SPECTRE: What would you have done differently?

145791021

Comments

  • edited January 2016 Posts: 11,189
    To me the final act was easily the weakest/most generic part of the film with Bond running round in the maze and seeing the line-up of photos Saw-style. I also found the showdown with the helicopter a bit weak.

    I probably would have preferred Blofeld to have escaped in the helicopter and have Bond almost be killed trying to save Madeline. However, both manage to survive and head off into the sunset (Craig needed to get his woman this time).
  • Posts: 14,893
    When the credits roll Blofeld is captured and humiliated. He's not on the run, his scheme has been thwarted and Bond gets the girl. That's an unambiguous victory. We don't know what happens in Bond 25. The movie hasn't been made yet. He's completely irrelevant to the latest Bond movie and it's conclusion.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited January 2016 Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    To me the final act was easily the weakest/most generic part of the film with Bond running round in the maze and seeing the line-up of photos Saw-style. I also found the showdown with the helicopter a bit weak.

    I probably would have preferred Blofeld to have escaped in the helicopter and have Bond almost be killed trying to save Madeline. However, both manage to survive and head off into the sunset (Craig needed to get his woman this time).

    Quite.

    My preference is for Blofeld not to turn up in London at all but if he has to be there then have him escape.

    Also the whole 'Madeline tied to a chair while the bomb counts down' feels like something that was already old hat in silent films. Is that really the best they could come up with?
    Why not go the whole hog and have her tied to a train track while Blofeld twirls his moustache?
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When the credits roll Blofeld is captured and humiliated. He's not on the run, his scheme has been thwarted and Bond gets the girl. That's an unambiguous victory. We don't know what happens in Bond 25. The movie hasn't been made yet. He's completely irrelevant to the latest Bond movie and it's conclusion.

    Except in Craig/Mendes world everything is connected so you can't look at anything in isolation.
    You can kid yourself that Bond has his victory because it seems like Blofeld is beaten but we all know that until he's dead he is not vanquished. Like it or not Blofeld is not beaten because he's still alive. In the world of film prison for people like Blofeld only means they will return in the next installment.

    Yes it seems like Bond has driven off I to the sunset with the girl but this victory is illusory because we know by the laws of the Bond universe that Blofeld must escape rather than sitting in chokey for 50 years and Madeline also must die, or at the very least not end up celebrating her Ruby wedding anniversary with Bond.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 4,602
    Its funny how, on the TV, certain movies come up that make interesting comparisons. Over Xmas, I watched Dr No again and obviously there is the "you've had your six" scene, so important in establishing that Bond has the full authority to kill and will not hesitate. The next day, Dirty Harry was on. A different genre and very much the anti hero but, at the end , another iconic scene "did I fire six shots or only five?" and, again, we see our hero shoot the villain with effectiveness and no emotion. Two very different movies but both important and very popular with the audience. Partly, IMHO, because we see the good guy shoot the bad guy. That's what mainstream audiences have always wanted IMHO, its back to George slaying the dragon etc etc. Dent and Scorpio got what they deserve in the eyes of the audience. Its not subtle but its a pure type of justice that the cinema works with. Move on to Spectre and we see our hero taking another option (and possibly a weaker one in the eyes of the audience). The audience does not get the resolution that really good movies bring and we see a massive chasm between the SC Bond and the DC Bond.
    PS can anyone imagine Callahan arresting Scorpio? He created a situation that allowed Scorpio to go for the gun and, therefore, Callahan was justified in killing him. Arrest and the course of justice was not enough. Only death is enough (now there's another potential Bond title?) and that was the only resolution acceptable to Callahan and, by implication, the audience who fight for justice along side him. For Bond, the license to kill is the main foundation of his character and role as a double o agent. Once the writers start messing with that (license to arrest? license to kill if he is in the right mood?), you are in dangerous waters. I think, only after the initial excitement is over, are many fans realising what a mess Spectre is in terms of what that have done to his basic character and background.
  • Posts: 14,893
    This is non sequitur: the movie stands on its own, whether it is connected to the previous ones and future ones or not. QOS is connected to CR, but you can appreciate CR with no knowledge whatsoever of QOS. That the third Godfather movie is poor compared to the first two takes nothing away from them. And they both stand on their own.

