SPECTRE: What would you have done differently?

1235721

Comments

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    bondjames wrote: »
    no love song
    I'm not a fan of it, so I agree, but I thought you liked the song?

    I think it's a good song, it would have worked if Bond and Swann's relationship is believable. But in the context of the film it seems forced. So better to just get rid of it all together along with the "love" and have something more CR or SF ish.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    no love song
    I'm not a fan of it, so I agree, but I thought you liked the song?

    I think it's a good song, it would have worked if Bond and Swann's relationship is believable. But in the context of the film it seems forced. So better to just get rid of it all together along with the "love" and have something more CR or SF ish.
    Got it. I agree. I said essentially the same thing on another thread today. I thought the song suggested something which the film didn't flesh out properly so the two seemed a little at odds. If it was a more up beat song with less angst then it may have been more fitting with what unfolded on the screen, which was certainly a more light hearted affair than what Sam suggested.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,115
    Newman!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,340
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    HASEROT wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    Babs I think needs to give the order, that the JB Theme needs to be worked in somewhere and in all its glory. Not over the end titles.
    Its on her. She's the boss.

    Newman really dropped the ball in certain areas when it came to using the Bond theme - or lack thereof - it's like going to see an Indiana Jones movie and not hearing the Raiders March except over the end credits - fans would justifiably riot ((that was also a problem i had with Man Of Steel - even though, i know Zimmer/Snyder wanted to do their own thing))...

    but i can't remember if it was you that agreed with me back when i mentioned it - but how fitting would it have been, if at the end of SP, when Bond and Swann come speeding out from the collapsing MI6 building, with the triumphant Bond theme blaring - it could've been a real fist pump "yeah!" type of moment (IMO)..

    skip to the 45 second mark in the video, and picture that scene from SP, and tell me how that would not be awesome..



    thanks for nothing Newman.

    This is why it's so easy to get so mad and frustrated at the producers, Mendes and Newman. They could and should have done better and the use of the Bond theme in tge manner you suggested would have elevated not just that scene but the movie somewhat as well. Seems like the only person not just doing their job but going above and beyond is Craig everyone else is bloody sleeping.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 92
    Take the filters off
    Use Austria and lair settings more
    Get someone else in to do the soundtrack
  • Posts: 1,713
    What I dislike about the Bond series is the absence of chronology and continuity between the films. Each actor is essentially a series unto himself. That's really the only way you can make sense of the whole series. After seeing SPECTRE, you go back to YOLT and say to yourself, why don't Bond and his half brother recognize each other? Move ahead to
    OHMSS. After meeting face to face in YOLT, why do you two still not recognize each other? BTW, what happened to the facial scar? Oh, that'll be back in 2015. The whole Bond-OberFeld connection is silly and diverting.

    I like SPECTRE, but the entire film is a little like the scene in OHMSS when Bond examines a few items from Connery's past adventures. Too many references to previous films that
    actually don't exist, because DC's Bond is yet another reboot.



  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    CrabKey wrote: »
    What I dislike about the Bond series is the absence of chronology and continuity between the films. Each actor is essentially a series unto himself. That's really the only way you can make sense of the whole series. After seeing SPECTRE, you go back to YOLT and say to yourself, why don't Bond and his half brother recognize each other? Move ahead to
    OHMSS. After meeting face to face in YOLT, why do you two still not recognize each other? BTW, what happened to the facial scar? Oh, that'll be back in 2015. The whole Bond-OberFeld connection is silly and diverting.

    You're correct about Bond and Blofeld not recognising each other in OHMSS but otherwise you're talking utter gibberish.

    The Craig era is a reboot and consequently a completely different timeline.

    I'll just repeat that as it is quite a crucial point that seems to have passed you by - The Craig era is a reboot.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)

    In the original Bond timeline there is no prior relationship between Blofeld and Bond hence they don't recognise each other.

    In the Craig era they have met before when Bond was put under the temporary guardianship of the Oberhauser family as a child. This is not the same as half brothers, nor is it even foster brothers. I wish people could pay attention to the film and realise this - even though the whole Oberhauser/Blofeld angle is a pointless and bungled concept IMO - it is at least explained adequately enough for people not to keep making this mistake.

    Similarly Blofeld in YOLT had a scar caused by some unspecified reason.

    Franz Oberhauser didn't have a scar. He got one when Madeline blew him up with the watch in SP. As he is not the same person as Blofeld in YOLT there is no reason he would have that scar already.

    The continuity between YOLT and OHMSS is utter bollocks this is true.

