Are we all happy now that dust has settled? -Spectre Spoilers

2456715

Comments

  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))<
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,352
    I did enjoy the film, especially the second and third viewing. The first I didn't so much, but I blame that on personal setbacks, the fourth brought foreward the one thing that has been itching in the back of my mind and up till then couldn't really understand. There was something wrong not only with SPECTRE, but with SKYFALL as well. And to be honest, I think it's the writers. Yes, the dialogue has improved since Purvis and Wade got assistance, but the films lack originality. And it shows so much more in SPECTRE as the situations Bond find himself in are recycled even more so in SP. Take the ending: Blofeld is captured, but not killed. This means he has to escape at the biginning of the next film. Like Silva did half way through SF. Bond is going rogue.... again. It would've been far better if he'd been on a mission in Mexico as he should've trusted the new M after SF. M trusted him as head of the security committee and he took M (Old M) up to Scotland didn't he? The film wouldn't have to be that different but at least we'd have had Bond on a regular mission which perhaps got too much attention, forcing M to protect Bond and making it a race against the clock. We'd still have the headlines nod towards CR. But the writers are, imo, too hung up on themselves and former 'good ideas'. There's nothing new and fresh any more, and though I think Daniel played Bond exactly as he should, the film became, I don't want to say boring, but at least less entertaining becouse it was too predictable.

    It's now really time for Purvis and Wade to step back. They've done enough, had their successes, but they're now rehearsing. and that's not good.

    I also think that one of the problems with SP (which I enjoyed a lot, nevertheless) is that it cites film-Bond history too often. The old clichés reappear, going rogue, bringing back the DB5 (I was relieved when it was destroyed in SF, thinking that now we can finally put that retro-clichee to rest), the over-confident villain who is too full of himself to even consider the prospect of failure (even though several previous attempts at Bond's life and brain remained unsuccessful).

    Also the ease with which Bond sailed through all of this is almost comedic, firmly rooted in Moore and DAF/Connery territory: Impeccably he steps out of the parachute, he conveniently lands on a sofa to soften a fall that would have killed him, and his brain seems to be rearranged as well, how else would he have escaped the debilitating effects of the second brain invasion? It was all a bit too easy, almost DAD-ish, if I dare say this.

    The question is: Can we really blame P&W for that? Nobody here knows which parts of the story were developed by them.
  • I liked the film, but I won't truly know how I feel about it until I see the followup. If Craig and Waltz (and even Seydoux, for that matter) don't return, I think I'll probably consider this a wasted opportunity and, ultimately, a failure. If they do return, then I might think Spectre is great. It's a very strange position to be in, one that I've never experienced at the end of a Bond movie before, but it's this weird feeling of tying up Craig's run but also setting up another sequel. An odd balance, to say the least.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    For me too much credibility and good work from Dan's prior films were sacrificed to accommodate Spectre's return and story. I think I would have accepted it more if they had not tried to link in every prior film. If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00".
    2. Bond being given the Mission to Madagascar.
    3. Bond falling for Vesper, after all it is Bond who pursues Vesper more than she pursues him. All so that Blofeld could hurt the man who in his eyes stole his fathers affection. Made him fall in love, then made her drown herself?

    It's an insult to anyone with intelligence. Nothing anyone can say can change my mind, this was a well acted, well executed disaster of a story line. The Cast carry the film. I think it what over adventurous from Mendes, I think he got carried away with scale and sacrificed on story. In time it won't be a good stand alone film because it relies on the 4 before it to make any sense.

    I would rather if they were bringing back Spectre that they left out the personal vendetta aspect. Spectre should have been unmasked as the overall organisation and Quantum were those funding it's birth.
  • Posts: 10,362
    I did enjoy the film, especially the second and third viewing. The first I didn't so much, but I blame that on personal setbacks, the fourth brought foreward the one thing that has been itching in the back of my mind and up till then couldn't really understand. There was something wrong not only with SPECTRE, but with SKYFALL as well. And to be honest, I think it's the writers. Yes, the dialogue has improved since Purvis and Wade got assistance, but the films lack originality. And it shows so much more in SPECTRE as the situations Bond find himself in are recycled even more so in SP. Take the ending: Blofeld is captured, but not killed. This means he has to escape at the biginning of the next film. Like Silva did half way through SF. Bond is going rogue.... again. It would've been far better if he'd been on a mission in Mexico as he should've trusted the new M after SF. M trusted him as head of the security committee and he took M (Old M) up to Scotland didn't he? The film wouldn't have to be that different but at least we'd have had Bond on a regular mission which perhaps got too much attention, forcing M to protect Bond and making it a race against the clock. We'd still have the headlines nod towards CR. But the writers are, imo, too hung up on themselves and former 'good ideas'. There's nothing new and fresh any more, and though I think Daniel played Bond exactly as he should, the film became, I don't want to say boring, but at least less entertaining becouse it was too predictable.

