SPECTRE - Press reviews and personal reviews (BEWARE! Spoiler reviews allowed)

18889919394100

Comments

  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I didn t even notice he had no socks. But then again, I am not a woman or gay.

    What an unfathomable idiotic thing to say.

    Is it? Thanks, I didn t notice that either. Idiotically unfathomable.

    You need to be more fathomable, gay and womanly, @Thunderfinger . What the Hell is wrong with you? And keep all thoughts to yourself.

    I do keep them to myself. On the internet. No need to read my posts, they are just meant for myself actually.

    <img src=http://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTncUFYwu2PpAFjO/giphy.gif>;
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Which one is you? Either way, you are lovely.
  • Just saw the movie a second time, enjoyed it greatly just like before, but the third act went down a lot better this time.

    My biggest problem with Spectre still has to do with Blofeld and how they handled him, they were trying to combine the old aesthetics of the cat, the clothes and the scar with a new more "emotional" connection of family, but neither end up working. There's an odd disconnect between Blofeld, the supposed feared leader of a terrorist organisation out to control the world and Blofeld, the sockless cat lover with daddy issues running around abandoned buildings setting up traps for Bond. It's hard not to come away and feel like Waltz was miscast, a fine actor that can dominate and captivate like no other, but he feels wasted on a character with little presence.

    But then again, has Blofeld EVER really worked beyond the faceless, nameless leader sitting in a chair stroking his cat? As much as they try to prove that he's Bond's "arch-nemesis" he's always been fairly uninteresting. Pleasance's Blofeld has been parodied to death, but looking past that, all you really have is a scar, an evil lair and a rather small, dull, unimposing man. Savalas' version improves somewhat, but he's still reduced to just an egomaniac living in exile with a really awful bobsled helmet. And Charles Gray just turned him into a campy joke, a complete cariacture. The next we see of him, he's offering Bond something no sane man would ever want while getting thrown into a chimney. Maybe it's time to let go and stop trying to make him work.

    All that being said, I've heard complaints about the movie feeling too long, but both times it absolutely FLEW by for me, not once have I checked my watch while seeing it. I would quite happily watch an even longer version.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    AceHole wrote: »
    All the 'dramatic connections' Mendes insists on shoehorning into his two (Bond) films end up doing quite the reverse of what they were intended to do - they make the whole piece less thrilling, unintentionally polluting the narrative by making it all boil down to:

    SF: obnoxious, sulken ex- MI6 prodigy - vs. M
    SP: obnoxious, sulken ex- foster brother - vs. Bond


    Mendes is only really interested in exploring these (or this, as it's really the same in both) concepts, which leads to the rest of the film feeling incoherent, cobbled together and poorly executed.
    Luckily SP has plenty of entertainment scattered around it to keep you going...
    Yes preference for character driven story-telling can become hamstrung by the Bond "formula" I think.
    Mendes could probably do the Bond film he really wanted to do, if he could break free of Eon, but the thought of that really does scare me.
    I don't put the blame on Mendes for this. He clearly told the producers what he wants to do with Bond and they agreed, so it was basically their decision. SF and SP are not just Bond films, they are also Sam Mendes films, and there lies the problem, IMO.
    While I love character driven films (Kubrick and David Lynch are among my favourite directors), I don't think Bond movies should be a vessel for exploring such motifs. When I watch a Bond film, first and foremost I want to be entertained. Bits of character depth are okay, but to me this looks like they are doing this just for the sake of looking smart, while they really aren't offering anything substantial.

    I certainly don't want another DAD, but something like CR is a great combination of "seriousness" and fun. That's why I think auteurs like Mendes or Nolan are not the right people for Bond. They should hire craftsman directors in the vein of Peter Hunt, John Glen and Martin Campbell.

    I think the bold above is the situation in a nutshell. With Mendes you get what you pay for. He comes as advertised.

    Where I find him disingenous is when he says he had to put Bond on an emotional journey in SP (which he doesn't actually deliver on) because Skyfall demanded these expectations, which I don't think it did at all. In fact I think it set us up for the opposite.
    Mendes likes to think it does, because that's what he is all about.