    The continuity between YOLT and SP is non existent because it's a reboot.
  • Posts: 14,951
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Kevin Spacey as Blofeld. Ok so he's American but Waltz's English is spoken with an American accent.

    I swear if everything else about SP was exactly the same I might have worked.

    Might have boosted American interests even though that's not the reason to cast someone.

    Spacey is also friends with Mendes.

    Spacey played (albeit briefly) Dr. Evil. So no. And Waltz's English is not spoken with an American accent, where do you hear this? He has a drone-like intonation that is very much Germanic ad perfect for the role.

    And why did the movie need to boost American interest? It's bleeding James Bond! Did LTK boost American interest with a more American cast?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    And why did the movie need to boost American interest? It's bleeding James Bond! Did LTK boost American interest with a more American cast?

    Quite. If they want M:I and Hunger Games they're welcome to it. Not interested in pandering.
  • Mark_HazzardMark_Hazzard Classified
    Posts: 127
    Useful things have been stated in this thread. I'd like to point out a detail: the gun barrel.

    I thought it was done sloppy. You could see the gun while DC was walking and well before he took the shot. When did that happen before? Shouldn't be kept out of sight? And why a fade out and not a zoom out? Just because of the fancy title "The dead are alive"? I didn't get that unless similar titles frames would have appeared throughout the movie at later stages.

    Did Sam Mendes didn't have enough time? Or does he simply not like to direct a proper gun barrel sequence? Seriously, how hard can it be?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,115
    Useful things have been stated in this thread. I'd like to point out a detail: the gun barrel.

    I thought it was done sloppy. You could see the gun while DC was walking and well before he took the shot. When did that happen before? Shouldn't be kept out of sight? And why a fade out and not a zoom out? Just because of the fancy title "The dead are alive"? I didn't get that unless similar titles frames would have appeared throughout the movie at later stages.

    Did Sam Mendes didn't have enough time? Or does he simply not like to direct a proper gun barrel sequence? Seriously, how hard can it be?

    LOL. I agree. I prefer the "opening up" of the gunbarrel, immersing us in a new location. "The dead are alive" card should have been before the gunbarrel.

    Moments like these are the ones in which I seriously question whether Mendes really is a "superfan."
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited December 2015 Posts: 1,756
    I would have preferred what the script said, the gunbarrel that comes out from the skull of a DotD costume.
  • My main issue with the movie is the final sequence with the bomb tramp for Bond in the old MI-6 building. It's seems like such a convoluted, silly trap. For Blofeld to be so sure of Bond's death even though he had a considerable amount of time to escape, makes him look like a fool. I think it would have worked better if Blofeld lied about the timer and just exploded the bomb as he went away in the helicopter. If Madeleine died it could've been a powerful moment, but saving her is good as well as long as it made sense.

    Taking down the helicopter with a handgun...well, no. I don't know if it's really possible or not in real life but it just seemed way too over the top for me. Blofeld should've also escaped so he could remain as a threat in future films.

    Also, while not a big problem, the gunfight in the Spectre complex should've been longer, more exciting and harder for Bond to succeed. It almost felt a bit cartoony how easy it was for him to dispatch everything and everyone, just moments after having his skull pierced!.
  • Posts: 14,951
    Cloud007 wrote: »
    My main issue with the movie is the final sequence with the bomb tramp for Bond in the old MI-6 building. It's seems like such a convoluted, silly trap. For Blofeld to be so sure of Bond's death even though he had a considerable amount of time to escape, makes him look like a fool. I think it would have worked better if Blofeld lied about the timer and just exploded the bomb as he went away in the helicopter. If Madeleine died it could've been a powerful moment, but saving her is good as well as long as it made sense.

    Taking down the helicopter with a handgun...well, no. I don't know if it's really possible or not in real life but it just seemed way too over the top for me. Blofeld should've also escaped so he could remain as a threat in future films.

    Also, while not a big problem, the gunfight in the Spectre complex should've been longer, more exciting and harder for Bond to succeed. It almost felt a bit cartoony how easy it was for him to dispatch everything and everyone, just moments after having his skull pierced!.

    Blofeld is alive therefore he's a threat in future films. All he needs is to escape and the scriptwriters will give him the occasion to do so. It's not like prison walls kept Bond villains (or villains in general, for that matter) in for long to begin with.

    I do think however that Bond's escape for Blofeld's lair in Morocco should have bit a bit longer and a bit more challenging. That goes with the destruction of the lair. It looked more plausible in DN.
  • Ludovico wrote: »

    Blofeld is alive therefore he's a threat in future films. All he needs is to escape and the scriptwriters will give him the occasion to do so. It's not like prison walls kept Bond villains (or villains in general, for that matter) in for long to begin with.

