SPECTRE - Your reviews. NO SPOILERS.

12830323334

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,008
    @Bounine, not to nitpick, but are you saying the film suffers slightly because we aren't given a scene of Bond acquiring the airplane to chase after Hinx and Swann? If so, why?
  • Posts: 11,425
    It didn't particualrly bother me, but a little more detail might have made it flow more smoothly.

    It's seems a hallmark of Mendes that he doesn't like linking the dots in a conventional way.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 105
    The lair blowup seemed too easy also, just a few bullets into that one tank and everything goes kaboom. Blofeld should have had quality control on that. But like everything in the movie, the villain/lair/explanation of evil plan was filmed so slick that I didn't mind.

    I liked the breakneck pacing and simplicity of Spectre. Kinda FYEO old school. For Craig's era it's CR first, QOS/SP tied, Skyfall fourth.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Chang wrote: »
    The lair blowup seemed to easy also, just a few bullets into that one tank and everything goes kaboom. Blofeld should have had quality control on that. But like everything in the movie, the villain/lair/explanation of evil plan was filmed so slick that I didn't mind.

    I liked the breakneck pacing and simplicity of Spectre. Kinda FYEO old school. For Craig's era it's CR first, QOS/SP tied, Skyfall fourth.

    I like you're ranking. SF is currently fourth in my DC era rankings as well. Unless B25 is a total stinker, it's hard to envisage that changing.

    Yes, there is something about the breeziness and pacing of SP that enabled me to overlook a lot of the characteristically slip-shod Mendes direction. Like QOS, it progresses smoothly enough that you are not jolted out of your enjoyment by the plot holes and inconsistencies.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Interesting Spectre and LTK parallel - Franz Sanchez and Blofeld both wear loafers without socks... A clear sign of evil.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2015 Posts: 10,495
    Getafix wrote: »
    Interesting Spectre and LTK parallel - Franz Sanchez and Blofeld both wear loafers without socks... A clear sign of evil.

    And are the only main villains to share the same first name.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,358
    Getafix wrote: »
    Interesting Spectre and LTK parallel - Franz Sanchez and Blofeld both wear loafers without socks... A clear sign of evil.
    It's what Vader wore inside his pressure suit...

  • Posts: 5,767
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Interesting Spectre and LTK parallel - Franz Sanchez and Blofeld both wear loafers without socks... A clear sign of evil.

    And are the only main villains to share the same first name.
    Subtext over subtext.

    Or is it under?

  • Posts: 2,534
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Bounine, not to nitpick, but are you saying the film suffers slightly because we aren't given a scene of Bond acquiring the airplane to chase after Hinx and Swann? If so, why?

    This is the smallest criticism I have. I do think it's a demerit of the script not to have a scene where we see Bond acquire the plane. My scriptwriting teacher in film school would have told me off for writing such a thing, or should I say, not writing it. :)
  • Posts: 92
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    So many things were hastily glossed over in SP.
  • Posts: 92
    Yes the crater lair too.
    I wonder why.
    :(
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,495
    Bounine wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    @Bounine, not to nitpick, but are you saying the film suffers slightly because we aren't given a scene of Bond acquiring the airplane to chase after Hinx and Swann? If so, why?

    This is the smallest criticism I have. I do think it's a demerit of the script not to have a scene where we see Bond acquire the plane. My scriptwriting teacher in film school would have told me off for writing such a thing, or should I say, not writing it. :)

    It's not a problem for me, but if it were, the script is not necessarily the first place I'd look. Scripts aren't slavishly replicated, for an abundance of reasons.
  • Posts: 5,767
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

  • boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.
  • Posts: 1,519
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.

    Yes. My main gripe with Mendes is that he doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his locations. The Brosnan years also suffered from this.

    OHMSS and FYEO are the benchmark of how to do snow-themed Bond, and I find it incomprehensible that with all the other stuff they seem to be lifting straight out of old Bond films they could not get the Austria mood right in SP. Lazy.
  • AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.

    Yes. My main gripe with Mendes is that he doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his locations. The Brosnan years also suffered from this.

    OHMSS and FYEO are the benchmark of how to do snow-themed Bond, and I find it incomprehensible that with all the other stuff they seem to be lifting straight out of old Bond films they could not get the Austria mood right in SP. Lazy.