    What I think what went down re the development of SP is that Logan, pandering to Mendes sensibilities to some degree, concocted the whole Blofeld brother story, as well as all the other nonsense about M being a traitor and Tanner committing suicide in front of Bond.

    Eon goes into damage control. The whole script rewrite saga kicks in, and as we saw from the leaks, there were major revisions to the story even from the leaked Dec script, which appeared to be the shooting script.
    It pretty much was. The basic structure of the movie was laid out there. The worst of Logan had been purged, but still there was much revision to come as they were shooting, especially regarding the twin Morrocco and London climaxes.

    These revisions only became apparent once the film was released. Eon had managed to clamp down on the leaks. Which means they were playing with the Bond-Blofeld drama and history, while they were shooting, or at the very least early in shooting.
    Who knows when they finally decided how it was all going to spell out.

    But Mendes was intrigued by the Bond-Oberhauser-Blofeld history. He needed that emotional journey component to have interest in continuing as director.

    Meanwhile ,Craig has said he was prepared to do a Bond-on-misison film post SF, as that's what SF seemed to set up for. He was ready to do his Moonraker, mabye not to that extreme, but moving in that direction.
    Craig has also said that when the brother-angle was presented, that that angle was too good to not include, so he ran with it. I am paraphrasing, but that is basically what he said, that it didn't hurt to include the brother stuff.

    And interestingly his attitude seems to manifest in the film. It's how Craig carries his part. He plays Bond on mission, but works along with the brother stuff too, but not at the expense of his fully formed Bond on mission.

    @bondjames Yes, the fact that Bond doesn't invest emotionally in the backstory is what throws the whole movie off. The emotional journey that Mendes thought/hoped? was there doesn't manifest.
    As if the film gods conspired against him, and all he was left with was developing Blofeld's depraved journey.
    Without Bond engaged emotionally why do we care. The melodrama now seems forced.
    As you point out, the Blofeld drama isn't as well developed as the M and Silva saga (although I don't want to leave the impression that I enjoyed any of that either, as I didn't) but it was better set up, if you are into that kind of thing in a Bond film.

    Personally I like this development that Craig managed to "sabotoge "the film, or at least Mendes film. They wouldn't agree with me of course. I am sure it all went swimmingly for them and that they were very much in sync.
    But the movie feels kind of off, but the big bonus is we get Craig being fully developed Bond, which is what I have been dying to see since he first strapped on the shoulder holster.

    The fact that Mendes "failed" with SP, I think is a good thing. Failed in the respect, that Bond does not undergo any meaningful emotional journey that I can see.
    Rather instead, we get authentic Bond, a Bond very disaffected by the why of the villains actions, and more focused on the how of taking him down.
    The authentic Bond persona triumphs over the mad genius Mendes!!Bond wins again. Mendes can commiserate with Ernst maybe.

    Mendes succeeded with SF, in that he was able to indulge character journeys for all three leads...and yes @bondjames the movie was very much about Silva and M's arc, but also about Bond's arc. Bond was not excluded. Old dog etc which is part of the reason the film flatlined for me. Just don't care about this stuff. Mendes is not my cup of Bond.

    IMO SP's failure to deliver Bond's emotional journey is its greatest triumph, and why I am happy to keep skipping back to the theatre, to watch Bond be Bond and Blofeld be Blofeld, even if he does have who-cares daddy/brother issues.

    With Skyfall though I was done after the requiste 3-4 theatre viewings. Think it might have been 4 actually. What the hell, it was still a Bond film. They only come around so often.

    It really comes down to preference I think. I don't mind a good drama. I watch lots of film, but I prefer my Bond drama free, at least Mendes-Forster level drama free.