    It's now really time for Purvis and Wade to step back. They've done enough, had their successes, but they're now rehearsing. and that's not good.

    Totally agree.

    Poor writing has been the Achilles heal of the series for decades now.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    But the writers are, imo, too hung up on themselves and former 'good ideas'. There's nothing new and fresh any more, and though I think Daniel played Bond exactly as he should, the film became, I don't want to say boring, but at least less entertaining becouse it was too predictable.
    Not just the writers imho, but even the director and the producers. The history almost appears to have become a burden for some of these people. They don't know how to transcend it without appearing to regurgitate it.

    They should credit the audience with more intelligence firstly, like they did in CR/QoS. That is the direction they must continue with imho.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138
    bondjames wrote: »
    But the writers are, imo, too hung up on themselves and former 'good ideas'. There's nothing new and fresh any more, and though I think Daniel played Bond exactly as he should, the film became, I don't want to say boring, but at least less entertaining becouse it was too predictable.
    Not just the writers imho, but even the director and the producers. The history almost appears to have become a burden for some of these people. They don't know how to transcend it without appearing to regurgitate it.

    They should credit the audience with more intelligence firstly, like they did in CR/QoS. That is the direction they must continue with imho.

    EON I have a new rule for you to follow now that the old rule of " When in doubt always go back to Fleming" can not be followed as there are no novels left to go back to.

    The new rule is "Bond should never parody itself, or repeat elements of a scene for the purposes of nostalgia".
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited November 2015 Posts: 3,260
    I agree. Time to end the homages; the films are getting top-heavy with them. And why are they still following Tamahori's lead in that regard?

    At least the Hildebrand reference in SP was fresh, but even that took me out of the film.

    I'm not sure if P&W are the problem but it might be time to start afresh (how many Bond stories do they have in them?). I know Babs and MGW think that P&W are the cat's meow when it comes to really knowing the character of Bond but can't Babs and MGW fill that role ("No, Mr./Ms. Screenwriter, Bond wouldn't do that." Repeat as necessary.)?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,497
    I was very excited to hear about the return of Spectre and Ernst. However I couldn't have been more disappointed and underwhelmed after seeing the film. What a let down. What a waste of good talent especially.

    It's already been mentioned pretty exhaustively in reviews, but the reveal was surprising to no one: to fans it was merely a shrug, to non-fans it was a "who-cares what his alias" is moment
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))<
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,352
    Whenever I watch a season of Homeland evolve, I ask myself why writing a clever and satisfying script for a 2-hour Bond movie is so difficult. Clever and witty dialogues are one thing that SP gets right, but the overall storyline is mediocre. "If in doubt, ask Fleming" has been the credo for script-writing lately. But this time it did not really work, as Oberhauser's motivation and efforts he expends to torment Bond are absolutely unbelievable.
  • Posts: 10,362
    zebrafish wrote: »
    Whenever I watch a season of Homeland evolve, I ask myself why writing a clever and satisfying script for a 2-hour Bond movie is so difficult. Clever and witty dialogues are one thing that SP gets right, but the overall storyline is mediocre. "If in doubt, ask Fleming" has been the credo for script-writing lately. But this time it did not really work, as Oberhauser's motivation and efforts he expends to torment Bond are absolutely unbelievable.

    It's bizarre. I think the writing is where Babs, MGW and Mendes have a totally tin ear. Plots, stories, even dialogue are at best derivative and at worst just plain awful.

    SP fell into the former category. Uninspired but just about serviceable.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00".
    2. Bond being given the Mission to Madagascar.
    3. Bond falling for Vesper, after all it is Bond who pursues Vesper more than she pursues him. All so that Blofeld could hurt the man who in his eyes stole his fathers affection. Made him fall in love, then made her drown herself?

