SPECTRE: What would you have done differently?

13468921

Comments

  • "Ludovico wrote:

    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 don't think that's a bad thing, actually, but I don't really mind having him captured as much as my other problems with the last act of the film. Also, I agree with you in it being a far more humiliating outcome for him.
    "bondjames wrote:


    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.

    I agree 100%. I don't mind having a true success for Bond as an ending but it's how it was all put together that sours the triumph in my view.
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 871
    timmer wrote: »
    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.

    It probably does, but the pretentiousness is still there. If EON continue to hire "prestige directors" like Mendes, chances are we'll be getting more of it in the future.

    That approach is starting to bug me, and IMO they need to find directors who know how to tell a story without trying too make a "smart" movie.
  • Posts: 11,425
    timmer wrote: »
    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.

    It probably does, but the pretentiousness is still there. If EON continue to hire "prestige directors" like Mendes, chances are we'll be getting more of it in the future.

    That approach is starting to bug me, and IMO they need to find directors who know how to tell a story without trying too make a "smart" movie.

    I actually want a smart movie. The thing I find frustrating about Mendes is that SF in particular poses as a smart film but is total nonsense. I agree SF is very pretentious.

    I actually find SP a lot less pretentious though. It just feels a lot more like aN old school Bond romp.

  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    Posts: 1,756
    Thinking of re-editing the film when it comes out.
  • Posts: 14,951
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.

    Oh the look on his face! Pure hatred. That made me want to see more of him.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Ludovico wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.

    Oh the look on his face! Pure hatred. That made me want to see more of him.

    Ditto. And we are in a situation we have never been in before with a captured Blofeld. More exciting than the usual 'escape'.
  • Posts: 14,951
    And I have to say although I was against scars on Blofeld to begin with I love how it turned out. His wounds look really nasty.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 79
    jesus, it is interesting to see how fast the options change these days. Yesterday Mendes was a mastermind who delivered a movie that was considered by many as Oscar worthy, now he is a prententious fool who can't get anything right... Oh boy.

    Just to get some things right: "The Dead Are Alive" does not only refer to the PTS or Oberhauser. It is a consistent theme throughout the movie.
    - Oberhauser
    - The late Hannes Oberhauser who basically formed the two main characters: The good and skilled James, and Hannes seeking revenge and seeing his life impacted by him
    - M giving Bond his assignment
    - The death Vesper still having an influence on Bonds nature
    - The dead Mr. White who basically influences his daughter's life after she had long forgotton him

    ...
    If you don't see this as a theme in the movie, I'm afraid it's rather your fault not to blame Mendes.

    Oh and by the way: I though it was a pretty damm cool moment when after the gunbarrel, those words were "hammered" there. Love that moment.

    Apart from that:
    I don't get this argument that Mendes' movies are pretentious. Here we have, for the first time in the series, a director who combines maginificent visual story telling with some kind of weight to the story, and he gets called "pretentious".

    I'm so happy that the Bond movies are not made for the fans but rather for the other 99% of the audiences.

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 2,015
    It probably does, but the pretentiousness is still there. If EON continue to hire "prestige directors" like Mendes, chances are we'll be getting more of it in the future.

    That approach is starting to bug me, and IMO they need to find directors who know how to tell a story without trying too make a "smart" movie.

    Well they once worked with someone who in the 2 years just before working on Bond got several Oscar nominations under his belt, and even won one. And it gave us a Bond movie that was a critical success despite very negative word of mouth even before it was released. So, well, job done.

    But it was the writer of Casino Royale, not the director.

    I'm not sure the best director can deal with a bad story...
    danielcc wrote: »
    If you don't see this as a theme in the movie, I'm afraid it's rather your fault not to blame
    Mendes.

    My criticism is rather that it is so hammered (like the "old ways are the best" in SF)... It's written on the screen, it's hammered by Bond after the M video, it's hammered by Bond when Q tells him Franz O. is dead, etc, etc.

    As a sidenote, in the script, the video surveillance theme was even more hammered than it is on the screen now. It was quite a "heavy" script, not very subtle...
    danielcc wrote: »
    - The late Hannes Oberhauser who basically formed the two main characters: The good and skilled James, and Hannes seeking revenge and seeing his life impacted by him

    Imagine Mendes'Bond 25 : We learn Hannes Oberhauser is not dead but at the hand of SPECTRE, and that Bond has to free Blofeld from MI6 to see Hannes again. Will it be pure genius, of the fan-fiction critics will love to hate ?
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited December 2015 Posts: 4,043
    Getafix wrote: »
    timmer wrote: »
    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.

