.

    Mad Men.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I'm far from the biggest fan of YOLT although I definitely prefer it to SPECTRE but trying to say it's not iconic is a joke right?

    The score and theme alone are some of the best of the series and coupled with the cinematography and set design it's one of the most recognised of the series.

    Shame really there was such potential to riff on the YOLT big battle scene at the end of SP. If Mendes wanted to pay tribute to old school Bond rather than giving Craig Moore like lines, watching it last night they stick out like a sore thumb as not suiting his interpretation.

    I disagree that Craig's performance was on a decline, there is an intensity in SF that is so lacking here. I think Mendes had one great Bond film in him that was it. His hesitance to return and then almost leaving in a hissy fit after Fiennes nixed his M is a SPECTRE agent idea should have been the writing on the wall for Babs and Mikey but it was too late by then.

    I will say one thing I don't like the CGI explosion in the PTS but minus that the PTS along with the Mr White are the best scenes in the whole film.

    I very much doubt that SPECTRE will go down in the rankings of the series at best with the likes of MWTGG or OP & VTAK and maybe that is being kind on it.

  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I did a DC Bond marathon just recently and I enjoyed CR, QoS and SF great time. Every time I see these I appreciate them more. But I still can't make it past the middle of SP. It completely falls apart after "L'americain" (love those scenes) and I still can't go beyond that point. I fear I really hate the last third so much I don't want to see it ever again.

    If we use "Logan" as an example: Have seen it on thursday and if Craig is able to deliver a last chapter for his Bond tenure of that quality, that would be a wish come true and compensate for SP's messy last third big time. I can highly recommend "Logan" - very good movie.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I did a DC Bond marathon just recently and I enjoyed CR, QoS and SF great time. Every time I see these I appreciate them more. But I still can't make it past the middle of SP. It completely falls apart after "L'americain" (love those scenes) and I still can't go beyond that point. I fear I really hate the last third so much I don't want to see it ever again.

    If we use "Logan" as an example: Have seen it on thursday and if Craig is able to deliver a last chapter for his Bond tenure of that quality, that would be a wish come true and compensate for SP's messy last third big time. I can highly recommend "Logan" - very good movie.

    The Logan example is a little tricky. Firstly, I feel like they tried that in SF and they failed miserably. Bond being old, past his prime and somewhat over the hill is something the movie kept telling us but never really showed. What we actually got was Bond on the job while simultaneously recovering from an injury and even then he was still doing stuff he's been doing in every preceding film. That whole premise of being "washed up" was a joke.

    Then SP comes along as Craig's supposed last. Irrespective of it being so or not, the film sucked. For me it was Craig's weakest Bond performance and the writing was 90% trash. Bond never felt like he was in any actual danger, dude gets tortured and seconds later he takes out an enemy base of Blofeld's goons with God-like precision. There were no stakes, no payoffs, just waste. If Bond 25 is going to be Craig's last then that should be the understanding between he and EoN at the very least. Go all out and give one hell of a performance where we feel the intimate struggle to overcome whatever the threat/problem is; just like they did with Logan.



  • edited March 2017 Posts: 2,107
    Maybe? Probably? I mean there was a Die Another Day appreciation thread on the first page just the other day. Fans likely tend to appreciate even the worst Bond film as the time passes. Some would never like Spectre, just like some don't like DAD or AVTAK, but over time they've won some people over. Still not one of the better ones, but for them appreciation seems to have grown.

    Spectre has it's flaws (Brofeld) but it's way better of a Bond film than DAD for instance.

    I may however be proven wrong. But that's just my opinion. Still, I say it might be appreciated more in the future.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    SharkBait wrote: »
    Maybe? Probably? I mean there was a Die Another Day appreciation thread on the first page just the other day. Fans likely tend to appreciate even the worst Bond film as the time passes. Some would never like Spectre, just like some don't like DAD or AVTAK, but over time they've won some people over. Still not one of the better ones, but for them appreciation seems to have grown.

    Spectre has it's flaws (Brofeld) but it's way better of a Bond film than DAD for instance.

    I may however be proven wrong. But that's just my opinion. Still, I say it might be appreciated more in the future.

    The difference with SP, for me, is that with the other ones there were always sections and aspects of them that I enjoyed, form the start. Over time I learned to block out or accept the negatives and enjoy the parts that I liked. With SP there was a no enjoyment for me to focus on. I've gotten so I don't rally mind the first 45 minutes of so, but there really never has been any part that I get excited about.