    The Mendes films are Bondian enough though. They certainly pack the audiences and get decent word of mouth.
    But as @superintendent says "..... I think auteurs like Mendes or Nolan are not the right people for Bond. They should hire craftsman directors in the vein of Peter Hunt, John Glen and Martin Campbell"
    That's it I think. Lets get back to basics. We've got a good Bond here in Craig. He can probably do a couple more films. Via the magic of cinema we can just pretend he is younger that he is.
    He looks real good in SP I think. Hair clothes, walk, toughness, everything.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,420
    Great analysis there @timmer between Mendes and Blofeld. For me, having Bond be Bond, and not having all this melodramatic stuff is the best thing about Spectre. Blofeld cares, but Bond doesn't - he's over that.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    royale65 wrote: »
    Great analysis there @timmer between Mendes and Blofeld. For me, having Bond be Bond, and not having all this melodramatic stuff is the best thing about Spectre. Blofeld cares, but Bond doesn't - he's over that.
    yes one of the best scenes I think is the Bond Blofeld staredown on the other side of glass, in the old Mi6 building. Bond gets a chuckle out of Blofeld's scar, yet Blofeld is still trying to play the emotional card "my wounds will heal etc"
    Meanwhile Bond, not feeling terribly wounded (needle holes in face have healed presumably) sure loves that scar. Har har har.

  • Posts: 11,425
    Blofeld has a laugh though when he plays all serious and then cracks up. Quite an amusing moment.
  • Posts: 14,816
    AceHole wrote: »
    All the 'dramatic connections' Mendes insists on shoehorning into his two (Bond) films end up doing quite the reverse of what they were intended to do - they make the whole piece less thrilling, unintentionally polluting the narrative by making it all boil down to:

    SF: obnoxious, sulken ex- MI6 prodigy - vs. M
    SP: obnoxious, sulken ex- foster brother - vs. Bond


    Mendes is only really interested in exploring these (or this, as it's really the same in both) concepts, which leads to the rest of the film feeling incoherent, cobbled together and poorly executed.

    Luckily SP has plenty of entertainment scattered around it to keep you going...

    That is more Logan than Mendes. Gladiator is like this, so is his Star Trek Nemesis. He loves Oedipian stuff.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 5,944
    @timmer, that is a very interesting perspective. Blofeld is all "I'm the author of your pain"/"Daddy loved you best" and Bond is all "Who cares?" Very Connery-era Bond, that.

    I do think that Bond tossing aside the Vesper tape is quite telling as to Bond's (non-)emotional state in this movie.

    Although, really, who used a VHS tape in 2006? It should at least have been a DVD.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    echo wrote: »
    @timmer, that is a very interesting perspective. Blofeld is all "I'm the author of your pain"/"Daddy loved you best" and Bond is all "Who cares?" Very Connery-era Bond, that.

    I do think that Bond tossing aside the Vesper tape is quite telling as to Bond's (non-)emotional state in this movie.

    Although, really, who used a VHS tape in 2006? It should at least have been a DVD.
    Yes, I winced at that too. Maybe they are old school and had one of those old cameras, where you just plop the blank cassette in, and press record. Real simple.
    They may have never tired of the thing as it did the job. And if it was White doing the job, he may have stuck with what he knew.
    echo wrote: »
    Did anyone else see the thank-you to Maria Grazia Cucinotta in the credits?
    I saw that too, and have no idea what it could possibly mean. Maybe some help she provided in Rome? Have to get the Mi6 research department on this.


    Thoughts on the retcon. I think we have to be careful with this. It is by design very vague, as clearly they were making things up as they went along.
    ie we know nothing about Spectre's relationship/involvement with Silva. We only know there was something, as Blofeld acknowledges it, and claims some responsbility for the death of M, but as we saw in SF, Silva's organization stood on its own legs.
    He had plenty of resources and hired guns at his disposal. He explained to Bond that he could manipulate stock markets etc at a whim. SF stands up quite well without the existence of SP.

    But with CR and QoS the possible existence of a Spectre is very prevalent.
    I do think Eon might have been prepping a SP reveal as far back as CR.
    In fact many of us speculated as much at the time, given the presence of the mysterious
    "organization" lurking behind the scenes.
    In QoS that "organization" is exposed as Quantum, yet still its leadership, structure, etc is not revealed.
    SP is the payoff for both CR and QoS. The events of SF are jammed in there too, and well they should be I believe, because when you consider the scope of Spectre, that is revealed in SP, its clear that there is no way Silva's organization could be operating without being on the Spectre radar. Spectre runs all the big stuff.
    I believe Silva was a tentacle of SP much like DN in 1962, operating with SP sanction.
    Quantum as we've learned from Purvis and Wade was a hemispheric tentacle of SP.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    echo wrote: »

    "I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away."