    It probably does, but the pretentiousness is still there. If EON continue to hire "prestige directors" like Mendes, chances are we'll be getting more of it in the future.

    That approach is starting to bug me, and IMO they need to find directors who know how to tell a story without trying too make a "smart" movie.

    I actually want a smart movie. The thing I find frustrating about Mendes is that SF in particular poses as a smart film but is total nonsense. I agree SF is very pretentious.

    I actually find SP a lot less pretentious though. It just feels a lot more like aN old school Bond romp.

    Though SF has nothing as ludicrous as making Blofeld a part of Bond's childhood past.

    To me that is far more damning than anything in Skyfall. No Skyfall isn't genius but it's far more thrilling than the cobbled mess that is SPECTRE.

    Once again it just proves throw the elements at the screen and some Bond fans will swallow any old nonsense.
  • Posts: 1,680
    The brother angle yes is a little far fetched but was entertaining with Waltz. They could have went with Oberhauser being a former head or chief of MI6 in some capacity that trained Bond in his earlier years before he was a 00. Just a thought.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    danielcc wrote: »
    jesus, it is interesting to see how fast the options change these days. Yesterday Mendes was a mastermind who delivered a movie that was considered by many as Oscar worthy, now he is a prententious fool who can't get anything right... Oh boy.

    Just to get some things right: "The Dead Are Alive" does not only refer to the PTS or Oberhauser. It is a consistent theme throughout the movie.
    - Oberhauser
    - The late Hannes Oberhauser who basically formed the two main characters: The good and skilled James, and Hannes seeking revenge and seeing his life impacted by him
    - M giving Bond his assignment
    - The death Vesper still having an influence on Bonds nature
    - The dead Mr. White who basically influences his daughter's life after she had long forgotton him

    ...
    If you don't see this as a theme in the movie, I'm afraid it's rather your fault not to blame Mendes.

    Oh and by the way: I though it was a pretty damm cool moment when after the gunbarrel, those words were "hammered" there. Love that moment.

    Apart from that:
    I don't get this argument that Mendes' movies are pretentious. Here we have, for the first time in the series, a director who combines maginificent visual story telling with some kind of weight to the story, and he gets called "pretentious".

    I'm so happy that the Bond movies are not made for the fans but rather for the other 99% of the audiences.

    For the first time? I see you haven't seen all the Bond films then.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Bond movies are made for the fans. Who else would they be made for? Anyone that buys a ticket is a fan. There are plenty of other movies people can go see. Its real hard to see everything that you want to see. Anyone that chooses to buy a ticket is a fan.
    There is a distinction between hardcore fan and regular fan, but both are fans.
    The hardcore are just more engaged via multiple viewings and analysis and discussion.
    The hardcore is actually the group you are taking note of because that is the group you get your feedback from.
    Most businesses go to great lengths to beg for feedback, with survey enticements etc, but in the movie business fans just serve it up without being badgered.

    Mendes is a good film director, but I think he has been a terrible choice for Bond.
    I find his thematic pretentions to be dull in both SF and especially SP.

    In SF they were kind of interesting but in SP , I found the Dead Do Live theme to forced, trite even. Its not that interesting.
    I will allow the Dead Do Live, does reference a tad more than Franz coming back from the dead and the Day of the Dead street party.

    Yes we also get M speaking from the grave.

    But Hannes doesn't haunt the proceedings. The elder Oberhauser influenced both Bond and Franz very much while he was alive and not from beyond the grave in any big way, other than the normal carry forward one might expect.

    But alive he caused son Franz to lose his mind and while alive he caused Bond to mature as an an adolescent.

    Vesper's death impacting Bond I guess is true, but we are long past that. It's nothing new for this film.

    The dead Mr White yes does hold sway with daughter, in that his death is catalyst for her to journey to the SP compound.

    So OK the title card does reference a few aspects of the story, but still they strike me as anecdotal. I don't get the sense of a prevailing theme.

    The movie is more about Bond simply executing a mission that M happened to give him from beyond the grave, but still the film is mainly about Bond on mission. He's just trying to get the job done.

    The movie is also about Blofeld finally coming face-to-face with this nuisance Mi6-agent nemesis from his childhood and his continued fruitless attempts to finish him off...which alas is the bane of Blofelds existence....to be continually thwarted by Agent 007.

