Will Spectre end up being to SF what Thunderball was to GF..?

edited September 2015 in SPECTRE Posts: 1,472
Apart from the fact that SP will have the same director I see a lot of similarities between this moment in Bond-film history and the 1964 to ’66 ‘era’.

Skyfall ‘(re-)awoke’ the general (mostly non-fandom) public to Bond in a way that Goldfinger did so the very first time around, and even though they are not really the best in the series they have obtained a certain status through their marketing, imagery & extremely favorable PR from the media and ‘pseudo’ Bond fans, as I like to call them.

Goldfinger’s success meant that EoN would not venture back into bare-bones, story-driven Bond realism until the very end of that decade, and even that was a one-off.
My point is that, just as EoN used the GF blueprint for their next release after realizing it’s global $$$-making appeal, I’m certain they will have done so again - the SF formula that proved so successful three years ago will have formed the basis in shaping Spectre…

*They stuck with a one-word title in ’65 for TB – even more so now, the title ‘Spectre’ almost feels like a coda to ‘Skyfall’, even having the same # of letters.

*The theme song is again, as with TB, performed by a young British artist. Tom Jones was Welsh just as his predecessor and even seemed to be trying to 'do' a Bassey. Sam Smith & Adele are pretty much the exact same kind of British pop ‘act’.

*The scale has been increased (and the PR machine is also billing it as such) in a very similar fashion to how TB did in 1965, but the essential ingredients seem to remain.



Mendes & co will no doubt have woven a great deal more of that backstory-driven angst and introspect(re)ion into SP, and I highly doubt that we will get the return to 'good-old-Bond' form that we all seem to think is on its way.
But it will make loads of cash as it appeals to the wider public without really feeling like a true James Bond adventure (because as we know the general public are beneath fun-driven fodder...) and there will be the same bland media enthousiasm that accompanied it’s predecessor.

To put it rather bluntly: EoN counted their beans after SF, and they are simply going to re-hash the concept until it stops making money, I’m afraid…

Of course - I hope I’m wrong. I really do.
«13456

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    One word answer: Yes.

    I have been saying this for some time. I firmly believe that SP will be TB to SF's GF.

    Bigger, badder, and with more spectacle.

    I personally don't have a problem with that though, because unlike many, I far prefer TB to GF. I am in the minority (probably) in thinking TB is the far superior film. If they can even incorporate half the witty dialogue from TB in SP I'll be ecstatic.

    TB in comparison to benchmark DN & FRWL (Craig's CR & QoS respectively) is a different discussion.
  • Posts: 650
    Lots of assumptions being made here. Cant understand the negative anticipation based around silly observations like "Spectre has the same number of letters", "Tom Jones is Welsh"

    There are some similarities but seriously....
  • Matt007 wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions being made here. Cant understand the negative anticipation based around silly observations like "Spectre has the same number of letters", "Tom Jones is Welsh"

    There are some similarities but seriously....

    People are getting enthusiastic @Matt007 :-). Me too. I actually can fully relate to this topic. I do think that the last time Bond was at such an "All Time High" really were the 1960's. And by jolly, doesn't it give you a good feeling ;-)?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,683
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions being made here. Cant understand the negative anticipation based around silly observations like "Spectre has the same number of letters", "Tom Jones is Welsh"

    There are some similarities but seriously....

    He makes some interesting observations. The Sam Smith thing seems like sheer coincidence to me, but as for the rest of it, there certainly could be a lot of truth in there. I do agree that they're using SF as their model. It's reminiscent of GF to TB and also TSWLM to MR.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions being made here. Cant understand the negative anticipation based around silly observations like "Spectre has the same number of letters", "Tom Jones is Welsh"

    There are some similarities but seriously....

    He makes some interesting observations. The Sam Smith thing seems like sheer coincidence to me, but as for the rest of it, there certainly could be a lot of truth in there. I do agree that they're using SF as their model. It's reminiscent of GF to TB and also TSWLM to MR.

    True, and therein lies the risk imho.

    MR was somewhat pastiche in comparison to TSWLM, while TB was just bigger and better in some areas, again imho.