    Way to take things absolutely literally. All you say makes very little sense. As I and others have mentioned on more than one occasion, Blofeld takes credit for the actions of his organisation, whether they are directly or indirectly implemented or executed by him personally. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can claim to be the author of many people's pain, does that mean he has orchestrated every last detail of the death of each and every ISIS victim?Bond set foot into Blofeld's world and given the circumstances he responded appropriately.
    It's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

    It isn't. If you don't like the 'connection' established between Bond and Oberhauser that's your prerogative, but to say it's unintelligent is nonsense. The jigsaw fits together and is underplayed and ambiguous enough to satisfy, but not undercooked enough to be incomprehensible. Do you just want every detail laid out for you like a recipe card?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    zebrafish wrote: »
    Whenever I watch a season of Homeland evolve, I ask myself why writing a clever and satisfying script for a 2-hour Bond movie is so difficult. Clever and witty dialogues are one thing that SP gets right, but the overall storyline is mediocre. "If in doubt, ask Fleming" has been the credo for script-writing lately. But this time it did not really work, as Oberhauser's motivation and efforts he expends to torment Bond are absolutely unbelievable.
    I was just thinking about Homeland earlier today. Good example. That is certainly a show that has reinvented itself a couple of times, while still being true to the characters at their core. It's very cleverly done, and Bond wouldn't be amiss to draw some inspiration from their writing dept. imho.
  • Posts: 10,362
    TV writing these days is so much better. Why can't EON realise this and bring in good new talent?
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote: »
    zebrafish wrote: »
    Whenever I watch a season of Homeland evolve, I ask myself why writing a clever and satisfying script for a 2-hour Bond movie is so difficult. Clever and witty dialogues are one thing that SP gets right, but the overall storyline is mediocre. "If in doubt, ask Fleming" has been the credo for script-writing lately. But this time it did not really work, as Oberhauser's motivation and efforts he expends to torment Bond are absolutely unbelievable.

    It's bizarre. I think the writing is where Babs, MGW and Mendes have a totally tin ear. Plots, stories, even dialogue are at best derivative and at worst just plain awful.

    SP fell into the former category. Uninspired but just about serviceable.

    Exactly, why are countless TV storylines with much lower budgets more satisfying than what we got with SP? The confounding part is that it seemed as if Ms. Broccoli/Mr. Wilson were trying to push Bond into the respected critical film circle by bringing in the likes of Academy Award winners Paul Haggis, Sam Mendes, Marc Forster, and Roger Deakins, along with nominee John Logan, yet SP misses the mark. Even looking critically at Skyfall, a film I enjoyed on the whole, the flaws in that film primarily stem from the cracks in the writing.

  • Posts: 10,362
    The writing in SF, whatever you think of the end product, is one of the low points in the entire series IMO.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    Getafix wrote: »
    TV writing these days is so much better. Why can't EON realise this and bring in good new talent?

    A lot of great TV writing, but a completely different discipline. Bond could be better, but it's not as easy as saying 'let's get some good writers and we're all set'. Imagine a raft of execs, producers and studio heads fixating over the script for your 'two episode' season launch, but for several years. It can't happen as your show would never see the light of day. The whole issue with film, in particular franchise film is that you're producing two hours of material that has to work and and as such everyone wants their say. You don't have time for your material to pick up pace after episode 5. People are far more used to character development across multiple episodes and series these days.
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Exactly, why are countless TV storylines with much lower budgets more satisfying than what we got with SP?

    See above. Film and TV are different beasts. Films are primarily plot led, where TV is primarily character led. It's why the multi-verse phenomenon is gathering pace, because it allows character development outside of a two hour window.
  • Posts: 1,497
    RC7 wrote: »
    The whole issue with film, in particular franchise film is that you're producing two hours of material that has to work and and as such everyone wants their say. You don't have time for your material to pick up pace after episode 5. People are far more used to character development across multiple episodes and series these days.

    I agree on that point. TV has the advantage of being able to flesh out characters over several episodes, which is part of the current appeal. However, on the point of films being a 2 years in the making production, that's even less of an excuse to have a disjointed script.

    I think the issue with Spectre, and this goes back to the original topic and ties into this conversation, is that the film-makers tried to do too much in the 2+ hours of screentime. The storylines were are all forced together without time to flesh them out satisfyingly. The Spectre/Ernst thread feels completely forced into the story and bogs the whole thing down. Add to that, all of the action scenes feel like filler to give the film more 'excitement' (as DC and Mendes begged P&W to do). It really boils down to the old saying of keeping it simple.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    The whole issue with film, in particular franchise film is that you're producing two hours of material that has to work and and as such everyone wants their say. You don't have time for your material to pick up pace after episode 5. People are far more used to character development across multiple episodes and series these days.