    Of course Blofeld will return! His defeat is still completed in SP: his plan failed and he got captive. If someone is tried for murder and condemned, the trial was a success for the prosecution, whether the convicted escapes from jail afterwards. If you consider Bond's victory illusory in this case, then it is illusory in DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT and DAF. Victory are fleeting things, that's their nature, they are not permanent things. Not in fiction, not in real life.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Posts: 4,478
    Only based on only 1 cinema view on this moment and only a selection.
    Somethings i wil mabey re-use for my review.

    Spoiler = Dutch translation.

    I wil give opening of movie and Holiday in Marocco a more warm feel. I whant to see more swet on Bond and the two girls. A bit of Casino Royale Madagascar. Spectre be a bit in middle. But a lot of Spectre overall is middle.
    Opening van de film en vakantie in Marokko wat meer warme uitstraling. Wat meer sweet zien bij Bond en de twee Bond girls. Beetje van de Madagascar feel uit Casino Royale. Spectre hangt er tussen in, maar hele film hangt vaak tussen in.

    I am happy there return to film. Directer, editor and production designer and art directers should have take note of greenscreen/cardboard mistake far behind the church. I think this happend because of Helicopter scene. I think it is done like helicopter / motorbike scene in Tomorrow Never Dies. But i am so happy the movie was filming on film and for now i wil forgive this mistake. Because it was not so worse as Ice surfing scene mistake of Die Another Day.
    Ben blij dat ze weer hebben gefilmd op film. Aan de regisseur, editor, set bouwers: Jammer van de set fout / green screen achter in bij de kerk. Één en ander misschien met de helicopter scene te maken. Deed me meest denken aan Tomorrow Never Dies Helicopter / motor scene. Maar ik ben blij dat ze weer gefilmd hebben op film, dat ik het voor nu wel kan vergeven. Het is lang niet zo erg als de bekende Ice rots surf scene in Die Another Day.

    In Skyfall it whas Moneypenny and introduction. This time that silly line go to Frans and his line, from now on you can name me.. Also Bond's to fast/easy take over. I wil cut it and keep the mystery. Showing the cat be for that moment enough. I get idea there use new fans as big excuse, a bad choose. Close two end of movie we get two better/smatters symbols. One of them i see reference to Diamonds Are Forever and other one on a bridge to For Your Eyes Only. But more about that in my review.
    In Skyfall was het de introductie van Moneypenny. Nu gaat deze eer naar Frans en zijn ''vanaf nu mag je me .. noemen'' en als mede de reactie van Bond hier op. Voordat moment tonen van de kat is genoeg. ''Nieuwe fans'' als excuse gebruiken vind ik een slechte smoes, gewoon een foute beslissing. Tegen het einde van de film zitten twee veel betere hints. Één van hun noem ik Diamonds Are Forever en andere scene op brug: For Your Eyes Only. Meer hier over in mijn review van de film.

    The movie feels 30-40 minutes to long. 128 minutes screentime insteed of 148. In cinema i notice people have troubles with screentime, whyle watching the movie. Realy get idea the other audince are happy when it end. Me too.
    Liever een speelduur gezien van 128 minuten inplaats van 148. De film is 30-45 minuten te lang. Dat merkte ik ook al tijdens het kijken van de film en achter af.Veel gezucht in de zaal van opluchting, ook bij mij.

    Introduction of Sedoux be to long and to predectible. There are 3-4 moments that hint the end. Scene's i cut or change to make movie les long are atleast: Last Q scene and whyle i understand symbol of it, i cut also the last scene of movie who followed. Mabey i take the option to changed it a bit with making scene with Q a bit shorter, with Bond not asking but taking. A bit like earlier part with the other car, that scene i changed a litle bit too. Bond get notice of car not introduced to the car. This also complete cut joke with the watch who don't expect in the actualy movie. Insteed the watch wil be in or on the dashboard of the car.
    Introductie van Sedoux duurt te lang en te voorspelbaar. Er zijn drie tot vier momenten dat film hint naar een einde. Scene's wie ik verwijderd of aangepast zou hebben: De laatste scene met Q en ondanks dat ik de symboliek begrijp, zou ik ook de laatste scene van de film wissen. Maar misschien zou ik overwegen om de scene met Q in te korten, niet vragen maar nemen. Zoals eerdere scene met de andere auto, ook deze scene zou ik beetje aanpassen. De auto word niet aan Bond onthuld, maar hij neemt hem waar. Als resultaat, ook de grap met het horloge weg. Scene die ik niet had verwacht in de film. Inplaats daarvan vind Bond het horloge in dashbord kastje of er boven op het dashboard.
  • Posts: 4,602
    "His defeat is still completed in SP"
    Bond kills the bad guys, that is the nature of his license. If defeat comes in the form of arrest and trial, then we see Bond brought down to the level of a policeman. Its like a superhero choosing not to use their special powers. Bond is a type of superhero in that he has that license and has used it many times.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 14,893
    patb wrote: »
    "His defeat is still completed in SP"
    Bond kills the bad guys, that is the nature of his license. If defeat comes in the form of arrest and trial, then we see Bond brought down to the level of a policeman. Its like a superhero choosing not to use their special powers. Bond is a type of superhero in that he has that license and has used it many times.

