SPECTRE, most fun Bond adventure in decades?

145791012

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    There's a serious risk that if I ever again have to sit through Bond and the Scooby gang running around to Newman's "The Moors" guitar riff on a 20-minute loop, my brain will atrophy due to boredom.
    You said it!
    Indeed. So true.
    Milovy wrote: »
    It's kinda funny 'cause I used to count "The Moors" (its original use in Skyfall) as one of my favourite Newman tracks. Now... not so much.
    True for me as well.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Specter's issues far transcend nitpicking. You nitpick OHMSS or CR. With Spectre you strap on your hazmat suit, step inside the gaping holes, and have a look around like you're in the upside-down. Don't forget your tether.

    Truer words have never been spoken.

    It really isn't possible to nitpick SP. The problems with that film are so numerous and far reaching that you'd really have to search extremely hard to find something to actually nitpick. Pretty much everything that has been leveled against SP to date has been valid criticism of what is just an awful film.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I agree, it worked in SF.
    Bond s workplace gets blown up, his flat gets sold and his childhood home destroyed. All in one film.

    Not to speak of both the Bond girl and his boss get killed.

    What a brave chap, he still has a huge grin on his face at the end of it.

    No, that didn't work, that was tired. I meant the music that worked in SF was beaten to death in SP.

    Sorry, I misunderstood your post, as there was a post between yours and the one you replied to. It happens.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Well I am not a fan of the Mendes era but personally gIve me Sp over SF any day.

    It amuses me to see all the SF fans on here claiming that Mendes completely lost the plot on period of three years.
  • Well, if we're going to be extremely strict about logic here, as you say, no Bond film should rightly qualify. They're escapist fare. Within Bond world logic, however, Blofeld of all villains being able to accomplish everything he has accomplished in a two year period troubles me very little. Especially considering the volcano base operation he had going in Japan. The man is clearly astronomically resourceful and powerful. As you say, there are gaps in logic that we can accept and gaps that just make us guffaw, and then there are the things that don't necessarily have specifically to do with logic but that don't sit well with us anyway, like Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers, for many.

    But again, I wasn't speaking about logic to begin with.

    It doesn't make sense, but vintage Bond has a special place and that's fine, as I love them all too. It's just that in today's climate everyone's a critic and EON would never be able to get away with what Cubby did in the 60s, at all. Those movies have different standards and we're easy on them because they're iconic; it's harder for new films to be treated fairly because of it.

    The Bond series has constantly slipped-up, then made good, so it's just a natural thing we have to prepare for. I am much happier now than I would've been had I lived through the films post-1969 where it all went downhill (with OHMSS being the last "masterpiece"), or witnessed the low returns of the brilliant Dalton approach and the big hiatus. Mistakes are made, but I think the series is in a phenomenal place, heads and tails above what it has been for a long time, critically and financially exceeding Brosnan, having better traction than Dalton's films, and I'd say being more popular than Moore's low returns at parts of his era. It's why so many of Dan's films stack up there with what the Connery films were able to pull in. They are of the same sort of spirit, and recall a vintage feeling while still giving the character reverence.

    It makes sense for these movies to feel 60s in style, because Bond is that man out of time character in my head. He's a traditionalist combating a swift-moving world that doesn't have time for his antiquated way of doing things. Craig's Bond is that sort of man, and the films portray that thusly. I'm having a riot of a time.

    Not so sure I agree with what I've bolded. Skyfall is probably the most "logic-out-the-window" Bond film of all, yet it became massively popular upon release. Elsewhere in today's movie world, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have soared to the top of IMDB's rankings because of their iconic characters and elements and in spite of their at times quite sizable lapses in logic. General audiences haven't become more discerning or more critical. They like what they like, internal story logic be damned.