    Please stop benchmarking. Don't tie up directors in chairs and torture them with our belittling and conservative approach. I loved the cinematography of SP. Similar like I loved this heavily filtered/saturated scene (thanks Phil Meheux):
    tumblr_ljcgm4G5A01qzgzwdo1_500.jpg

    You know, I'm getting a bit tired of how Sam Mendes is treated in here. "He has no anus-idea of action sequences", "He knows shit about locations", "He is whining constantly about how he directed the film", "He is forcing his opinion on us", "He needs to go, that dramaqueen", "His beard is too grey, so are his films", "He sucks in the drama department", etc, etc, etc.

    Since when......really guys, since when did we talk like that about all previous Bond directors? By jolly, have a bit respect for the man.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,519
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.

    Yes. My main gripe with Mendes is that he doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his locations. The Brosnan years also suffered from this.

    OHMSS and FYEO are the benchmark of how to do snow-themed Bond, and I find it incomprehensible that with all the other stuff they seem to be lifting straight out of old Bond films they could not get the Austria mood right in SP. Lazy.

    Please stop benchmarking. Don't tie up directors in chairs and torture them with our belittling and conservative approach. I loved the cinematography of SP. Similar like I loved this heavily filtered/saturated scene (thanks Phil Meheux):
    tumblr_ljcgm4G5A01qzgzwdo1_500.jpg

    You know, I'm getting a bit tired of how Sam Mendes is treated in here. "He has no anus-idea of action sequences", "He knows shit about locations", "He is whining constantly about how he directed the film", "He is forcing his opinion on us", "He needs to go, that dramaqueen", "His beard is too grey, so are his films", "He sucks in the drama department", etc, etc, etc.

    Since when......really guys, since when did we talk like that about all previous Bond directors? By jolly, have a bit respect for the man.

    You misunderstood my point, perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I meant that with all the 'copying' of old Bond (FRWL train etc) that SP does I don't see why they couldn't have 'copied' some of that charm OHMSS or FYEO brought to the Alpine sequences.
    No more than that.

    But I do stand by my opinion that Mendes' Bond films have not made good use of locations. Campbell & Forster were better at this, somehow.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2015 Posts: 10,495
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    AceHole wrote: »
    I meant that with all the 'copying' of old Bond (FRWL train etc) that SP does I don't see why they couldn't have 'copied' some of that charm OHMSS or FYEO brought to the Alpine sequences.
    No more than that.

    But I do stand by my opinion that Mendes' Bond films have not made good use of locations. Campbell & Forster were better at this, somehow.
    You are entitled to your opinion. It's one I happen to share. I too believe that in the Craig era, Campbell and Forster (to a far lesser degree) used the locations very well. I would have loved to have seen more of Siena, but Haiti was very well done in QoS, as was Breganz. The colour palette was very vibrant as well, and is a defining Bond characteristic imho. Not many series do it in a manner that Bond does it historically.

    With respect to SF, on a recent rewatch it actually didn't impress me visually as much as QoS and CR, and I believe that was on account of the colour, which was notably and probably intentionally grey during a lot of daytime sequences, but that may have been on account of the UK shooting locations. The night work however was incredibly crisp and colourful......a credit to Deakins and the use of digital cameras I think. His shot framing was magnificent as well. Artistic like no other.
    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    Yes, this probably was his intention.....or in conjunction with Van Hoytema. Time will tell whether this film's look & colour palette will date as well as the illustrious rest in the canon. We're too early for that. It is a curious and interesting choice, and as I've said on here, when watching this film I found it more in keeping with blockbusters of the day from Marvel, Lionsgate etc. with the thematic and somewhat monotonous palette. A product of its time. As you say it was different for Bond certainly, and some like it, some don't.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,495
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    Yes, this probably was his intention.....or in conjunction with Van Hoytema. Time will tell whether this film's look & colour palette will date as well as the illustrious rest in the canon. We're too early for that. It is a curious and interesting choice, and as I've said on here, when watching this film I found it more in keeping with blockbusters of the day from Marvel, Lionsgate etc. with the thematic and somewhat monotonous palette. A product of its time. As you say it was different for Bond certainly, and some like it, some don't.

    I didn't recall any comparative blockbusters if I'm honest. I think it adds a ghostly feel to the entire picture, which was clearly intentional. I don't believe for a minute that either Mendes or Van Hoytema were motivated by creating a palette in line with current trends. I can accept it's not to everyone's taste, but it's clearly a decision based on the material not to be 'on trend'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    Yes, this probably was his intention.....or in conjunction with Van Hoytema. Time will tell whether this film's look & colour palette will date as well as the illustrious rest in the canon. We're too early for that. It is a curious and interesting choice, and as I've said on here, when watching this film I found it more in keeping with blockbusters of the day from Marvel, Lionsgate etc. with the thematic and somewhat monotonous palette. A product of its time. As you say it was different for Bond certainly, and some like it, some don't.