    I think, from what we've seen, that this will be more a TB/GF scenario than a MR/TSWLM one.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,472
    @Matt007 - they are merely thoughts, observations... flights of fancy, if you will. Not to be taken too seriously, really. This is a forum, after all :>

    @bondjames - I did not mean to say that TB was a bad follow-up, I too will actually be very pleased if SP 'does' to SF what TB did to GF.
    Rather than a TSWLM > MR, by all means...
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 6,259
    You could also find some similarities to TSWLM and MR, where Moore's 3rd and 4th films were both directed by Gilbert. I think that (tone wise) your GF and TB comparison is more accurate. However, the connections between SP and SF do make me think of how MR tried to incorporate similar elements from Spy. Let's hope SP does a better job.
    Personally, I think we'll be lucky if SP is as good as TB. I have my doubts but I remain hopefully optimistic.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 1,472
    Matt007 wrote: »
    Lots of assumptions being made here. Cant understand the negative anticipation based around silly observations like "Spectre has the same number of letters", "Tom Jones is Welsh"

    There are some similarities but seriously....

    People are getting enthusiastic @Matt007 :-). Me too. I actually can fully relate to this topic. I do think that the last time Bond was at such an "All Time High" really were the 1960's. And by jolly, doesn't it give you a good feeling ;-)?

    Yes, I think this is the case. Bond has not been 'in the public consciousness' as much as this since the mid 60's - not even as much as back in the mid 90's when everyone was falling over themselves to praise Brosnan the best Bond ever (yes, you read that correct @ the under-21’s here, there was a time...)

    It's partly due to the social-media age positively affecting 007's popularity, with twitter & (two-)facebook being very favorable mediums for big-budget nostalgia movies like SkyFall & Spectre.

    But it also has to do with the way EoN have quite consciously produced & marketed the series since the Bourne & Nolan films changed blockbuster dynamics - EoN now aspire to appeal to a demographic of the general movie-going public that previously shirked James Bond films for not being 'high-brow' enough, with Skyfall’s faux-introspectiveness & ‘layered narrative’ as key cases in point.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 2,697
    I would be very happy if this comparison ends up being true, as TB is up there with FRWL as my favourite Connery Bond. As time goes by I like it more than GF.
  • Posts: 1,529
    I think a better comparison would be

    Skyfall was Craig's TWINE and Spectre is Craig's DAD
  • fjdinardo wrote: »
    I think a better comparison would be

    Skyfall was Craig's TWINE and Spectre is Craig's DAD

    I think not. Especially not from a critical reviewer point of view.
  • Posts: 1,472
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I think a better comparison would be

    Skyfall was Craig's TWINE and Spectre is Craig's DAD

    Hmm.. I think you may have miss-interpreted my point. This is not about how the films relate tot the respective 007 actor's arc within the series.
  • walter1985walter1985 Rotterdam
    Posts: 90
    if the finale isn't played at high speed, i'm happy if SP looks like TB ;-)
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 7,848
    It does look to be the GF->TB template Eon are using here. Seems they also upped the lavishness/elegance this time around, which IMO, we saw a lot of in the first fifteen minutes or so in GF- only up until the golf scene- whereas in TB, it is scattered throughout, and done similarly with TSWLM->MR- the latter being significantly more lavish than the former.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 6,259
    Also, GF and SF had "one off" villains where TB and SP continue the SPECTRE and Quantum/Spectre storylines.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,029
    I don't think that comparison works.

    Goldfinger and Thunderball are so different in many ways.
    But Spectre will be Skyfall Part 2, that I'm sure of.

    If at all, then Skyfall is Craig's Thunderball. Bigger, better and insanely successful.