    I find Mendes thematic pretentions to be not really very interesting, and the fact that he actually says that he needs Bond to be on a personal journey, or he can't make the movie, I find to be tedious.

    I don't think Mendes was ever a good fit for Bond, but whats done is done.

    Bond will persevere and move on to the next mission, because that's what he is, Flemings blunt instrument, motivated by duty.

    He's not really that interesting a character emotionally or thematically, rather his appeal has always been that he is exciting.

    Craig to his credit, at least in this film, really does find the authentic Bond-on-mission persona despite Mendes.

    Spectre is a triumph of Bond over Mendes I do believe.
    That's part of the appeal for me.
    SF though was a triumph of Mendes over Bond.

  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited December 2015 Posts: 357
    timmer wrote: »

    …As for improvements to this film. Well what's done is done. I find with Bond films you eventually accept them for what they are. I wouldn't want to change them after the fact, except I wouldn't mind a copy of AVTAK minus the Beach Boys tension destroying musical interlude, and a copy of TMWTGG minus the car jump whistle, so I am not being terribly conistent here, but those two moments really do grate.

    But how could you forget to include the Tarzan call in Octopussy!

    Other than that, a very interesting analysis timmer ; )


  • edited December 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Yes good @seve I hear you.
    I am excusing the Tarzan yell only because its part of a broader jungle schtick which also includes telling a tiger to sit etc.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 357
    I don't think Blo-bro is of itself a bad idea, but the execution is poor, we would need to see a lot more backstory character development to make it work, perhaps told in flashback in a conversation between Bond and the girl on the train before they were so rudely interrupted by Batista? Or by Blofeld himself in conversation with the girl in between torturing Bond, but with something more meaty to back up the mere fact of it

    This was an attempt to give Blofeld a reboot in the same way that Bond was given a reboot in Casino Royale, but they couldn’t devote the necessary amount of screen time to it, as the audience expects Bond to be front and center from the get go. To succeed they would have had give Blofeld as much back story development time as the Green Goblin or Dr Octopus received in Spider-man or The Joker and whoever the villains were in the third Chris Nolan Batman movie. But what would a Bond audience have made of that?

    The worst part is they stole the idea from...

    "Austin prepares to shoot Dr. Evil, when Nigel Powers appears and reveals Dr. Evil and Austin are brothers"

    OMG the irony of it all!
  • Guntram_ShatterhandGuntram_Shatterhand The Shadows
    edited December 2015 Posts: 12
    I personally didn't like this unnecessary connection story, but hate it more that now they've chosen it did not capitalize on it, as Seve mentions, it could've been an interesting look into their past as well as a slowing element in the movie, making it more gritty.

    Furthermore, Blofeld is generally portrayed as a cautious, silent, menacing, powerful and intelligent control freak who does not handle any direct confrontations. The way the Rome scene and the Lair introduction are handled do this very powerfully in my view. This also goes back to the previous films, where he is so shadowy that no-one knows about them. So what the hell is he doing in London at the MI6 building? There is no reason for him to be there, and the helicopter scene capitalizes on this problem, putting him in a un-blofeld like vulnerable position. This makes no sense to me, even after three viewings.

    And the way how Bond escapes the lair also has this problem in a way, but now that Bond can be tortured and without effect run out, shoot a couple of bullets and somehow blow the entire building without breaking a sweat. Highly bizar.
    This weak story telling can partly be fixed in my view, by connecting the next film and filling in the parts that are now missing, therefore making it a more gritty film as well. Just my two cents anyway.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,741
    timmer wrote: »
    Spectre is a triumph of Bond over Mendes I do believe.
    That's part of the appeal for me.
    SF though was a triumph of Mendes over Bond.

    Basically I agree.
  • Posts: 14,951
    @Guntram-He had one good reason to be in London: hubris. Blofeld wanted to see his baby come to life himself and directly eliminate all potential obstacles. He also wanted to deal with Bond personally. It's not out of character for Blofeld or indeed many Bond villains to get into harm's way out of arrogance and overconfidence.

    I'd agree about the easily destroyed lair in Morocco but so was dispatched Dr No's lair.
  • edited December 2015 Posts: 1,631
    I think what I would have done differently would have been as follows:

    -Give the film a different title. SPECTRE is too on the nose, and robs the film of the chance to build the organization up as something of a mystery. For example, the board room scene should have been later in the film and should have been something of a reveal, a chance for Bond, and the audience, to see our first visual confirmation that the organization does in fact exist and that it is indeed called SPECTRE.