    Of course you have youtubers like HISHE that will gleefully point out even the most minute logic lapses in even the soundest of films; and then there are the hardcore fans and natural critics as you'll find within communities such as this one who genuinely do care whether or not everything makes sense in the end and feel compelled to weigh that against their personal overall enjoyment of the film. For the latter, however, I don't think that the vintage 60s necessarily get a free pass here. Many rightfully regard that decade as a high-water mark for the series—creatively, artistically, and as far as overall quality and entertainment value goes—but you will hear criticisms of those films even today. I weigh my enjoyment of the more iconic elements of Goldfinger against the issues I have with the film, and at the end of the day, a Top 10 Bond it is not (for me). Trying to imagine myself back in the era of vintage Bond, I can fully picture myself walking out of my first viewing of Diamonds Are Forever with the same shellshocked feeling as when I walked out of Die Another Day or Spectre, thinking, I guess parts of it were good...kinda...maybe. Do we greet films with different expectations based upon the era they came out of, the genre, the talent behind the film, the budget, the marketed tone of the movie? Of course we do. But we also know quality when we see quality, and we know what makes sense to us and what does not.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    I enjoy SP and SF equally.
  • 007Blofeld007Blofeld In the freedom of the West.
    Posts: 3,126
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Overall story is ok , but largely uninventive. Like taking a fine meal and putting everything in a blender. The ingredients are there but....

    Polish the sloppy dialogue on the Thames
    Add other cars and jeopardy to the car chase
    Have bond ski after Madeleine
    Lose the one line about being brothers
    Have bond and blofeld fight stop Big Ben after the helicopter chase

    And you have a much better movie
    And wall ah its ready to serve
    =)) :)) ~O)
  • Spectre vs Skyfall, Quantum vs Skyfall, Daniel vs Pierce, I'm not sure why it has to be a choice. They all come from the same place.

    I understand that having a critical discussion of various aspects of the films is interesting, and part of our criticism comes because we care about the character, the films and the franchise, but we do seem (both on this forum and in the general public) very quick to damn something that doesn't meet our precise expectations. Try to enjoy it for what it is and appreciate what you can or else what's the point? Bond is escapism for a reason, and rarely do we like or dislike something based on pure logic - it is the feeling that generally resonates with an audience rather than particular plot points. Anyone can be pedantic.

    Anyway, I guess I'm just suggesting that maybe we as a community could be more vocal about the things we enjoy from Bond and try to focus less on the negatives. There are enough negatives elsewhere in the world at the moment.
  • Well let me put it this way @Birdleson, and my previous comment was not aimed at you specifically. I understand and respect your consistent dislike of Spectre and your right to discuss it however you wish, but I wonder what is to be gained from such persistent criticism of the film on a fan forum where presumably most of us come to discuss something we love and to hear news about what's happening next (at least that's why I come here - I certainly don't profess to be an expert or a purist on Bond). Maybe you are genuinely concerned about the direction of the franchise, and that's fair enough, you're certainly not alone there, but after a certain point, maybe you would enjoy yourself more focussing on the reasons you do love Bond - about how amazing Goldfinger, Thunderball and Connery are - than on the few things you don't enjoy? Just a general suggestion - I do actually appreciate your knowledge of the franchise and agree with you on most other points.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I get where you're coming from but I'd prefer if opinions weren't censored, even if voluntarily. I enjoy this forum because of the different views that are expressed, many of which I don't agree with. It would be a shame if it was a big love fest. Having said that, there are dedicated appreciation threads out there for those so predisposed. I believe there is one for SP.

    I think we do comment positively where it's warranted and vice versa where necessary. It's all a matter of opinion though as we each experience Bond and other franchises quite personally.

    I've got to get back to watching a Bond film soon. It's been a while. I'll try to be positive with my assessment. Unless it's TWINE.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.
  • Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.
  • @bondjames and @Murdock, I agree, a vibrant discussion is very important, and I'm not arguing that people should self-censor and we should just have a big 'love fest.' Besides, as a big Brosnan fan, I'm sure @Murdock is used to people criticising his tastes and he just gets on with it.