    Yep. :))
  • Posts: 4,622
    @echo re the Maria Grazia Cucinotta question.

    A google search led to our very forum pages.
    She was the tour guide for a very expensive tour of Rome as part of a SP related charity auction.

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10439/charity-auction-for-rome-set-visit
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Trigger wrote: »
    And @bondjames what’s this about Bond not being bothered by Blofeld’s revelations? Isn’t this just the same, but even stronger Bond we saw in Skyfall with the “it’s a waste of good scotch line” – as in, never letting them see him bleed/hurt (be it physically or emotionally)? Bond is now fully complete in this film and as such ISN’T meant to be the emotional wreck he has been at times.
    Fair point @Trigger. However, the Severine death wasn't really all that important (part of the mission really - he had just met her after all). However, the Blofeld revelations, especially because he had killed Hannes directly, as well as M and Vesper indirectly, should have had more resonance, even to a cold hearted bastard like Bond. This was important stuff they were bringing up here, for anyone.

    I just wish they had just left this whole brother angle alone to be honest.
    timmer wrote: »
    IMO SP's failure to deliver Bond's emotional journey is its greatest triumph, and why I am happy to keep skipping back to the theatre, to watch Bond be Bond and Blofeld be Blofeld, even if he does have who-cares daddy/brother issues.
    I might have to agree with you there @timmer.

    I just watched it for a third and last time in the theatre (I wanted to catch it before it got shoved out of the best theatres tomorrow by HG) and every time I see it, the film gets better for me.

    Craig is definitely the highlight, but all the actors do their part wonderfully. It's just that Waltz and Seydoux are a little low key (toned down?) so that they didn't really grab me on first watch. As I see it more times, the subtleties of both their performances become more clear.....and I like them more......writing is still awful though.

    Things that don't sit well with me even after 3 viewings:
    1. the piss colouring - terrible effect that is quite un-Bondian. I don't know what they were thinking here
    2. the car chase - sorry but this is the definition of dull, even though the cars are nice
    3. London finale
    4. MI6 gang in London

    Apart from that, everything else sort of nicely fits together and I've come to appreciate it more than I did on the first watch. I think, as a fan of SF, I expected more of an emotional journey. The fact that I didn't get it caught me by surprise, and gave me an empty feeling initially - more of an 'expectation' thing rather than a desire for that, if you catch my drift.

    The more I watch it, the more I just enjoy it for what it is, which is a good, old fashioned Bond film.......which just happens to have an odd and out of place, ill developed step-brother angle thrown in for the sake of it.

    Still not changing my ranking. It's firmly at 10......but my overall subjective impression of the film has improved.
  • Posts: 14,816
    timmer wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    @timmer, that is a very interesting perspective. Blofeld is all "I'm the author of your pain"/"Daddy loved you best" and Bond is all "Who cares?" Very Connery-era Bond, that.

    I do think that Bond tossing aside the Vesper tape is quite telling as to Bond's (non-)emotional state in this movie.

    Although, really, who used a VHS tape in 2006? It should at least have been a DVD.
    Yes, I winced at that too. Maybe they are old school and had one of those old cameras, where you just plop the blank cassette in, and press record. Real simple.
    They may have never tired of the thing as it did the job. And if it was White doing the job, he may have stuck with what he knew.
    echo wrote: »
    Did anyone else see the thank-you to Maria Grazia Cucinotta in the credits?
    I saw that too, and have no idea what it could possibly mean. Maybe some help she provided in Rome? Have to get the Mi6 research department on this.


    Thoughts on the retcon. I think we have to be careful with this. It is by design very vague, as clearly they were making things up as they went along.
    ie we know nothing about Spectre's relationship/involvement with Silva. We only know there was something, as Blofeld acknowledges it, and claims some responsbility for the death of M, but as we saw in SF, Silva's organization stood on its own legs.
    He had plenty of resources and hired guns at his disposal. He explained to Bond that he could manipulate stock markets etc at a whim. SF stands up quite well without the existence of SP.