    I didn't recall any comparative blockbusters if I'm honest. I think it adds a ghostly feel to the entire picture, which was clearly intentional. I don't believe for a minute that either Mendes or Van Hoytema were motivated by creating a palette in line with current trends. I can accept it's not to everyone's taste, but it's clearly a decision based on the material not to be 'on trend'.
    What I mean is in the current blockbuster contingent (particularly the CGI ones like Marvel Avengers and Hunger Games) I am noting a monotonous palette to the daytime scenes. I only really noticed it after seeing SP, and only because SP is, as you note, so different visually from the rest of the Bond films. It's definitely, for me, more in keeping with what I see in other blockbusters today. The vibrancy of colours in CR & QoS in particular I see more in MI-RN and even in Man from Uncle.
  • RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Regard Mendes, I think it's disingenuous to say he doesn't get the best out of his locations. He stated on more than one occasion that it was his intention to show locations in a way you wouldn't expect. I can totally understand if that as a concept doesn't register with people, but to imply it's a lack of actual skill or intention is incorrect. I was one of the first to note the washed out tones and lack of contrast in the trailer, but I was prepared to wait and see it in context and in context I like it. It's a very, very different looking film to SF and is visually very unique within the canon. I can only commend that, because let's face it, the breadth and variation in aesthetics across the series is one of its biggest strengths.
    Yes, this probably was his intention.....or in conjunction with Van Hoytema. Time will tell whether this film's look & colour palette will date as well as the illustrious rest in the canon. We're too early for that. It is a curious and interesting choice, and as I've said on here, when watching this film I found it more in keeping with blockbusters of the day from Marvel, Lionsgate etc. with the thematic and somewhat monotonous palette. A product of its time. As you say it was different for Bond certainly, and some like it, some don't.

    I didn't recall any comparative blockbusters if I'm honest. I think it adds a ghostly feel to the entire picture, which was clearly intentional. I don't believe for a minute that either Mendes or Van Hoytema were motivated by creating a palette in line with current trends. I can accept it's not to everyone's taste, but it's clearly a decision based on the material not to be 'on trend'.

    Fully agree here.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited December 2015 Posts: 11,090
    AceHole wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    dandan wrote: »
    The whole Austria mountain top location wasn't used much is it.
    I was disappointed in that bit.
    Was there any location that shone? Morocco had a yellow sky. Mexico a brownish sky. The mountain tops were barely visible behind fog. The exterior shots of the Orient Express (or whatever it was) made it look like a freight train, and the landscape fitted that impression. Unromantic landscapes seem to be a major theme in SP.

    While I agree that the Austria sequence did not really.....'connect' with me as compared to the alpine scenery from "OHMSS" and "FYEO", I think your comment that 'Morocco is yellow' and 'Mexico brown' is exagerrated. Morocco for me never looked so beautiful. A touch of 1960's, with an old Technicolor filter, reminded me of some of the Hitchcock classics.

    Yes. My main gripe with Mendes is that he doesn't seem to know how to get the best out of his locations. The Brosnan years also suffered from this.

    OHMSS and FYEO are the benchmark of how to do snow-themed Bond, and I find it incomprehensible that with all the other stuff they seem to be lifting straight out of old Bond films they could not get the Austria mood right in SP. Lazy.

    I just watched the 3 Damon Bourne movies and with regret I feel embarrassed for EoN and Mendes at how easily those movies are still besting Bond in this day and age with the exception of CR. Bourne Ultimatum shockingly uses 6 locations, Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Tangier and New York and pull it off marvellously, transporting audiences to these places wuth the believable atmosphere and authenticity a film should. There's nothing lazy about the approach to film making that goes into Damon's Bourne films and I think this is an underlying problem with Bond especially with Mendes at the helm. There's too much coasting on the Bond brand to really do something creative and immersive that is clearly leaving a number of people dissatisfied.

    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that have been hurting the films.
  • doubleoego wrote: »
    I just watched the 3 Damon Bourne movies and with regret I feel embarrassed for EoN and Mendes at how easily those movies are still besting Bond in this day and age with the exception of CR. Bourne Ultimatum shockingly uses 6 locations, Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid, Tangier and New York and pull it off marvellously, transporting audiences to these places wuth the believable atmosphere and authenticity a film should. There's nothing lazy about the approach to film making that goes into Damon's Bourne films and I think this is an underlying problem with Bond especially with Mendes at the helm. There's too much coasting on the Bond brand to really do something creative and immersive that is clearly leaving a number of people dissatisfied.