    Criticise if you feel so inclined, you have every right to, I just can't really see the benefit of negative comments that don't really lead anywhere. My least favourite Bond films are AVTAK and DAF, but I don't really see the need to highlight this on every thread because I understand that other people love these films, and that's absolutely fine.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    I wouldn't say I'm quite used to it yet, but I am maturing with every passing year. I will get into the occasional spar with Getafix but it's nothing personal. ;)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    @Whoopsflootle, I remember there were a lot of SF threads here a few years back and a lot of discussions dissecting that film. I hardly read anything about the 2012 film these days, and there is far more discussion about SP and even QoS. So I think these recent films all get put through the ringer here.

    I recently had a discussion with a new member who seems to think the CR action scenes are sub par. I have to admit he made some good points, and although I disagree, I have hardly heard anyone criticize that film in this respect, as it tends to be so highly regarded by most members. So it was a fun discussion and somewhat unexpected.

    Regarding AVTAK & DAF, I'm sure if you started singing the praises of these films, or alternatively started bashing them, you'd quickly hear strongly worded competing views from other members. That's part of the fun of this place.

    I do get your point on the SP thing - It's the film most in the spotlight. Par for the course for the latest film to be the one that gets the most love and hate.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Well, if we're going to be extremely strict about logic here, as you say, no Bond film should rightly qualify. They're escapist fare. Within Bond world logic, however, Blofeld of all villains being able to accomplish everything he has accomplished in a two year period troubles me very little. Especially considering the volcano base operation he had going in Japan. The man is clearly astronomically resourceful and powerful. As you say, there are gaps in logic that we can accept and gaps that just make us guffaw, and then there are the things that don't necessarily have specifically to do with logic but that don't sit well with us anyway, like Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers, for many.

    But again, I wasn't speaking about logic to begin with.

    It doesn't make sense, but vintage Bond has a special place and that's fine, as I love them all too. It's just that in today's climate everyone's a critic and EON would never be able to get away with what Cubby did in the 60s, at all. Those movies have different standards and we're easy on them because they're iconic; it's harder for new films to be treated fairly because of it.

    The Bond series has constantly slipped-up, then made good, so it's just a natural thing we have to prepare for. I am much happier now than I would've been had I lived through the films post-1969 where it all went downhill (with OHMSS being the last "masterpiece"), or witnessed the low returns of the brilliant Dalton approach and the big hiatus. Mistakes are made, but I think the series is in a phenomenal place, heads and tails above what it has been for a long time, critically and financially exceeding Brosnan, having better traction than Dalton's films, and I'd say being more popular than Moore's low returns at parts of his era. It's why so many of Dan's films stack up there with what the Connery films were able to pull in. They are of the same sort of spirit, and recall a vintage feeling while still giving the character reverence.

    It makes sense for these movies to feel 60s in style, because Bond is that man out of time character in my head. He's a traditionalist combating a swift-moving world that doesn't have time for his antiquated way of doing things. Craig's Bond is that sort of man, and the films portray that thusly. I'm having a riot of a time.

    Not so sure I agree with what I've bolded. Skyfall is probably the most "logic-out-the-window" Bond film of all, yet it became massively popular upon release. Elsewhere in today's movie world, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have soared to the top of IMDB's rankings because of their iconic characters and elements and in spite of their at times quite sizable lapses in logic. General audiences haven't become more discerning or more critical. They like what they like, internal story logic be damned.

    Of course you have youtubers like HISHE that will gleefully point out even the most minute logic lapses in even the soundest of films; and then there are the hardcore fans and natural critics as you'll find within communities such as this one who genuinely do care whether or not everything makes sense in the end and feel compelled to weigh that against their personal overall enjoyment of the film. For the latter, however, I don't think that the vintage 60s necessarily get a free pass here. Many rightfully regard that decade as a high-water mark for the series—creatively, artistically, and as far as overall quality and entertainment value goes—but you will hear criticisms of those films even today. I weigh my enjoyment of the more iconic elements of Goldfinger against the issues I have with the film, and at the end of the day, a Top 10 Bond it is not (for me). Trying to imagine myself back in the era of vintage Bond, I can fully picture myself walking out of my first viewing of Diamonds Are Forever with the same shellshocked feeling as when I walked out of Die Another Day or Spectre, thinking, I guess parts of it were good...kinda...maybe. Do we greet films with different expectations based upon the era they came out of, the genre, the talent behind the film, the budget, the marketed tone of the movie? Of course we do. But we also know quality when we see quality, and we know what makes sense to us and what does not.