    I see Spectre more as Craig's YOLT.
    There are some similarities.
    The age factor, Connery already did look aged in YOLT to some degree, and I'm sure the same can be said of Craig for Spectre.
    I'm not sure Spectre will be more successful than Skyfall, so here again, Spectre looks more like YOLT, which still was highly successful but not as much as TB.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Earth, spinning in its grave.
    Posts: 30,874
    Some nice observations in the OP. Also, GF and SF both introduced the Q lab in their respective eras. And enough has been said about the DB5.
  • Posts: 501
    I hope so. I despise both "GOLDFINGER" and "SKYFALL". And since "THUNDERBALL" proved to be a major improvement from the 1964 movie for me, I hope that "SPECTRE" will be a major improvement from "SKYFALL".
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 691
    Spectre will not be skyfall 2. From what I'm seeing the gf/tb thing is a perfect comparison
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,825
    If I'm right, SP will be the best Bond movie of this century; if I'm wrong it will just be a good one.
  • I think Spectre has much more in common with OHMSS than any other Bond film, but I think that it does have the increase in spectacle in common with TB.
  • DJCLE84DJCLE84 formerly HASEROT ---has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,237
    eh, i dont know... i kind of consider CR to Dan's GF, while SF was his TB (not as good as TB, but a box office juggernaut)... right now, i wouldn't know what to consider SP - i don't think it will be like YOLT or DAF.... i think it shares more in common with OHMSS than it does any other Bond film from that era...

    but if we are talking about the possibility of back to back huge box office cash ins - then yes, SF=GF and SP=TB - though i personally don't believe that SP will outgross SF.. i think it has a good chance to do $1 billion, but i don't see it topping SF... but who knows..
    AceHole wrote:
    I highly doubt that we will get the return to 'good-old-Bond' form that we all seem to think is on its way.

    well without revealing too much...
    this will be in fact the most "traditional Bond" outing that Craig has had thus far... not sure if you read the leaked drafts of the script - i have.. and while yes, there is still that personal darkside of a backstory that was also prevalent in Skyfall - this new film does incorporate back a lot of traditional (or, formulaic) Bond elements that Craig's run has been devoid of thus far... it's a little bit TB, OHMSS and SF, all kind of blended together.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited September 2015 Posts: 2,697
    At the time of its release, was Goldfinger really viewed with so much reverence? This REPRINTED REVIEW was positive, but not exactly stating the film was a masterpiece. The jump from GF to TB may not have been what we think, 50 years later. Note this interesting line: "One again wishes that Sean Connery could be made to seem a shade more human as Bond."
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 2,643
    I see you've fallen into the modern trap of believing that audiences in the Sixties, and Seventies for that matter, were hugely influenced by critics and put great importance on their words, @TripAces. Truth be told, they weren't. Infact James Bond was already considered critic-proof after all the previous "it's sexist" and "it's sadistic" putdowns that couldn't affect its good BO results. Truth be, audiences and these new Bond fans couldn't have cared less what these stuffy old critics had to say about their new cinematic hero. Funnily enough, I still don't either. As I pointed out on a previous thread, the US critics savaged the early Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leon movies back in the Sixties. Are "they" still right for being negative of his Westerns (and Dirty Harry) or were they wrong and the audiences right?

    I'm not having a go at you, @TripAces. I'm just pointing out that too much credence is placed on critics and their reviews today, when it used to be not so much of a big deal if a movie got lukewarm or negative reviews. Word of mouth was always considered to be much more reliable back then.
  • edited September 2015 Posts: 11,145
    Wouldn't those kind of words from snobby critics have, in the long run, had a more positive effect if anything. Rebelling against authority and all that?

    Also, weren't the original novels also panned by quite a few posh people for being crude nonsense? It's more now that hardcore fans that talk about them being literary musts.
  • Posts: 2,643
    I tthink you're refering to the counter culture revolution, @BAIN. That would've only had some relevance if the young moviegoer was reading the Telegraph and all the other reviews in the first place and letting it influence them either way. I don't think hipsters were interested in what these old duffers thought, who would sooner praise an Ingmar Bergman or Fellini movie than a violent piece of pop art. Not that the DT doesn't give it a good review, it just comes across as if it isn't really worthy of his expertise.