    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that only serve to hurt the films.

    Look, Bond films are not Bourne films. And I said it on many occassions, whereas Bourne and other franchises so easily get compared with 'Godfather Bond', it never works the other way around. If Bond takes something from Bourne's playbook, for example the action style in QOS, then people will dislike it. It's a bit unfair.

    Hence why I think sequences like this will always stay truly Bond....and will, luckily never be used in Bourne films. Bourne films and Bond films are entirely different:

    Dr. No:
    DR.NO: "One million dollars, Mr Bond! You were wondering what it cost.
    Forgive my not shaking hands. It's awkward with these. A misfortune. You were admiring my aquarium. A unique feat of engineering, if I may say so. I designed it myself. The glass is convex, ten inches thick, which accounts for the magnifying effect.
    "
    BOND: "Minnows pretending they're whales. Just like you on this island, Dr No."
    DR.NO: "It depends, Mr Bond, on which side of the glass you are."

    From Russia With Love:
    BLOFELD: "Siamese fighting fish. Fascinating creatures. Brave, but on the whole stupid. Yes, they're stupid. Except for the occasional one...such as we have here. He lets the other two fight...while he waits. Waits until the survivor is so exhausted that he cannot defend himself! And then, like SPECTRE, he strikess!"

    The Man With The Golden Gun:
    SCARAMANGA: "At a million dollars a contract, l can afford to, Mr Bond. You work for peanuts. A ''well done'' from the Queen and a pittance of a pension. Apart from that, we are the same. To us, Mr Bond. We are the best."
    BOND: "There's a useful four-letter word, and you're full of it. When l kill it's under specific orders of my government. And those l kill are themselves killers."
    SCARAMANGA: "Come, come, Mr Bond. You disappoint me. You get as much fulfilment out of killing as l do. Admit it."
    BOND: "l admit killing you would be a pleasure."
    SCARAMANGA: "You should have done that before. But then the English don't think it's sporting to kill in cold blood."
    BOND: "Don't count on that (TRIES TO PULL HIS WALTHER PPK)."
    SCARAMANGA: (POINTS HIS GOLDEN GUN AT 007) "l could have shot you when you landed, but that would have been too easy! You see, Mr Bond, like every great artist, l want to create an indisputable masterpiece once in my lifetime. The death of 007, mano a mano, face to face, will be mine!"

    There's nothing too deep about above introductions uttered by the leading villains. But they tremendously worked. The parabels, the sinister comparisons, it's oozing 'Bond'. And now read these transcripts:

    Skyfall:
    SILVA: "Hello, James. Welcome. Do you like the island? My grandmother had an island. Nothing to boast of. You could walk around it in an hour. But still, it was, it was a paradise for us. One summer, we went for a visit and discovered the place had been infested with rats! They'd come on a fishing boat and gorged themselves on coconut. So how do you get rats off an island? Hmm? My grandmother showed me. We buried an oil drum and hinged the lid. Then wired coconut to the lid as bait. And the rats would come for the coconut and..(MAKES CLINKING NOISE)....they would fall into the drum. And after a month, you have trapped all the rats. But what do you do then? Throw the drum into the ocean? Burn it? No. You just LEAVE it! And they begin to get hungry. And one by one...(MAKES GNAWING NOISE).....they start eating each other. Until there are only two left. The two survivors. And then what? Do you kill them? No?!?! You take them and release them into the trees. But now they don't eat coconut anymore. Now they only eat RATT! You have changed their nature. The two survivors. This is what she made us."

    SPECTRE:
    BLOFELD: "You know what happens when a cuckoo hatches inside another bird's nest?"
    MADELEINE: "Yes. It forces the other eggs out."
    BLOFELD: "Yes. Well, this cuckoo made me realize my father's life had to end. In a way he's responsible for the path I took...So...thank YOU (TO BOND), cuckoo!"
    BLOFELD: "A man lives inside his head; that's where the seed of his soul is. James and I were both present recently when a man was deprived of his eyes and the most astonishing thing happened, didn't you notice? He wasn't there anymore. He had gone even though he was still alive, so this brief moment between life and death, there was nobody inside his skull. Most odd."


    This is quintessential Bond, James Bond. And I actually think Mendes really knows how to return to this sinister and sometimes quite psychotic villain introductions. These parabels, comparisons, etc....can really lift up the reasoning behind the villain. And IMO that worked tremendously in SF, though it also worked in SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited December 2015 Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that have been hurting the films.
    Then we may both be in a minority because I agree with you. Competition (the right kind) is always good for Bond. Bond is Bond, but it changes with the times and Bourne as well as MI will keep Bond on its toes for the next few years.