    I agree on that point. TV has the advantage of being able to flesh out characters over several episodes, which is part of the current appeal. However, on the point of films being a 2 years in the making production, that's even less of an excuse to have a disjointed script.

    It's worse because it just means two years of notes. It's why the argument of 'give them more time' is a fallacy. Scripts don't reach a point where they are perfect, they just reach a point where they go into production and from thereon continue to change. For a big-budget mainstream film to come out the other end as a great film it's almost impossible. There is no right way to do it. The only way to have any semblance of order is for everyone to be singing from the same sheet, but the bigger the production, the more cooks, and the more likely you'll find conflicting opinions.
  • Posts: 10,362
    RC7 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    TV writing these days is so much better. Why can't EON realise this and bring in good new talent?

    A lot of great TV writing, but a completely different discipline. Bond could be better, but it's not as easy as saying 'let's get some good writers and we're all set'. Imagine a raft of execs, producers and studio heads fixating over the script for your 'two episode' season launch, but for several years. It can't happen as your show would never see the light of day. The whole issue with film, in particular franchise film is that you're producing two hours of material that has to work and and as such everyone wants their say. You don't have time for your material to pick up pace after episode 5. People are far more used to character development across multiple episodes and series these days.
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    Exactly, why are countless TV storylines with much lower budgets more satisfying than what we got with SP?

    See above. Film and TV are different beasts. Films are primarily plot led, where TV is primarily character led. It's why the multi-verse phenomenon is gathering pace, because it allows character development outside of a two hour window.

    All very true. I agree. But then at least surely they should get the plot right. This is where the old films were so much stronger (not least because they were sometimes actually based on Fleming). Journeyman directors like Glen also really new how to tell a story. And action was subservient to the plot, not the other way around.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    RC7 wrote: »
    If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    RC7 wrote: »
    If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00".
    2. Bond being given the Mission to Madagascar.
    3. Bond falling for Vesper, after all it is Bond who pursues Vesper more than she pursues him. All so that Blofeld could hurt the man who in his eyes stole his fathers affection. Made him fall in love, then made her drown herself?

    Way to take things absolutely literally. All you say makes very little sense. As I and others have mentioned on more than one occasion, Blofeld takes credit for the actions of his organisation, whether they are directly or indirectly implemented or executed by him personally. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can claim to be the author of many people's pain, does that mean he has orchestrated every last detail of the death of each and every ISIS victim?Bond set foot into Blofeld's world and given the circumstances he responded appropriately.
    It's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

    It isn't. If you don't like the 'connection' established between Bond and Oberhauser that's your prerogative, but to say it's unintelligent is nonsense. The jigsaw fits together and is underplayed and ambiguous enough to satisfy, but not undercooked enough to be incomprehensible. Do you just want every detail laid out for you like a recipe card?

    The script and story are nonsense your defence of it is nonsense. You've filled in the plot holes with what you think he must have meant. Yet that's no made clear. It's potrayed as his father neglected him when Bond came to live that everything was about his vendetta which started with killing his father and faking his own death. He didn't do that for any other reason to mask his plans to get revenge on James. Their paths don't cross accidently it's potrayed that it's always been him behind everything that happened.

    It's a joke of script and a waste of the best cast ensemble in the history of Bond. It's indefensible in doing so you only give merit to second grade crap.
  • Posts: 1,497
    The Sony leaks prove though that all the executives pretty much unanimously felt the 3rd Act was undercooked and requested revisions. It seems several of the suggestions (build up the finale better, develop the villain Bond relationship better) didn't get worked into the final script. These were legitimate suggestions. Were they ignored by the producers/director?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Many of the criticisms I've read of this film (actually most, including my own) are focused on the script, so it's obvious that this is an area where they could have made improvements.
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    The Sony leaks prove though that all the executives pretty much unanimously felt the 3rd Act was undercooked and requested revisions. It seems several of the suggestions (build up the finale better, develop the villain Bond relationship better) didn't get worked into the final script. These were legitimate suggestions. Were they ignored by the producers/director?
    Yes, that appears to be the case. Perhaps they just ran out of time. Regardless, it's inexcusable.
    ----

    Some (but very few) have commented negatively on Craig's portrayal as well.