    Word of mouth, whether it be in the work place, pubs, social clubs or schoolyard had much more power than a critic. Let's not forget these older movies had a much longer run than movies do today, so it was easier for movies to build-up ticket sales. Not that I include GF as a sleeper hit, the London premiere shows how crazy people were for Bond, and that was before it had even opened nationwide. All this was built-up through Dr No and FRWL.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 2,697
    bondsum wrote: »
    I see you've fallen into the modern trap of believing that audiences in the Sixties, and Seventies for that matter, were hugely influenced by critics and put great importance on their words, @TripAces. Truth be told, they weren't. Infact James Bond was already considered critic-proof after all the previous "it's sexist" and "it's sadistic" putdowns that couldn't affect its good BO results. Truth be, audiences and these new Bond fans couldn't have cared less what these stuffy old critics had to say about their new cinematic hero. Funnily enough, I still don't either. As I pointed out on a previous thread, the US critics savaged the early Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leon movies back in the Sixties. Are "they" still right for being negative of his Westerns (and Dirty Harry) or were they wrong and the audiences right?

    I'm not having a go at you, @TripAces. I'm just pointing out that too much credence is placed on critics and their reviews today, when it used to be not so much of a big deal if a movie got lukewarm or negative reviews. Word of mouth was always considered to be much more reliable back then.

    Unfortunately, we don't have a large amount of data on what audiences in 1964 really thought of GF when it was released. My guess is that GF was merely viewed as "another Bond" film; thus, there probably wasn't a general perception that TB had to top anything. The films were only a year apart. The buildup between SF and SP is possibly greater because of the three-year delay.
  • Posts: 2,643
    In terms of solid data, you are correct, @AceHole. Though there are various books, Adrian Turner's GF is one that springs to mind, and the GF DVD has a documentary on the subject, that gives an insight into how Britian firstly went crazy for Bond, followed by America. Much like the Beatles. The class structure being what it was in the UK in the 60's, youths would not have been reading the DT, more likely the Daily Mirror. Though it's interesting to note that Paul Dehn, one of the co-writers, had been a movie critic himself in the late 30's before turning his hand to poetry, stage plays and screenplays. This might have helped ease the snob factor for some of the high-brow critics? Either way, Bond didn't need the critics nor did Mr Eastwood for global success. Thank god.
  • DJCLE84DJCLE84 formerly HASEROT ---has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited September 2015 Posts: 4,237
    TripAces wrote: »
    Unfortunately, we don't have a large amount of data on what audiences in 1964 really thought of GF when it was released. My guess is that GF was merely viewed as "another Bond" film; thus, there probably wasn't a general perception that TB had to top anything. The films were only a year apart. The buildup between SF and SP is possibly greater because of the three-year delay.

    the only thing we do have is box office figures.. and that should give us some clue..

    GF grossed domestically in just the US, $51.1 million dollars (according to boxofficemojo.com).. adjust for inflation, that equates to $393.2 million - in just domestic totals alone... not even SF - the most successful film in franchise history did that well in the US.... but you compare that to FRWL, which opened just the year prior - and that only took in $24.8 mil domestically (which would translate to roughly $190.9 mil in today's dollars)..... so, lets look at the numbers side by side..

    FRWL(1963) - $24.8 million ($190.9 million with inflation)
    GF(1964) - $51.1 million ($393.2 million with inflation)

    that is a near 200% increase in box office revenue in just over a year.... if Goldfinger was viewed, as you have suggested as being "just another Bond film." - which means the public would have a very blase' attitude towards it, then that doesn't seem to match the near 200% increase in box office revenue in just the US alone... that has to mean that audiences packed theaters to see this movie, which means they loved it..... Shirley Bassey's title theme was big hit as single as well... "The single release of the song gave Bassey her only Billboard Hot 100 top forty hit, peaking in the Top 10 at number eight and at number two for four weeks on the Adult Contemporary chart, and in the United Kingdom the single reached number 21."

    but don't forget this as well... yes, movies had longer theater runs back then - but there were far less theaters in that time as well, and you didn't have multiplexes like you do today.. so think about that as well.... this is taken from a wikipedia article about the film - which does have a credible source cited...

    "" Goldfinger‍ '​s $3 million budget was recouped in two weeks, and it broke box office records in multiple countries around the world.... The Guinness Book of World Records went on to list Goldfinger as the fastest grossing film of all time.... Demand for the film was so high that the DeMille cinema in New York City had to stay open twenty-four hours a day. ""

    just another Bond film you say?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,683
    Yeah, 'just another Bond film' sounds a tad naive. It's pretty common knowledge that it was a phenomenon.
Sign In or Register to comment.