    No, the nature of his license is to allow him to kill when necessary, if necessary and that he is allowed to make this decision. M actually made a point about it in the movie. It was also referred to in previous movies and not only in the Craig era. If M revokes Bond's license to kill in LTK, it is because he considers that Bond cannot make that decision anymore. And in this movie and others (DN, TWINE, CR, QOS), Bond captures a villain or tries to.

    And even in the novels, Bond sometimes does not kill the badguy, or tries not to when possible. In OHMSS, he tries to set a trap for Blofeld to leave Piz Gloria and have him captured. In SP, there was no reason for him to kill Blofeld: the man was defenseless, unable to escape anymore and he was a far more valuable as a prisoner than as a trophy. And Blofeld was also asking for it. So why would Bond grant him his wish?

    Bottom line Bond is not Dirty Harry and his license to kill is not an obligation to kill: he is meant to know when it is the right course of action to kill.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    royale65 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Waltz and Craig handled it perfectly. Bond didn't really seem to care nor seemed to dwell on it.

    That is the saving grace right there.

    I'll agree with that. My gripe is that the foster brother angle hurt Blofeld's credibility and menace.
  • edited January 2016 Posts: 11,189
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When the credits roll Blofeld is captured and humiliated. He's not on the run, his scheme has been thwarted and Bond gets the girl. That's an unambiguous victory. We don't know what happens in Bond 25. The movie hasn't been made yet. He's completely irrelevant to the latest Bond movie and it's conclusion.

    But Blofeld could still have his scheme thwarted and escape.

    Maybe it's more in the way the climax was done with the shooting down of the helicopter that I had a problem with. Somehow it didn't seem as gripping or as tense as it was intended. It seemed a bit...run of the mill IMO.

    A pity really, because I think the first half of SP was great.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Some very interesting points. Re captured and humiliated, considering what a "nasty piece of work" Blofeld is, I am convinced that, in the eyes of the audience, time in a UK jail is too good for him (plus we all know he will escape) and this is reflected in the real World. Re Zero Dark Thirty, it was decided that legal process and jail was just too complicated and the bad guy was shot and thrown into the sea. Only those with extreme liberal views had an issue with this and (in a reflection of Judge Dredd) instant justice was delivered. Who knows, perhaps M himself would have preferred Bond to kill Blofeld on the bridge and be done with it rather than have to read the guy his rights, get him fingerprinted, searched, phone call to his defence lawyer etc etc. The day to day drudgery of arrest some how does not work for me within the Bond atmosphere.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    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.
    I think you've hit the nail on the proverbial head here. This is probably exactly what happened. Cubby is sorely missed.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Yes, thats a very good point. We go from the big reveal in the boardroom to "cuff him" in what, around 110 mins? or so. There was potential to have Blofeld revealed slowly over 2 or 3 movies with Bond getting closer and fighting Blofeld's agents rather than the man himself. All too rushed and a massive waste of potential plots, characters and tension
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,067
    Also the whole 'Madeline tied to a chair while the bomb counts down' feels like something that was already old hat in silent films. Is that really the best they could come up with?
    Why not go the whole hog and have her tied to a train track while Blofeld twirls his moustache?

    I agree. But this is also very Fleming (CR, MR, DAF, TMWTGG), albeit one of his weaker plot devices.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think others may have said this too, but we've also seen Craig's Bond decide to hand the enemy over to the authorities rather than kill him in QoS.
  • Posts: 14,893
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    When the credits roll Blofeld is captured and humiliated. He's not on the run, his scheme has been thwarted and Bond gets the girl. That's an unambiguous victory. We don't know what happens in Bond 25. The movie hasn't been made yet. He's completely irrelevant to the latest Bond movie and it's conclusion.