    -Go back to the idea of the code book and discovering Blofeld and/or SPECTRE through the deciphering of the code book. The SPECTRE ring can figure into Bond's infiltration of the meeting later on in the film, but the uncovering of the organization and its leader should have been a mystery for Bond to unravel, not something that we get handed to us in the pre-titles.

    -The identity of Blofeld should have remained a mystery throughout. Set several people up to be the leader of SPECTRE. Give the film some twists and turns, similar to what they did with the Hunt/Faust relationship in Rogue Nation, but on a much more complex level than the somewhat basic double-agent thing they had going in that film, and have Bond work with people of questionable allegiances, so that we're left wondering who Bond can actually trust, who is actually on his side and who may or may not be an agent (or leader) of SPECTRE (the MI6 crew would not be a part of this, however. The whole trust issue has been played to death on that level).

    -Give SPECTRE a scheme that's actually threatening. The surveillance scheme is a solid one, but if they are truly the authors of all Bond's pain, then their fourth go-round should be something truly sinister, more along the lines of a Thunderball plot rather than selling a surveillance system to the world's governments. The plot needs to be something that is of urgent importance to the governments of the world, such as a series of terrorist attacks or some kind of violence (or threat of violence) on a large scale that gets their attention, even though they don't know who is behind it and the extent of their global influence.

    -Get rid of the step-brother aspect of the Bond/Blofeld relationship. It's unnecessary.

    -Introduce Madeleine Swann much earlier in the film and really give her and Bond a solid romantic subplot so that the events of the climax of the film are earned. I'd largely leave the climax of the film unchanged, only changing things to make it a bit more exciting, such as finding a different way for Bond to take down Blofeld rather than simply shooting his pistol at the chopper until it crashes.

    -Maybe (and I'm only being half-serious here ;) ) end the film on a cliff-hanger. Bond and Madeleine driving through the countryside (I'd film it exactly where they filmed the ending of OHMSS and we see a car appear behind him as we go to the credits).
  • Guntram_ShatterhandGuntram_Shatterhand The Shadows
    edited December 2015 Posts: 12
    Ludovico wrote: »
    @Guntram-He had one good reason to be in London: hubris. Blofeld wanted to see his baby come to life himself and directly eliminate all potential obstacles. He also wanted to deal with Bond personally. It's not out of character for Blofeld or indeed many Bond villains to get into harm's way out of arrogance and overconfidence.

    I'd agree about the easily destroyed lair in Morocco but so was dispatched Dr No's lair.
    It does explain it somewhat indeed, but I still see it as a weak part of the film, mostly because he actually doesn't seem to be interested in the system and only focusses on getting back at Bond in the building to then fly off in his chopper without knowledge on how the system is brought offline. I think they could've done better. Part of the problem for me is indeed what Dalton posts below you, Blofeld and Spectre are revealed too soon, the Rome scene is so brilliant but this mysterious air only stays briefly.


    I agree with most of your suggestions Dalton, but your last point:
    dalton wrote: »
    -Maybe (and I'm only being half-serious here ;)) end the film on a cliff-hanger. Bond and Madeleine driving through the countryside (I'd film it exactly where they filmed the ending of OHMSS and we see a car appear behind him as we go to the credits).

    I actually think this would've been really interesting. I wouldn't have thought of it but I can totally imagine the shock on Bond fans when seeing that followed up by the message James Bond will Return. Good one!
  • Posts: 14,951
    It could have been done differently but Blofeld's presence in London is perfectly justifiable. As for his capture I think they needed an unequivocal victory for Bond.
  • gumboltgumbolt Now with in-office photocopier
    Posts: 153
    I agree that ending with a sinister car stalking them would have been great, especially if it was at night and the tail lights faded away to black screen and then the word SPECTRE with octopus logo had appeared - confirming the worst and leaving everything open for the next movie. Damn that would have been so much better!
  • Posts: 14,951
    There's a reason why they didn't go this route: Bond needed a complete, unambiguous victory.
  • Guntram_ShatterhandGuntram_Shatterhand The Shadows
    Posts: 12
    Since DC refused to commit for one more film this was indeed what they had to progress toward, but in the catagory of things that would be nice to have done different, this ending theory is a great idea. The story would've had more time to evolve properly if they knew a second film would follow it up I think.
  • Posts: 14,951
    It's not so much because Craig might not do a fifth Bond, it is because each of his previous endings were bittersweet.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,115
    I love that Craig's endings are bittersweet. It suits his portrayal of Bond.
  • Posts: 45
    There's tons of different ways you can come up with little things to change, a lot of the parts I would change I have seen mentioned in this thread, but there's one I haven't.