    But with CR and QoS the possible existence of a Spectre is very prevalent.
    I do think Eon might have been prepping a SP reveal as far back as CR.
    In fact many of us speculated as much at the time, given the presence of the mysterious
    "organization" lurking behind the scenes.
    In QoS that "organization" is exposed as Quantum, yet still its leadership, structure, etc is not revealed.
    SP is the payoff for both CR and QoS. The events of SF are jammed in there too, and well they should be I believe, because when you consider the scope of Spectre, that is revealed in SP, its clear that there is no way Silva's organization could be operating without being on the Spectre radar. Spectre runs all the big stuff.
    I believe Silva was a tentacle of SP much like DN in 1962, operating with SP sanction.
    Quantum as we've learned from Purvis and Wade was a hemispheric tentacle of SP.

    I would add to this SF connection the motivation of Silva's men: I always thought it was far fetched that they were assisting a raving sociopath with a death wish in a personal vendetta. I mean yes, they could be motivated by fear and money, but that was a bit short. It would make sense if ultimately they'd expect to survive the ordeal and answer to some higher authority who could secure their salary... and keep them employed.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I would add to this SF connection the motivation of Silva's men: I always thought it was far fetched that they were assisting a raving sociopath with a death wish in a personal vendetta. I mean yes, they could be motivated by fear and money, but that was a bit short. It would make sense if ultimately they'd expect to survive the ordeal and answer to some higher authority who could secure their salary... and keep them employed.
    Indeed. SF has risen in my ranking just because of SP.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,944
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    "I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away."


    Yep. :))

    That was my favorite line of the review.
    timmer wrote: »
    @echo re the Maria Grazia Cucinotta question.

    A google search led to our very forum pages.
    She was the tour guide for a very expensive tour of Rome as part of a SP related charity auction.

    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/10439/charity-auction-for-rome-set-visit

    That makes me smile. One of the things Babs and MGW do beautifully--just like Cubby--is to create a sense of a "Bond family," even across films.
  • Posts: 2,491
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    "I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away."


    Yep. :))
    The person that wrote that sounds like a really sad person tbh
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    dragonsky wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    "I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away."


    Yep. :))
    The person that wrote that sounds like a really sad person tbh
    Damn. You grew up, didn't you.
    8-|
  • Posts: 2,491
    chrisisall wrote: »
    dragonsky wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    echo wrote: »

    "I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away."


    Yep. :))
    The person that wrote that sounds like a really sad person tbh
    Damn. You grew up, didn't you.
    8-|

    :))

    Nah, it's just I understood the line as "hey...if you still believe in fairytales and other stupid stories, watch this movie" rather than "Hey, if you want to feel happy and feel joy like when you are young, watch this movie" :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    James Bond is an absurd construct, and the Bond movies work best for me when he's serious, and all around him is crazy. That's how I took it from the novels, and how I like it best in the films.
  • Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote: »
    James Bond is an absurd construct, and the Bond movies work best for me when he's serious, and all around him is crazy. That's how I took it from the novels, and how I like it best in the films.
    Me too,moreso in the films and the novels too.
    The way to go with the camp danger is for Bond to take it all very seriously. Keeps everything grounded. Wink wink doesn't work. That's where Rog faltered.
    Bond can be his smartass witty one-liner self, but he must always bring the danger element too. There must always be a sense of real danger, even if the threat is from the likes of Bambi and Thumper.
    Otherwise you get parody and venture into Kingsman territory or Flint.

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    Trigger wrote: »
    And @bondjames what’s this about Bond not being bothered by Blofeld’s revelations? Isn’t this just the same, but even stronger Bond we saw in Skyfall with the “it’s a waste of good scotch line” – as in, never letting them see him bleed/hurt (be it physically or emotionally)? Bond is now fully complete in this film and as such ISN’T meant to be the emotional wreck he has been at times.
    Fair point @Trigger. However, the Severine death wasn't really all that important (part of the mission really - he had just met her after all). However, the Blofeld revelations, especially because he had killed Hannes directly, as well as M and Vesper indirectly, should have had more resonance, even to a cold hearted bastard like Bond. This was important stuff they were bringing up here, for anyone.