    @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, in arguing an opposing point, you will find me agreeing with you. I still don't think SF is the most illogical Bond film of all; I find that comment to be about as logical as you say that movie is in a series where villains have lairs in volcanoes and underwater, and where Bond survives contact with heavy radiation by taking a shower.

    I take the vintage films to task to, even though they're my life blood, but I still think that to this day many people give the likes of GF and OHMSS a massive pass for things that no modern films get the same pass for. The iconic films that shaped Bond are put on a pedestal, when movies that have the same flaws are burned like Joan. Part of it is the time they were made, the expectations of audiences and the art form, sure, but the bias is certainly out there. I just think it's important to be mindful that old Bond films did some wacky stuff that makes today's plots look like an episode of Downtown Abbey in comparison. But of course that view of Bond's world, larger than life and big in scope and style was the hallmark of that vintage era, and for all the mistakes that were made in movies like YOLT and parts of DAF especially, we still had an artful team on hand and (usually) Sean on his game.

    I just think it's important to judge the films more fairly, and less partially, regardless of preference, and I'm happy to see that you share a bit of that philosophy. But as you say, it all comes down to what we enjoy, and the levels of enjoyment we can get from a movie that allows us to accept and move on from the lapses.
  • Rewatched it tonight and for the first time it struck me how old Craig looked in parts of it. It really should be his last one.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,328
    While Pierce is twice his age and still looks like he could still be Bond.
    1755489-the-november-man-jpg_2526698.jpg
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That is an odd thing with Craig, he looks old before he is old. There are times when he looks ancient.

    Age doesn't concern me too much. Rog gave us some great movies in his later run as Bond. Dan could do two more if they got their act together
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Yes, by the time Roger finished he was qualified for senior benefits and had wrinkles so deep he could've hidden contraband inside. Dan will be fine.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Also agreed. No place should be an echoo echooo echoooo echooooo echoooooo chamber.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited February 2017 Posts: 7,314
    I have absolutely no problem with an older Bond as long as the film in some way acknowledges it. I think it was handled quite well in FYEO and NSNA but they really botched it with AVTAK. If Craig continues, keeping in mind they were already calling him old in SF, it's reasonable to think they would tackle the age issue with considerable cleverness.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 7,653
    With SP, Craig & Mendes I found out that I was no longer interested in 007 if they come again in this team.
    This movie has really put me of any further outing for Craig. I prefer a new 007 who has NO creative input at all.
    It was the worst action movie in quite a while and its content was laughable. The movie has done very little good for my trust in the running of this franchise.
    SO in no way SP brought anything good to the franchise but the need of serious reboot.
  • Posts: 4,023
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Agreed. No place should be an echo chamber.

    Also agreed. No place should be an echoo echooo echoooo echooooo echoooooo chamber.

    I disagree.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SaintMark wrote: »
    With SP, Craig & Mendes I found out that I was no longer interested in 007 if they come again in this team.
    This movie has really put me of any further outing for Craig. I prefer a new 007 who has NO creative input at all.
    It was the worst action movie in quite a while and its content was laughable. The movie has done very little good for my trust in the running of this franchise.
    SO in no way SP brought anything good to the franchise but the need of serious reboot.

    I hope they returned your toys.
  • Well, if we're going to be extremely strict about logic here, as you say, no Bond film should rightly qualify. They're escapist fare. Within Bond world logic, however, Blofeld of all villains being able to accomplish everything he has accomplished in a two year period troubles me very little. Especially considering the volcano base operation he had going in Japan. The man is clearly astronomically resourceful and powerful. As you say, there are gaps in logic that we can accept and gaps that just make us guffaw, and then there are the things that don't necessarily have specifically to do with logic but that don't sit well with us anyway, like Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers, for many.