    From my point of view, regarding Craig, I thought he did a great job, given what he was given. However, I would have preferred a little more consistency to his performance over the entire run. The change from caring / brooding Bond to uncaring total Bond is a little jarring, given he's done so few films. If he'd have done one more transition film between SF and this one, or even between QoS and SF, it would have helped me.
    ----

    Whatever one may say about Marvel, they do get the characterizations right imho. The main characters stay consistent throughout their universe, even if some of the films are more fantastical / spectacle oriented and some are more dialed back and espionage driven. We know how Stark will react to a situation, or Cap.
    ----

    I agree with the earlier comments about bringing in superstar directors. The issue I see with this is they want to put their own stamp on the character, and do this at the expense of the universe that they are supposed to be operating within. A John Glen, whatever one may think of him, stuck to the script (no pun intended) and even though he may have been a journeyman, he didn't let his ego get in the way of anything. He knew Bond and the universe were bigger than him.....rightly so.

    We had to wait 3 years because of Mendes. In retrospect, I think we shouldn't have had to have this wait. He was responsible for bringing in Logan and the delays in the script changes.....firing P&W and then bringing them back as well. I didn't think it was worth it ultimately.

    I think he got lucky with SF, because the Dench/Bardem story was very compelling and those actors were able to sell it. That was his area (character drama) and he had a compelling story to tell, so it worked. Ultimately, I don't think he's all that suited to a 'traditional' Bond film though, and hope he moves on so we can get back to business.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    RC7 wrote: »
    If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00".
    2. Bond being given the Mission to Madagascar.
    3. Bond falling for Vesper, after all it is Bond who pursues Vesper more than she pursues him. All so that Blofeld could hurt the man who in his eyes stole his fathers affection. Made him fall in love, then made her drown herself?

    Way to take things absolutely literally. All you say makes very little sense. As I and others have mentioned on more than one occasion, Blofeld takes credit for the actions of his organisation, whether they are directly or indirectly implemented or executed by him personally. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can claim to be the author of many people's pain, does that mean he has orchestrated every last detail of the death of each and every ISIS victim?Bond set foot into Blofeld's world and given the circumstances he responded appropriately.
    It's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

    It isn't. If you don't like the 'connection' established between Bond and Oberhauser that's your prerogative, but to say it's unintelligent is nonsense. The jigsaw fits together and is underplayed and ambiguous enough to satisfy, but not undercooked enough to be incomprehensible. Do you just want every detail laid out for you like a recipe card?

    The script and story are nonsense your defence of it is nonsense. You've filled in the plot holes with what you think he must have meant. Yet that's no made clear. It's potrayed as his father neglected him when Bond came to live that everything was about his vendetta which started with killing his father and faking his own death. He didn't do that for any other reason to mask his plans to get revenge on James. Their paths don't cross accidently it's potrayed that it's always been him behind everything that happened.

    It's a joke of script and a waste of the best cast ensemble in the history of Bond. It's indefensible in doing so you only give merit to second grade crap.

    'Mexico City rang a distant bell', hardly the words of a man whose sole existence is to seek revenge. Script issues, yes. Story issues, yes. Indefensible, no. It all works and offers enough for the viewer to build a picture of the man, the organisation and the motives. This story is Bond-centric, for him it is everything, while in the world of Blofeld it is a small part of a much bigger world. There is no talk of vendettas, Blofeld merely states that Bond made him realise his father had to die. If it was about Bond why not kill him as a child? As he states, Bond entered his world and (with his power, influence and resources) he decided to destroy Bond's.
  • Posts: 1,497
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regardless, it's inexcusable.

    Completely. It's like starting to build a house and the blueprint isn't complete and saying, "Well, we have to break ground today so that's what we're going to do." "But, wait, the load bearing beams won't hold the ceiling up and the foundation isn't engineered properly!?" "Eh, no big deal, we'll figure that out later. We've got marble columns and antique Brazillian wood! So it will all turn out fine"
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Regardless, it's inexcusable.

    Completely. It's like starting to build a house and the blueprint isn't complete and saying, "Well, we have to break ground today so that's what we're going to do." "But, wait, the load bearing beams won't hold the ceiling up and the foundation isn't engineered properly!?" "Eh, no big deal, we'll figure that out later. We've got marble columns and antique Brazillian wood! So it will all turn out fine"

    This is big budget film making in general. Nothing new with SP.
  • Posts: 1,497
    Fair enough, big budget movies are tied up by logistics. There should still be story editors though who check this stuff to make sure it all clicks. As I said above too, the message was pretty clear from the Sony brass that the third act wasn't working, yet while watching the final film, it doesn't appear any requested changes were noted.