    I just wish they had just left this whole brother angle alone to be honest.
    timmer wrote: »
    IMO SP's failure to deliver Bond's emotional journey is its greatest triumph, and why I am happy to keep skipping back to the theatre, to watch Bond be Bond and Blofeld be Blofeld, even if he does have who-cares daddy/brother issues.
    I might have to agree with you there @timmer.

    I just watched it for a third and last time in the theatre (I wanted to catch it before it got shoved out of the best theatres tomorrow by HG) and every time I see it, the film gets better for me.

    Craig is definitely the highlight, but all the actors do their part wonderfully. It's just that Waltz and Seydoux are a little low key (toned down?) so that they didn't really grab me on first watch. As I see it more times, the subtleties of both their performances become more clear.....and I like them more......writing is still awful though.

    Things that don't sit well with me even after 3 viewings:
    1. the piss colouring - terrible effect that is quite un-Bondian. I don't know what they were thinking here
    2. the car chase - sorry but this is the definition of dull, even though the cars are nice
    3. London finale
    4. MI6 gang in London

    Apart from that, everything else sort of nicely fits together and I've come to appreciate it more than I did on the first watch. I think, as a fan of SF, I expected more of an emotional journey. The fact that I didn't get it caught me by surprise, and gave me an empty feeling initially - more of an 'expectation' thing rather than a desire for that, if you catch my drift.

    The more I watch it, the more I just enjoy it for what it is, which is a good, old fashioned Bond film.......which just happens to have an odd and out of place, ill developed step-brother angle thrown in for the sake of it.

    Still not changing my ranking. It's firmly at 10......but my overall subjective impression of the film has improved.

    Glad you enjoyed more so third time. I want a third viewing in the cinema but I may not get a chance.

    I think though I am going to enjoy SP more my third viewing unlike my second. Reading reviews and forum spoilers I'm never going to a true untainted experience of the Rome chase so I'll guess I'll just learn to love it for what it is. If the other action sequences had worked without question then the Rome chase would have probably been an odd but possible nice diversion.

  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    edited November 2015 Posts: 306
    Buddies? Where is the James Bond Questions discussion?

    I have a question.

    What did SPECTRE specifically want to accomplish with the Nine Eyes surveillance? Why would C make an alliance with SPECTRE? Blofeld mentions that they are both visionaries. What does that mean (in this context)?
  • Posts: 5,767
    timmer wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    @timmer, that is a very interesting perspective. Blofeld is all "I'm the author of your pain"/"Daddy loved you best" and Bond is all "Who cares?" Very Connery-era Bond, that.

    I do think that Bond tossing aside the Vesper tape is quite telling as to Bond's (non-)emotional state in this movie.

    Although, really, who used a VHS tape in 2006? It should at least have been a DVD.
    Yes, I winced at that too. Maybe they are old school and had one of those old cameras, where you just plop the blank cassette in, and press record. Real simple.
    They may have never tired of the thing as it did the job. And if it was White doing the job, he may have stuck with what he knew.
    echo wrote: »
    Did anyone else see the thank-you to Maria Grazia Cucinotta in the credits?
    I saw that too, and have no idea what it could possibly mean. Maybe some help she provided in Rome? Have to get the Mi6 research department on this.


    Thoughts on the retcon. I think we have to be careful with this. It is by design very vague, as clearly they were making things up as they went along.
    ie we know nothing about Spectre's relationship/involvement with Silva. We only know there was something, as Blofeld acknowledges it, and claims some responsbility for the death of M, but as we saw in SF, Silva's organization stood on its own legs.
    He had plenty of resources and hired guns at his disposal. He explained to Bond that he could manipulate stock markets etc at a whim. SF stands up quite well without the existence of SP.