    But again, I wasn't speaking about logic to begin with.

    It doesn't make sense, but vintage Bond has a special place and that's fine, as I love them all too. It's just that in today's climate everyone's a critic and EON would never be able to get away with what Cubby did in the 60s, at all. Those movies have different standards and we're easy on them because they're iconic; it's harder for new films to be treated fairly because of it.

    The Bond series has constantly slipped-up, then made good, so it's just a natural thing we have to prepare for. I am much happier now than I would've been had I lived through the films post-1969 where it all went downhill (with OHMSS being the last "masterpiece"), or witnessed the low returns of the brilliant Dalton approach and the big hiatus. Mistakes are made, but I think the series is in a phenomenal place, heads and tails above what it has been for a long time, critically and financially exceeding Brosnan, having better traction than Dalton's films, and I'd say being more popular than Moore's low returns at parts of his era. It's why so many of Dan's films stack up there with what the Connery films were able to pull in. They are of the same sort of spirit, and recall a vintage feeling while still giving the character reverence.

    It makes sense for these movies to feel 60s in style, because Bond is that man out of time character in my head. He's a traditionalist combating a swift-moving world that doesn't have time for his antiquated way of doing things. Craig's Bond is that sort of man, and the films portray that thusly. I'm having a riot of a time.

    Not so sure I agree with what I've bolded. Skyfall is probably the most "logic-out-the-window" Bond film of all, yet it became massively popular upon release. Elsewhere in today's movie world, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have soared to the top of IMDB's rankings because of their iconic characters and elements and in spite of their at times quite sizable lapses in logic. General audiences haven't become more discerning or more critical. They like what they like, internal story logic be damned.

    Of course you have youtubers like HISHE that will gleefully point out even the most minute logic lapses in even the soundest of films; and then there are the hardcore fans and natural critics as you'll find within communities such as this one who genuinely do care whether or not everything makes sense in the end and feel compelled to weigh that against their personal overall enjoyment of the film. For the latter, however, I don't think that the vintage 60s necessarily get a free pass here. Many rightfully regard that decade as a high-water mark for the series—creatively, artistically, and as far as overall quality and entertainment value goes—but you will hear criticisms of those films even today. I weigh my enjoyment of the more iconic elements of Goldfinger against the issues I have with the film, and at the end of the day, a Top 10 Bond it is not (for me). Trying to imagine myself back in the era of vintage Bond, I can fully picture myself walking out of my first viewing of Diamonds Are Forever with the same shellshocked feeling as when I walked out of Die Another Day or Spectre, thinking, I guess parts of it were good...kinda...maybe. Do we greet films with different expectations based upon the era they came out of, the genre, the talent behind the film, the budget, the marketed tone of the movie? Of course we do. But we also know quality when we see quality, and we know what makes sense to us and what does not.

    @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, in arguing an opposing point, you will find me agreeing with you. I still don't think SF is the most illogical Bond film of all; I find that comment to be about as logical as you say that movie is in a series where villains have lairs in volcanoes and underwater, and where Bond survives contact with heavy radiation by taking a shower.

    I take the vintage films to task to, even though they're my life blood, but I still think that to this day many people give the likes of GF and OHMSS a massive pass for things that no modern films get the same pass for. The iconic films that shaped Bond are put on a pedestal, when movies that have the same flaws are burned like Joan. Part of it is the time they were made, the expectations of audiences and the art form, sure, but the bias is certainly out there. I just think it's important to be mindful that old Bond films did some wacky stuff that makes today's plots look like an episode of Downtown Abbey in comparison. But of course that view of Bond's world, larger than life and big in scope and style was the hallmark of that vintage era, and for all the mistakes that were made in movies like YOLT and parts of DAF especially, we still had an artful team on hand and (usually) Sean on his game.

    I just think it's important to judge the films more fairly, and less partially, regardless of preference, and I'm happy to see that you share a bit of that philosophy. But as you say, it all comes down to what we enjoy, and the levels of enjoyment we can get from a movie that allows us to accept and move on from the lapses.