    While SF did have some illogical moments in the plot, it still worked as a story narrative. SP just collapses on itself in the third act. I just can't fathom that nobody involved noticed or bothered to consider tidying things up in the last 45 minutes of the film.
  • Posts: 10,362
    I felt the SP plot, due to its relative straightforwardness was superior to SF
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 592
    RC7 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    If they had left out the whole Silva as a Spectre agent sent by Blofeld had been left out, it really detracted from the Skyfall storyline where his purposes is about getting Dame Judi for in his eyes revenge, nothing more.

    Where do they say Silva was an agent sent by Blofeld? The idea is surely that SP provide the resources for him to execute such a plan. The fact Bond is involved is serendipitous, as it is in the previous films. This is retcon. There are liberties, but they all make sense because of the ambiguous nature of such an organisation. Bond is not Oberhauser/Blofeld's key concern. Again (and I have written this on several occasions and been ignored) Spectre is not the result of Bond and Oberhauser's childhood beef, nor does it exist to destroy Bond. It's happenstance.
    There is major story hole, Blofeld takes credit for killing all his loved ones including Vesper, however if Blofeld is the driving force between the whole CR plot. You are meant to believe Blofeld was relying on
    1. Bond being made a "00".
    2. Bond being given the Mission to Madagascar.
    3. Bond falling for Vesper, after all it is Bond who pursues Vesper more than she pursues him. All so that Blofeld could hurt the man who in his eyes stole his fathers affection. Made him fall in love, then made her drown herself?

    Way to take things absolutely literally. All you say makes very little sense. As I and others have mentioned on more than one occasion, Blofeld takes credit for the actions of his organisation, whether they are directly or indirectly implemented or executed by him personally. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can claim to be the author of many people's pain, does that mean he has orchestrated every last detail of the death of each and every ISIS victim?Bond set foot into Blofeld's world and given the circumstances he responded appropriately.
    It's an insult to anyone with intelligence.

    It isn't. If you don't like the 'connection' established between Bond and Oberhauser that's your prerogative, but to say it's unintelligent is nonsense. The jigsaw fits together and is underplayed and ambiguous enough to satisfy, but not undercooked enough to be incomprehensible. Do you just want every detail laid out for you like a recipe card?

    The script and story are nonsense your defence of it is nonsense. You've filled in the plot holes with what you think he must have meant. Yet that's no made clear. It's potrayed as his father neglected him when Bond came to live that everything was about his vendetta which started with killing his father and faking his own death. He didn't do that for any other reason to mask his plans to get revenge on James. Their paths don't cross accidently it's potrayed that it's always been him behind everything that happened.

    It's a joke of script and a waste of the best cast ensemble in the history of Bond. It's indefensible in doing so you only give merit to second grade crap.

    'Mexico City rang a distant bell', hardly the words of a man whose sole existence is to seek revenge. Script issues, yes. Story issues, yes. Indefensible, no. It all works and offers enough for the viewer to build a picture of the man, the organisation and the motives. This story is Bond-centric, for him it is everything, while in the world of Blofeld it is a small part of a much bigger world. There is no talk of vendettas, Blofeld merely states that Bond made him realise his father had to die. If it was about Bond why not kill him as a child? As he states, Bond entered his world and (with his power, influence and resources) he decided to destroy Bond's.

    It's all a matter of perspective, but I respectfully disagree. Blofeld also explicitly says that Bond is responsible for the path he took. Therefore, Bond de facto becomes the reason why SPECTRE exists, and the reason why all of the events from CR onwards have taken place. To me it's very clear they made Bond the center of the universe instead of just an agent who tries to stop the bad guys.

  • edited November 2015 Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote: »
    I felt the SP plot, due to its relative straightforwardness was superior to SF

    Interesting...SF worked to me because Silva was an embittered ex-agent out for revenge. Sure, some of his means for exacting revenge were a bit implausible to say the least, but the overall narrative seemed plausible (in a fictional movie sense at least): a rogue former agent living on a hidden island plotting his revenge on his ex boss. SP by contrast bases an entire global criminal organization on one guy who was jealous of Bond's daddy attention, and therefore concocts a decades+ long plan to unleash all the past villain schemes of the last 3 films and this one to get back at Bond. It's a bit of a stretch for me.

Sign In or Register to comment.