    But with CR and QoS the possible existence of a Spectre is very prevalent.
    I do think Eon might have been prepping a SP reveal as far back as CR.
    In fact many of us speculated as much at the time, given the presence of the mysterious
    "organization" lurking behind the scenes.
    In QoS that "organization" is exposed as Quantum, yet still its leadership, structure, etc is not revealed.
    SP is the payoff for both CR and QoS. The events of SF are jammed in there too, and well they should be I believe, because when you consider the scope of Spectre, that is revealed in SP, its clear that there is no way Silva's organization could be operating without being on the Spectre radar. Spectre runs all the big stuff.
    I believe Silva was a tentacle of SP much like DN in 1962, operating with SP sanction.
    Quantum as we've learned from Purvis and Wade was a hemispheric tentacle of SP.
    There is actually no indication that Spectre is bigger than Quantum or Silva´s organization. We get Silva telling Bond details of his evaluation, we get Blofeld telling Bond that he was the author of all his pain. Who says both of them are not just lying to intimidate Bond? The way these things are presented is anything but convincing. Quantum at least proved their point of having people everywhere by having a mole as M´s bodyguard. Silva´s got his own island, ok, but then he doesn´t have more than two or three men to hijack M´s hearing. And what we see of Blofeld in his meeting is a bit intimidating, but really not that much.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    AceHole wrote: »
    All the 'dramatic connections' Mendes insists on shoehorning into his two (Bond) films end up doing quite the reverse of what they were intended to do - they make the whole piece less thrilling, unintentionally polluting the narrative by making it all boil down to:

    SF: obnoxious, sulken ex- MI6 prodigy - vs. M
    SP: obnoxious, sulken ex- foster brother - vs. Bond


    Mendes is only really interested in exploring these (or this, as it's really the same in both) concepts, which leads to the rest of the film feeling incoherent, cobbled together and poorly executed.

    Luckily SP has plenty of entertainment scattered around it to keep you going...

    That is more Logan than Mendes. Gladiator is like this, so is his Star Trek Nemesis. He loves Oedipian stuff.

    No, that was not my point, perhaps it wasn't clear:

    My point was that Mendes is only interested in exploring those kinds of issues / the psycho-drama in whatever form as opposed to actual 'Bondian' thriller elements. I didn't mean that those specific ideas were necessarily his input.
  • quantumofsolacequantumofsolace England
    Posts: 279
    Bet I'm not the only one who upon repeated viewings has found themselves scanning the wall at the soon to be demolished MI6 HQ that lists those agents who have died in the service of queen and country looking for names with any kind of significance. Well, one that keeps catching my eye is that of "Emma Pill". Initially I wondered if it was a little in-joke, a variant on "Emma Peel", the character that Diana Rigg famously played in legendary 60's TV classic 'The Avengers' prior to Bonding with George Lazenby in the greatest film ever made. However, whilst reading the superb SP premiere brochure I came across an interview with the Supervising Locations Manager... Emma Pill!
  • Posts: 582
    Bet I'm not the only one who upon repeated viewings has found themselves scanning the wall at the soon to be demolished MI6 HQ that lists those agents who have died in the service of queen and country looking for names with any kind of significance. Well, one that keeps catching my eye is that of "Emma Pill". Initially I wondered if it was a little in-joke, a variant on "Emma Peel", the character that Diana Rigg famously played in legendary 60's TV classic 'The Avengers' prior to Bonding with George Lazenby in the greatest film ever made. However, whilst reading the superb SP premiere brochure I came across an interview with the Supervising Locations Manager... Emma Pill!

    Yes, I believe those names are of people who have worked on the Bonds.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    echo wrote: »

    That's quite nice! I like this from ending paragraph:
    I can see no point in going to a Bond film unless there is a corner of your soul that is still eleven years old. Anyone who has tamped down that youthful yen for excitement should stay away. But the craving for grownup glamour, however foolish, demands equal satisfaction, and “Spectre,” in providing it, acquires a throb of mystery that cannot be explained by mere plot.
  • Posts: 14,816
    Buddies? Where is the James Bond Questions discussion?

    I have a question.

    What did SPECTRE specifically want to accomplish with the Nine Eyes surveillance? Why would C make an alliance with SPECTRE? Blofeld mentions that they are both visionaries. What does that mean (in this context)?

    He'd have intelligence from all these countries. Enough to sell at very high price, blackmail entire nations, plan terrorist actions, sabotage surveillance and military operations, influence pretty much every nation on the globe.
  • Posts: 2,491
    12250136_10153024402181442_673519968862836480_n.jpg?oh=84241cc3f84efe4a38267f6f74208ac7&oe=56E8A25E
Sign In or Register to comment.