    I do think however that Bond's escape for Blofeld's lair in Morocco should have bit a bit longer and a bit more challenging. That goes with the destruction of the lair. It looked more plausible in DN.

    Yes, he is alive and he could (and probably will) escape to participate in future films but personally, I think having him escape would've been a better ending for the movie. The good guys don't always get to win completely all the time.

    I concur regarding the escape. It should've been the signature gunfight sequence of the movie but it was a bit of a letdown for those reasons.


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    Cloud007 wrote: »
    a bit cartoony how easy it was for him to dispatch everything and everyone, just moments after having his skull pierced!.
    I had dental surgery during a tooth infection so the pain killer didn't work. They extracted two wisdom teeth, but the third was infected and they suggested I come back in two weeks after antibiotics. I told them to just DO it because I wasn't coming back for more. It was the worst pain I ever felt, but the duration was relatively short. After seeing stars & almost nothing else I got up & walked out.
    I can SO believe that scene with Bond.
    ;)
  • Posts: 1,098
    I would of given Hinx a speaking part for a start.
    How come many Bond henchmen appear to be mute.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I would of given Hinx a speaking part for a start.
    How come many Bond henchmen appear to be mute.
    He HAD a speaking part!

    :))
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,098
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I would of given Hinx a speaking part for a start.
    How come many Bond henchmen appear to be mute.
    He HAD a speaking part!

    :))

    I just knew some smart ass here would say that.

    Saying 'shit', to me, doesn't count as a speaking part.

    :)
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    I had dental surgery during a tooth infection so the pain killer didn't work. They extracted two wisdom teeth, but the third was infected and they suggested I come back in two weeks after antibiotics. I told them to just DO it because I wasn't coming back for more. It was the worst pain I ever felt, but the duration was relatively short. After seeing stars & almost nothing else I got up & walked out.
    I can SO believe that scene with Bond.
    ;)

    *wink* *wink*?



    :-j
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    echo wrote: »
    Useful things have been stated in this thread. I'd like to point out a detail: the gun barrel.

    I thought it was done sloppy. You could see the gun while DC was walking and well before he took the shot. When did that happen before? Shouldn't be kept out of sight? And why a fade out and not a zoom out? Just because of the fancy title "The dead are alive"? I didn't get that unless similar titles frames would have appeared throughout the movie at later stages.

    Did Sam Mendes didn't have enough time? Or does he simply not like to direct a proper gun barrel sequence? Seriously, how hard can it be?

    LOL. I agree. I prefer the "opening up" of the gunbarrel, immersing us in a new location. "The dead are alive" card should have been before the gunbarrel.

    Moments like these are the ones in which I seriously question whether Mendes really is a "superfan."

    Agree entirely with both of you. The only point I would dispute is the necessity of the pretentious 'dead are alive' insert at all.

    Yes we get it Sam - it's a cunning reference to both the day of the dead and Franz Oberhauser. How clever you are. But I'd sooner you'd just stop pissing about with your wanky film student openings for the second film running and give us a proper solid gunbarrel instead.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,115
    echo wrote: »
    Useful things have been stated in this thread. I'd like to point out a detail: the gun barrel.

    I thought it was done sloppy. You could see the gun while DC was walking and well before he took the shot. When did that happen before? Shouldn't be kept out of sight? And why a fade out and not a zoom out? Just because of the fancy title "The dead are alive"? I didn't get that unless similar titles frames would have appeared throughout the movie at later stages.

    Did Sam Mendes didn't have enough time? Or does he simply not like to direct a proper gun barrel sequence? Seriously, how hard can it be?

    LOL. I agree. I prefer the "opening up" of the gunbarrel, immersing us in a new location. "The dead are alive" card should have been before the gunbarrel.

    Moments like these are the ones in which I seriously question whether Mendes really is a "superfan."

    Agree entirely with both of you. The only point I would dispute is the necessity of the pretentious 'dead are alive' insert at all.

    Yes we get it Sam - it's a cunning reference to both the day of the dead and Franz Oberhauser. How clever you are. But I'd sooner you'd just stop pissing about with your wanky film student openings for the second film running and give us a proper solid gunbarrel instead.

    Ha. Where was that title card in DAD, GE, DAF, and YOLT?
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    echo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Useful things have been stated in this thread. I'd like to point out a detail: the gun barrel.