    Feel same way about SF. I can watch the first third but after that it just disintegrated into total garbage.

    I've been saying ever since SF came out that Mendes is not right for Bond. SP is a less annoying film than SF IMO but def not top notch.
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    I did a DC Bond marathon just recently and I enjoyed CR, QoS and SF great time. Every time I see these I appreciate them more. But I still can't make it past the middle of SP. It completely falls apart after "L'americain" (love those scenes) and I still can't go beyond that point. I fear I really hate the last third so much I don't want to see it ever again.

    If we use "Logan" as an example: Have seen it on thursday and if Craig is able to deliver a last chapter for his Bond tenure of that quality, that would be a wish come true and compensate for SP's messy last third big time. I can highly recommend "Logan" - very good movie.

    The Logan example is a little tricky. Firstly, I feel like they tried that in SF and they failed miserably. Bond being old, past his prime and somewhat over the hill is something the movie kept telling us but never really showed. What we actually got was Bond on the job while simultaneously recovering from an injury and even then he was still doing stuff he's been doing in every preceding film. That whole premise of being "washed up" was a joke.

    Then SP comes along as Craig's supposed last. Irrespective of it being so or not, the film sucked. For me it was Craig's weakest Bond performance and the writing was 90% trash. Bond never felt like he was in any actual danger, dude gets tortured and seconds later he takes out an enemy base of Blofeld's goons with God-like precision. There were no stakes, no payoffs, just waste. If Bond 25 is going to be Craig's last then that should be the understanding between he and EoN at the very least. Go all out and give one hell of a performance where we feel the intimate struggle to overcome whatever the threat/problem is; just like they did with Logan.



    Totally agree with your analysis of SF. We were repeatedly told Bond was past it, over the hill etc. but the only way this seemed to manifest itself on screen was him growing stubble.

    Definitley don't want Mendes coming back to rehash all that nonsense again.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 676
    doubleoego wrote: »
    The Logan example is a little tricky. Firstly, I feel like they tried that in SF and they failed miserably. Bond being old, past his prime and somewhat over the hill is something the movie kept telling us but never really showed. What we actually got was Bond on the job while simultaneously recovering from an injury and even then he was still doing stuff he's been doing in every preceding film. That whole premise of being "washed up" was a joke.
    Yes, the idea that Craig could end with a Bond film similar to Logan doesn't quite work, considering he already played the grizzled, old man Bond in Skyfall.

    I also agree that angle wasn't explored satisfyingly in Skyfall - there are just a handful of references to his old age in the script (e.g. "It's a young man's game," "Old dog, new tricks") and they could have easily been cut. It all works a lot better if Bond is simply old-fashioned and off his game due to injury (physical and personal). The "old man Bond" angle comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Skyfall an SPECTRE are night and day for me, one will go down as high watermark (whether some of you SF haters like it or not) the other won't, SPECTRE's stock is only going to plummet, this isn't going to see a OHMSS or LTK like resurgence.

    SPECTRE is full of garbage, I don't get how you can like a generic Moore/Brosnan knock off over a genuine new take on the series, SF for all it's fault was brave in it's approach.

    Maybe they handled the over the hill element a bit clumsily but SF has an intensity that SPECTRE is sorely lacking.

    Then again if all you wanted was a by the numbers tick the box effort then SPECTRE would have suited you down to the ground.

    Although how you can just ignore an iconic villain of the series turned into a mockery, whatever problems you have with SF it never does anything as sacrelidge and please don't say it's only a small moment, from the point they meet in Morocco, Waltz just goes on about brothers and the bit with him in London with the bullet proof glass between him and Bond he labours it even more.

    I was actually shocked how much more I noticed it on Friday's not particularly pleasant revisting of it. Also Newman's score save the odd cue here and there is a lazy rehash of his SF score, seriously never have him or Mendes near a Bond film again.