    But Blofeld could still have his scheme thwarted and escape.

    Maybe it's more in the way the climax was done with the shooting down of the helicopter that I had a problem with. Somehow it didn't seem as gripping or as tense as it was intended. It seemed a bit...run of the mill IMO.

    A pity really, because I think the first half of SP was great.

    I don't mind him being captured, I understand why they wanted him captured: the victory as I mentioned is thus more certain, unambiguous (so far every Craig ending had been bittersweet). And he'd escaped in about three movies or so (albeit in a different timeline and incarnation). But furthermore, Blofeld wanted to be killed, challenged Bond to do it. Why would Bond take the bait? Especially since Blofeld has potentially vital information he can provide if interrogated. He might not want to give them, but why not take the chance? And like I said, it's not like Bond in both movies and novels did not capture or try to capture people in the past, instead of killing them. Case in point, OHMSS. I do agree that the way Blofeld was captured was a bit thin. After Bond survives the last ordeal, Blofeld becomes a mere target. Not unlike Jack Spang in DAF.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    The sets were poor especially the spectre meeting. The Q lab is another.
    The song and titles could be much better.
    Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci were boring bond girls.
    Less bland london location shoots.
    No more db5. Time to retire it. The db10 looked great. Twice as good as the db5. :)

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,067
    [quote="001;538602Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci were boring bond girls.
    Less bland london location shoots.
    No more db5. Time to retire it. The db10 looked great. Twice as good as the db5. :)[/quote]

    The last word I would use to describe Bellucci is boring.
  • Posts: 1,631
    It's the last word I'd use to describe Lea Seydoux as well. Not sure how Belucci could be boring, since she's not in the film long enough for anyone to possibly be bored with her or her character.

  • Posts: 14,893
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    001 wrote: »
    The sets were poor especially the spectre meeting. The Q lab is another.
    The song and titles could be much better.
    Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci were boring bond girls.
    Less bland london location shoots.
    No more db5. Time to retire it. The db10 looked great. Twice as good as the db5. :)

    My opinion is diametrically opposed to yours on all those counts. Well EXCEPT for the theme.

    SP garners such strong opinions though. You can pretty much pick and choose any number of reasons why you hate it or love it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,677
    001 wrote: »
    The sets were poor especially the spectre meeting. The Q lab is another.
    The song and titles could be much better.
    Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci were boring bond girls.
    Less bland london location shoots.
    No more db5. Time to retire it. The db10 looked great. Twice as good as the db5. :)

    I disagree on all of this. The SPECTRE meeting looked poor? Bellucci is bland? Come on.
  • Posts: 533
    Hire a different leading lady.
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

  • Posts: 14,893
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ludovico wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.

    X_X ...
  • Posts: 14,893
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.

    X_X ...

    Lame joke I know, but if Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci are not worthy of being Bond girls, then who is?
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.

    X_X ...

    Lame joke I know, but if Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci are not worthy of being Bond girls, then who is?

    They most definitely are worthy. What wasn't worthy was their script.

    I don't always get the criteria some use to judge the quality of casting or performance.

  • Posts: 14,893
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.

    X_X ...

    Lame joke I know, but if Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci are not worthy of being Bond girls, then who is?

    They most definitely are worthy. What wasn't worthy was their script.

    I don't always get the criteria some use to judge the quality of casting or performance.

    We can debate the script and their respective characters as written. But the criticism we objected to here was about their casting unless I'm mistaken.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    001 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    If you find either one of them boring, you're not doing it properly.

    How old are you, 12 ?

    Apparently I'm old enough to appreciate their types of beauty. And their acting skills.

    X_X ...

    Lame joke I know, but if Léa Seydoux and Monica Bellucci are not worthy of being Bond girls, then who is?

    They most definitely are worthy. What wasn't worthy was their script.

    I don't always get the criteria some use to judge the quality of casting or performance.

    We can debate the script and their respective characters as written. But the criticism we objected to here was about their casting unless I'm mistaken.

    Yes I know that. I was trying to support your response to @001 but never mind.
Sign In or Register to comment.