    I think an important factor to consider is the overall tone of the film and what the film is trying to achieve. We don't hold YOLT to the same level of scrutiny as SF because one is so obviously set in a pulpy, comic book-style fantasy world whereas the other strives for a grittier, Dark Knight-esque level of realism. Nor should we, necessarily. The works of Ray Bradbury come to mind. Some of his stories are absolutely marvelous in their concepts, their philosophy, their capacity to transport you to another world and make you think about life, the universe, everything. But if you stop and think about the science behind it all or the feasibility of such things really happening, you'll find it makes no sense at all. The works of Ray Bradbury can't be appraised by the same criteria you'd use to appraise the works of Caron Sagan, William Gibson, H.G. Wells, Kurt Vonnegut. They have to be judged by their own merits and faults in light of what they're each trying to achieve. With the James Bond films, we try to compare and evaluate films with varying tones and varying degrees of reality, but we have to judge them by their own merits and what they're each trying to achieve. Of course when a film's tone varies between the serious and the comedic, between grounded and absurd, this can either be to the film's strength or to its detriment depending upon execution, and that too factors into overall enjoyment and quality.
  • edited February 2017 Posts: 6,844
    Well, if we're going to be extremely strict about logic here, as you say, no Bond film should rightly qualify. They're escapist fare. Within Bond world logic, however, Blofeld of all villains being able to accomplish everything he has accomplished in a two year period troubles me very little. Especially considering the volcano base operation he had going in Japan. The man is clearly astronomically resourceful and powerful. As you say, there are gaps in logic that we can accept and gaps that just make us guffaw, and then there are the things that don't necessarily have specifically to do with logic but that don't sit well with us anyway, like Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers, for many.

    But again, I wasn't speaking about logic to begin with.

    It doesn't make sense, but vintage Bond has a special place and that's fine, as I love them all too. It's just that in today's climate everyone's a critic and EON would never be able to get away with what Cubby did in the 60s, at all. Those movies have different standards and we're easy on them because they're iconic; it's harder for new films to be treated fairly because of it.

    The Bond series has constantly slipped-up, then made good, so it's just a natural thing we have to prepare for. I am much happier now than I would've been had I lived through the films post-1969 where it all went downhill (with OHMSS being the last "masterpiece"), or witnessed the low returns of the brilliant Dalton approach and the big hiatus. Mistakes are made, but I think the series is in a phenomenal place, heads and tails above what it has been for a long time, critically and financially exceeding Brosnan, having better traction than Dalton's films, and I'd say being more popular than Moore's low returns at parts of his era. It's why so many of Dan's films stack up there with what the Connery films were able to pull in. They are of the same sort of spirit, and recall a vintage feeling while still giving the character reverence.

    It makes sense for these movies to feel 60s in style, because Bond is that man out of time character in my head. He's a traditionalist combating a swift-moving world that doesn't have time for his antiquated way of doing things. Craig's Bond is that sort of man, and the films portray that thusly. I'm having a riot of a time.

    Not so sure I agree with what I've bolded. Skyfall is probably the most "logic-out-the-window" Bond film of all, yet it became massively popular upon release. Elsewhere in today's movie world, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises have soared to the top of IMDB's rankings because of their iconic characters and elements and in spite of their at times quite sizable lapses in logic. General audiences haven't become more discerning or more critical. They like what they like, internal story logic be damned.

    Of course you have youtubers like HISHE that will gleefully point out even the most minute logic lapses in even the soundest of films; and then there are the hardcore fans and natural critics as you'll find within communities such as this one who genuinely do care whether or not everything makes sense in the end and feel compelled to weigh that against their personal overall enjoyment of the film. For the latter, however, I don't think that the vintage 60s necessarily get a free pass here. Many rightfully regard that decade as a high-water mark for the series—creatively, artistically, and as far as overall quality and entertainment value goes—but you will hear criticisms of those films even today. I weigh my enjoyment of the more iconic elements of Goldfinger against the issues I have with the film, and at the end of the day, a Top 10 Bond it is not (for me). Trying to imagine myself back in the era of vintage Bond, I can fully picture myself walking out of my first viewing of Diamonds Are Forever with the same shellshocked feeling as when I walked out of Die Another Day or Spectre, thinking, I guess parts of it were good...kinda...maybe. Do we greet films with different expectations based upon the era they came out of, the genre, the talent behind the film, the budget, the marketed tone of the movie? Of course we do. But we also know quality when we see quality, and we know what makes sense to us and what does not.