    SPECTRE is langishing near the bottom end, it's only the fact I detest the Brosnan era that it would not quite be in those depths but it's made me think about some entries like YOLT or MR that I have given a kicking in the past. Both those films have something to recommend, I can barely think of anything that would do that with SPECTRE, they even hash up the gunbarrel by not opening it up on the Day of the Dead parade and have some pretentious quote instead and no Sam Smith's dirge has not improved since the last time I was subjected to it's caterwaulings
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 4,617
    Much of long term appreciation must be linked to re-watchability? On this front, IMHO, SP fails very badly. That are are no scenes that I look forward to watching as they approach. Or would watch via Youtube as standalone scenes. Plus , there is nothing more to be gained: it is what it is. Really good movies (not just Bond) take on a "long term glow" like a favourite coat or an old pair of leather shoes. They just feel so comfortable. There is just no way SP will get to this stage.
  • Posts: 11,189
    i can watch the first hour or so of SP quite comfortably, but ALWAYS seem to tune out soon after the train fight.
  • Posts: 676
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Skyfall an SPECTRE are night and day for me, one will go down as high watermark (whether some of you SF haters like it or not) the other won't, SPECTRE's stock is only going to plummet, this isn't going to see a OHMSS or LTK like resurgence.
    When Skyfall came out in 2012, I had a pretty subdued reaction to it. Given time I warmed to it, and since the release of Spectre, SF now looks like an utter masterpiece in comparison.
  • Posts: 40
    I enjoyed Spectre, and I thought it had a better pace to it than SF. SF was a great Bond, I thought but it certainly wasn't brilliantly written. Somewhere in rewrites they'd muddled who was supposed to be past it - Bond or M. The film certainly works better when you accept Bond has still got it and it's M for whom the game has left behind. Muddled writing and direction doesn't articulate this well enough.
    It's also beautifully shot, the scenes in Scotland the visual equal of everything and anything in the series. Adele does a proper Bond theme which helps immeasurably. There's a conscious effort to get some humour into it, which is also very welcome. But it's also slow going, and the pacing has suffered to accomodate the cinematography. Needless. Also Q & MP for me are terribly disappointing. The quartermaster comes across as a useless sulky barely out of teens type and he both annoys, and adds nothing to the film whatsoever. But even for it's flaws, it's a good Bond and my favourite of the Craig era.

    Specre is so frustrating. The beginning is brilliant, gun barrel where it ought to be and a wonderfully shot sequence in Mexico, culminating in a classic Bond like fight inside a helicopter. Brilliant stuff.
    It's downhill from there. The theme song is tepid and ordinary. Judi Dench clocks in another appearance via video. The writers have an unlimited number of ways to track Bond in the storyline; we get nanotech in his blood. This sets a tone unfortunately.
    This all culminates with Bond letting Blofeld live on the bridge, a scene played so absurdly as to beggar belief. Bond has blown up Blofeld with a plastic explosive in a watch, buried him under tonnes of rubble, shot him (saved by bullet proof glass) and just shot his helicopter out of the sky,
    Instead we get the lazy out for a potential future appearance.
    Spectre was just a massive missed opportunity. Plenty have remarked - and I concur - that it could have been a much better film with an MI6 / MI5 conflict, orchestrated by C and developing Fiennes version of M, and just leaving Waltz as the shadowy figure in the background who gets away with it. Instead we get a formula thriller with an unsatisfying ending, weak score and few memorable moments.
    When Jaws, Oddjob or Gobinda went about their business, their lack of dialogue made them colder or more menacing. Whereas in Spectre I know just end up thinking it's because Dave Bautista can't deliver a line to save himself. This sums up why it won't be greatly remembered I think.
  • edited April 2017 Posts: 676
    deucelow wrote: »
    This all culminates with Bond letting Blofeld live on the bridge, a scene played so absurdly as to beggar belief. Bond has blown up Blofeld with a plastic explosive in a watch, buried him under tonnes of rubble, shot him (saved by bullet proof glass) and just shot his helicopter out of the sky
    You make a good point. Bond had no issue trying to kill the guy several times since meeting him earlier that day, and then suddenly on the fifth try Bond's just like "eh, I'll let this one go"? So contrived.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Quite harsh verdicts on SP. Have to say on my first viewing I was pretty underwhelmed. But I saw it on the terrible new screens at the Curzon Bloomsbury, where unless you're dead centre you have a right angled view of the screen.

    The second viewing was in a multiplex and much more enjoyable. Just as I found the love for SF overdone, I'm finding the hate for SP a bit OTT as well.

    My prediction about SF has always been that it's reputation will diminish as time passes. With SP I don't know what the general publics opinion is, but I don't think it will be ranked amongst the total duds. Low middle rank probably. I wouldn't be surprised if SP and SF end up hovering around the same territory.
Sign In or Register to comment.