    As long as EON stay true to what makes Bond unique, but draw from the excellence that comes from these two franchises in particular (which in my view is tight narratives, believable and outstanding action, superior tension filled scenes, & increasingly excellent use of locations) we will be ok.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I love Bond but I'm fair and acknowledge credit when and where it's due and I maybe in the extreme minority here but I thank God Bourne is back because I know I'll get the action thriller I want to see and even moreso I hope the new Bourne film will facilitate Bond to make the needed changes that have been hurting the films.
    Then we may both be in a minority because I agree with you. Competition (the right kind) is always good for Bond. Bond is Bond, but it changes with the times and Bourne as well as MI will keep Bond on its toes for the next few years.

    As long as EON stay true to what makes Bond unique, but draw from the excellence that comes from these two franchises in particular (which in my view is tight narratives, believable and outstanding action, superior tension filled scenes, & increasingly excellent use of locations) we will be ok.

    I gave a perfect example for that.

    But you know why Bourne and also Mission: Impossible are not copying these kind of 'typical Bond scenes' to their franchises? Because there existence is more related to....'doing things differently than Bond'. Moreover, if someone asks to delete those wonderful villain introductions from the Bond franchise then it's no Bond anymore.

    Bond doesn't need M:I or Bourne. Bond = NO Bourne. And EON already stays true to what makes Bond unique.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    @Gustav I'm obviously aware of the differences but comparisons can be made. Bourne knows how to use locations to a satisfying degree moreso than the majority of the Bond films of the last 28 years.

    As for the action in QoS, the shakey cam quick cut edits weren't pulled off the same way Greengrass instructed the same editor to do his films. There's a very clear difference in the editing and filming styles of the action. Also, if Bond is accused of copying it doesn't help when you abandon the visceral action being copied for something more pedestrian again. Stick with it, afterall, it's a realistic and appropriate style of combat for someone in Bond's line of work. Hell, you see the same and better fights in other movies and on TV. The TV show Hannibal had a few visceral fight scenes that are significantly better than what the Bond films give us.

    What people don't like is underwhelming material wether it be in the screenplay, action, acting, music or locations and if they want things to stay mediocre just because they don't want to be seen copying the competition who are doing a better job, risking quality prigression then fine, stick to your mediocrity and goodwill of 50 years while the rest of the world moves on. SP disappointed many people and they expressed why either with their opinions or their money and in many cases both.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2015 Posts: 10,495
    doubleoego wrote: »
    SP disappointed many people and they expressed why either with their opinions or their money and in many cases both.

    You think? SP is breathing down the neck of Avatar in the all time UK Box Office (smashing JW) and is closing on $800m worldwide. Everything is relative, as such SF's BO may make this appear like a disappointment, but I don't see it that way. It's about to pass last year's surprise hit GOTG at the worldwide BO and has already beaten 'Winter Soldier', another highly rated action/thriller from last year. It's also going to end up about $100m+ clear of RN and has probably grossed about double that of the highest grossing Bourne (I'd have to check). Not saying there's nothing to learn from the competition, but to suggest it's been a disappointment to many people is skewed imo. You don't make $800m with a Bond film that has largely disappointed, it doesn't have the inbuilt audience of a Transformers etc.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited December 2015 Posts: 11,090
    I agree with all of that but what I'm saying is, SP left a lot of people disappointed in that it's a movie not getting the glowing reviews that people were hoping and expecting and as such, many people have not gone out to see the film or have not embarked on multiple viewings like what the case was with for SF. I've always maintained that SP has done remarkably well with the financials it has made so far but I also maintain had the film been better and not suffered from scripting issues and injected more creativity outside the PTS it could have been a better received film, more people would have gone out to see it and with multiple viewings. When it comes to enjoyability and overall entertainment factor, how many people here preferred SP over RN? There are a number of people here and outside of here who thought the latter was a better film but Bond is and will always be a very different type of film that is an event and spectacle in and of itself. The Brand name alone will ensure profitability and good numbers at the BO but excellent numbers can be reflected if Bond lives up to the grandness and prestige of its own goodwill.

    I wanted to see SP a minimum of 7 times but I've peaked at 4 viewings, that's just me personally because as fun and entertaining as the film is, it's shortcomings are too conspicuous for me to sit through another 3 viewings any time soon, while everything, both positives and negatives are fresh in my head.
Sign In or Register to comment.