    @Some_Kind_Of_Hero, in arguing an opposing point, you will find me agreeing with you. I still don't think SF is the most illogical Bond film of all; I find that comment to be about as logical as you say that movie is in a series where villains have lairs in volcanoes and underwater, and where Bond survives contact with heavy radiation by taking a shower.

    I take the vintage films to task to, even though they're my life blood, but I still think that to this day many people give the likes of GF and OHMSS a massive pass for things that no modern films get the same pass for. The iconic films that shaped Bond are put on a pedestal, when movies that have the same flaws are burned like Joan. Part of it is the time they were made, the expectations of audiences and the art form, sure, but the bias is certainly out there. I just think it's important to be mindful that old Bond films did some wacky stuff that makes today's plots look like an episode of Downtown Abbey in comparison. But of course that view of Bond's world, larger than life and big in scope and style was the hallmark of that vintage era, and for all the mistakes that were made in movies like YOLT and parts of DAF especially, we still had an artful team on hand and (usually) Sean on his game.

    I just think it's important to judge the films more fairly, and less partially, regardless of preference, and I'm happy to see that you share a bit of that philosophy. But as you say, it all comes down to what we enjoy, and the levels of enjoyment we can get from a movie that allows us to accept and move on from the lapses.

    I think an important factor to consider is the overall tone of the film and what the film is trying to achieve. We don't hold YOLT to the same level of scrutiny as SF because one is so obviously set in a pulpy, comic book-style fantasy world whereas the other strives for a grittier, Dark Knight-esque level of realism. Nor should we, necessarily. The works of Ray Bradbury come to mind. Some of his stories are absolutely marvelous in their concepts, their philosophy, their capacity to transport you to another world and make you think about life, the universe, everything. But if you stop and think about the science behind it all or the feasibility of such things really happening, you'll find it makes no sense at all. The works of Ray Bradbury can't be appraised by the same criteria you'd use to appraise the works of Carl Sagan, William Gibson, H.G. Wells, Kurt Vonnegut. They have to be judged by their own merits and faults in light of what they're each trying to achieve. With the James Bond films, we try to compare and evaluate films with varying tones and varying degrees of reality, but we have to judge them by their own merits and what they're each trying to achieve. Of course when a film's tone varies between the serious and the comedic, between grounded and absurd, this can either be to the film's strength or to its detriment depending upon execution, and that too factors into overall enjoyment and quality.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2017 Posts: 23,883
    With the James Bond films, we try to compare and evaluate films with varying tones and varying degrees of reality, but we have to judge them by their own merits and what they're each trying to achieve. Of course when a film's tone varies between the serious and the comedic, between grounded and absurd, this can either be to the film's strength or to its detriment depending upon execution, and that too factors into overall enjoyment and quality.
    I absolutely agree with this. Tone is critical as is execution. I enjoy the jovial Bond films like DAF & DAD and the so-called serious ones like QoS & SF. I don't mind either type. Where I take issue is when the tone is all over the map and when I am confused about how I'm supposed to feel during a particular sequence of events. Then I feel like I'm being taken advantage of emotionally. Getting that tone right is definitely a matter of execution. Balance is key.
  • What if the final third act was just a dream? What if Bond was still on Blofeld's chair perhaps hallucinating? He get to escape and wing his way out which is unrealistic in proportion to past Daniel Craig Bond films and he gets to drive off with Swann in the end... Yes, it was a fun adventure, but most cool: it didn't disregard the Quantum and Vesper storyline.

    This according to a blog written not long ago in a lost source.
Sign In or Register to comment.