    I thought it was done sloppy. You could see the gun while DC was walking and well before he took the shot. When did that happen before? Shouldn't be kept out of sight? And why a fade out and not a zoom out? Just because of the fancy title "The dead are alive"? I didn't get that unless similar titles frames would have appeared throughout the movie at later stages.

    Did Sam Mendes didn't have enough time? Or does he simply not like to direct a proper gun barrel sequence? Seriously, how hard can it be?

    LOL. I agree. I prefer the "opening up" of the gunbarrel, immersing us in a new location. "The dead are alive" card should have been before the gunbarrel.

    Moments like these are the ones in which I seriously question whether Mendes really is a "superfan."

    Agree entirely with both of you. The only point I would dispute is the necessity of the pretentious 'dead are alive' insert at all.

    Yes we get it Sam - it's a cunning reference to both the day of the dead and Franz Oberhauser. How clever you are. But I'd sooner you'd just stop pissing about with your wanky film student openings for the second film running and give us a proper solid gunbarrel instead.

    Ha. Where was that title card in DAD, GE, DAF, and YOLT?
    Good one!!!! Right! Moon, Trevalyan, Blofeld and Bond all came back from the dead too
    Mendes thinks he's so damn clever.
    The title card was uber lame, displayed as if it represented some pervasive theme permeating the whole film, when it was really just anecdotal to Franz not actually having died. Why bother indeed?
    I think Mendes was desperate to do another film with thematic heft, but when all was said and done, just ended up doing a Bond on mission film, which is actually a good thing.
    Craig as Bond is what really holds this movie together I think.
    His relaxed focused performance as Bond overcomes Mendes pretensions.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    timmer wrote: »
    Craig as Bond is what really holds this movie together I think.
    His relaxed focused performance as Bond overcomes Mendes pretensions.
    Oh yeah. Totally agree.
    :)>-
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,399
    .
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    RC7 wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I liked Spectre. But it's no CR. In answer to the question I would remove the step brother angle and the London finale. More characterisation is needed. And I'd make Blofelds lair a bit harder to blow up!!!

    They aren't step brothers.

    And Indiana Jones 4 didn't feature aliens but interdimensional beings.

    C'mon, they're just words. The fact that Bond and Blofeld, the best secret agent and the most dangerous criminal in the world, knew each other is ridicolous and pointless, let's admit it.
  • Posts: 14,951
    Cloud007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    Blofeld is alive therefore he's a threat in future films. All he needs is to escape and the scriptwriters will give him the occasion to do so. It's not like prison walls kept Bond villains (or villains in general, for that matter) in for long to begin with.

    I do think however that Bond's escape for Blofeld's lair in Morocco should have bit a bit longer and a bit more challenging. That goes with the destruction of the lair. It looked more plausible in DN.

    Yes, he is alive and he could (and probably will) escape to participate in future films but personally, I think having him escape would've been a better ending for the movie. The good guys don't always get to win completely all the time.

    I concur regarding the escape. It should've been the signature gunfight sequence of the movie but it was a bit of a letdown for those reasons.


    I think having Blofeld escape might have seemed like too ambiguous a victory for Bond, especially after SF and to a lesser extend his previous two movies. Blofeld could not die so they had him captured. In a way it's far more humiliating for him.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Cloud007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »

    Blofeld is alive therefore he's a threat in future films. All he needs is to escape and the scriptwriters will give him the occasion to do so. It's not like prison walls kept Bond villains (or villains in general, for that matter) in for long to begin with.

    I do think however that Bond's escape for Blofeld's lair in Morocco should have bit a bit longer and a bit more challenging. That goes with the destruction of the lair. It looked more plausible in DN.

    Yes, he is alive and he could (and probably will) escape to participate in future films but personally, I think having him escape would've been a better ending for the movie. The good guys don't always get to win completely all the time.

    I concur regarding the escape. It should've been the signature gunfight sequence of the movie but it was a bit of a letdown for those reasons.


    I think having Blofeld escape might have seemed like too ambiguous a victory for Bond, especially after SF and to a lesser extend his previous two movies. Blofeld could not die so they had him captured. In a way it's far more humiliating for him.
    I didn't personally have a problem with him being captured at the end either. The way he stared at Bond and Madeline at the end was quite sinister and a great moment.....as it suggested something more was to come here. Just the suggestion was chilling.

    I didn't appreciate the finale in London and thought it could have been done much better, or avoided entirely by wrapping the film up at the lair, but I have no problem with him being captured at the end. As you note, the Craig films have had open ended endings and dubious victories due to personal loss, so this made a welcome change, at least on that front.
Sign In or Register to comment.