    Mexico

    The long shot was awesome, but IMO it would have made it so much more incredible if it had continued until Bond got into the chopper. Since the long shot was really 3 separate shots anyways, why not make it a few more and extend it out?

    When Bond is scoping the window where the shot does end, instead of having it cut, have the camera pan back and forth a bit between bond and the window, and then have it pan quickly left and right as he shoots everyone and the bomb.

    Then have it pan back and go back over to him. I would cut the part where the building falls on his building for reasons I'll explain at the end of the scene.

    Then you just have the camera continue following/panning around a bit as he makes his way down the building to meet up with Sciara. Once you get to the streets its easy to have it continue the long shot until he makes it to the chopper.

    Yes it'd be pretty tough to do, and would likely extend the 3 "single long shot" scene to as many as 7-10, but I think it'd be spectacular. Having the long shot continue in the chopper really wouldn't work, so no need for that.

    Then at the end of the scene, they really missed an opportunity here, although with the building he started in destroyed, he couldn't do it. They should have had him land the chopper somewhere on the original building, and hop back in the window to see the girl. He did tell her after all "I won't be long". That would have been a true bond opener ending for me, with him right back with the chick. It'd be a bit corny and Moore like, but still awesome IMO.
  • Posts: 14,951
    echo wrote: »
    I love that Craig's endings are bittersweet. It suits his portrayal of Bond.

    And very in tone with many of Fleming's novels, but I understand why, after three bittersweet ending when Bond even when winning is alone, they wanted him to have one unambiguous victory where not only he defeats the villain, but he triumphs over him, gets the girl, etc. Since they could not kill Blofeld right away, they had to have him captured. And in itself, that makes Bond's triumph even greater: Blofeld is humiliated far more than had he been killed.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    But how is it an unambiguous victory?

    Blofeld is not dead so even the thickest audience members know that he's going to escape and odds on shoot Madeline in the head in the next film.

    Bond is only victorious in the context of the running time of the film SPECTRE. In B25 we all know Blofeld is going to escape so why not just let him do it here instead of convolutedly having him survive being blown up a second time without being killed and then having to come up with an equally convoluted escape from prison scene at the start of the next film?

    As @Guntram_Shatterhand says above the Blofeld character is weakened by his stupid actions in the final act. They finally got their hands on the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE and rather than come up with a rebooted criminal mastermind a la Fleming's Blofeld from TB the novel they make him just a whining teenager.

    Other SPECTRE operatives should be out in the field while Ernst sits behind a desk safely out of harms way. What function does it serve to his scheme for him to be skulking around the MI6 building as Nine Eyes go live?

    The stepbrother thing is a pile of shite - I think we can all agree on that point - but I could overlook it if they just left it in the lair. The trouble is by having Blofeld come to London they demean the character as he's only obsessed with stalking Bond.

    It's C who is the professional here dealing with the Nine Eyes launch whilst Ernst Potters about the basement of MI6 trying to torture Bond.

    F**king Bond over as an incidental pleasure to the rest of his activities I can live with but in the final act it is all he cares about despite all the effort that has gone into Nine Eyes.

    This is poor and makes 'super criminal' Blofeld come across as an amateur. I blame Mendes almost exclusively for this as it's him who has to have this personal angle all the time.

    Yes the personal angle is key to the Bond-Blofeld dynamic but why does it need to be there from the start? Why can't we see it evolve? Isnt it personal enough in this film for him to have been involved in the deaths of Vesper and M? And then in the next film presumably Madeline? Why do we have to shoehorn this stepbrother bollocks in as well?

    Possibly the root of the problem is down to the fact that they couldn't hold back and shot their wad over Blofeld too quickly. Why couldn't we build up to his reveal slowly over a few films?

    But no because they were scared that this might be Dan's last and they were so desperate to get Mendes back they let them go from never having heard of Blofeld to foiled and captured in one film.

    Babs needed to be stronger and say 'we're just setting Blofeld up in this film. If you can't commit to B25 Dan fair enough - another actor will get that payoff.'

    I worry that Babs is making decisions that effect the series adversely just to give Mendes whatever he wants.

    EON need to remember that no one is bigger than the club.
Sign In or Register to comment.