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

1356715

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,790
    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.

    If you want to take everything literally. I think the actual words are more along the lines of, 'you could say he's responsible for the path I took', he wasn't explicit, but toying with Bond, suggesting Bond is in some way the author of his own downfall. I don't buy that he means it literally, it is a psychological play. As you say it's a matter of perspective, if one wanted to be negative they could use that rather flimsy butterfly effect scenario and take it to the extreme. I find that rather silly myself. I tend to believe there's a bit more nuance, a bit more ambiguity. It's why I find it quite fascinating and not at all as b+w as others.
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    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.

    That's not the plot. Watch it again.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    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.

    +1
  • SuperintendentSuperintendent A separate pool. For sharks, no less.
    Posts: 592
    RC7 wrote: »
    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.

    If you want to take everything literally. I think the actual words are more along the lines of, 'you could say he's responsible for the path I took', he wasn't explicit, but toying with Bond, suggesting Bond is in some way the author of his own downfall. I don't buy that he means it literally, it is a psychological play. As you say it's a matter of perspective, if one wanted to be negative they could use that rather flimsy butterfly effect scenario and take it to the extreme. I find that rather silly myself. I tend to believe there's a bit more nuance, a bit more ambiguity. It's why I find it quite fascinating and not at all as b+w as others.

    I don't want to be negative, that's just the way I see it. I can't help it. I do like some other aspects of the film, though.

  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 25,886
    I doubt many people on this planet were looking forward to SP to the degree that I was (those few who were are probably all on these boards). I wanted to love it, or at least enjoy it. I wish that I had the positive experience that many of you had. That just wasn't the case.
  • Posts: 10,365
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.

    Funny. Almost everything you say about SP I would say about SF.

    At the end of the day SP is the only one of those two that I might rewatch.
  • Posts: 1,497
    RC7 wrote: »
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    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.

    That's not the plot. Watch it again.

    I didn't say that was the plot. It is the premise however, that the plot is based on, and apparently it's now the premise that the other Craig stories are now based on, which IMO guts the unique stories of the past films.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    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.

    That's not the plot. Watch it again.

    I didn't say that was the plot. It is the premise however, that the plot is based on, and apparently it's now the premise that the other Craig stories are now based on, which IMO guts the unique stories of the past films.

    There is no concoction of a decade(s) long plan.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.

    Funny. Almost everything you say about SP I would say about SF.

    At the end of the day SP is the only one of those two that I might rewatch.
    I'm not doubting its rewatch value. As I mentioned, it gets better for me every time I watch it. Like QoS.

    I still think it's emotionally inconsistent though,.....with what has come before and with what the narrative suggests. That's why the discussion about it is ongoing on these boards.

    I came out of it the first time confused emotionally and therefore feeling somewhat empty about the whole thing. I see that in some of the reviews on this site too. That's what I mean in my earlier post. I think SF was emotionally consistent....maybe that was on account of Dench and Bardem.....I'm not sure.
  • Posts: 441
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    People keep referring to plot flaws in SP but don't seem to elaborate on what they actually are.

    A film plot moving into a direction that doesn't meet someone's personal preference doesn't constitute a flaw.

    It's like with SF and people citing M and Kincade's use of a torch which revealed themselves to Silva as a plot flaw. It was a decision of the script writers to have the characters make this mistake and yet I've seen people refer to it as a plot fault!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    People keep referring to plot flaws in SP but don't seem to elaborate on what they actually are.

    A film plot moving into a direction that doesn't meet someone's personal preference doesn't constitute a flaw.

    It's like with SF and people citing M and Kincade's use of a torch which revealed themselves to Silva as a plot flaw. It was a decision of the script writers to have the characters make this mistake and yet I've seen people refer to it as a plot fault!
    That is a good point, and your flashlight example from SF is a good example of the type of event that is consciously inserted into the script, but is annoying to some because it seems contrived and/or convenient to move the narrative along.

    As with everything, I believe it comes down to whether such conveniences or choices taken by scriptwriters are seen as too obvious or not. That is what drives the discussions here, for SF and for SP it seems.

    I think SF did a better job of hiding its 'conveniences' if you will under the glow of character drama that resonated with many.....but obviously not all. I personally did not find such emotional connection in SP, because they deliberately chose to make Bond unperturbed by it. That may be Bondian and suit the character, but to me, it didn't quite suit Craig Bond as he has been developed for us up to this point. This was a man who cried while holding M after all.
  • Posts: 441
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think SF did a better job of hiding its 'conveniences' if you will under the glow of character drama that resonated with many

    Well yes and let's be brutally honest here. We could say the success of SF was down to the 50th anniversary or off the back of the Olympics but I think a huge part of it...including the strong word of mouth and polite overlooking of the problems with Silva's escape...were simply down to the film being 'the one in which Dame Jude dies'.


  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Cowley wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think SF did a better job of hiding its 'conveniences' if you will under the glow of character drama that resonated with many

    Well yes and let's be brutally honest here. We could say the success of SF was down to the 50th anniversary or off the back of the Olympics but I think a huge part of it...including the strong word of mouth and polite overlooking of the problems with Silva's escape...were simply down to the film being 'the one in which Dame Jude dies'.

    Fair point. Maybe.....that was what Mendes insisted on before he took on the project so it really was what his heart was set on and arguably that is what delivered its success.

    One could also say it's down to being 'the one with the OTT villain played by Javier Bardem' (I think he had a large part in the success of the film because he channeled the Joker). They really played him up in the North American market anway.

    Yes though, I think Dench was a character that a lot of people could relate to.......both my parents & sisters recently told me at dinner that they thought she was a good M which really came as a surprise to me, given I've not been a fan of hers in the past.

    The 50th anniversary didn't play too much of a part in North America, although the concurrent blu ray boxset might have.
  • Posts: 10,365
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.

    Funny. Almost everything you say about SP I would say about SF.

    At the end of the day SP is the only one of those two that I might rewatch.
    I'm not doubting its rewatch value. As I mentioned, it gets better for me every time I watch it. Like QoS.

    I still think it's emotionally inconsistent though,.....with what has come before and with what the narrative suggests. That's why the discussion about it is ongoing on these boards.

    I came out of it the first time confused emotionally and therefore feeling somewhat empty about the whole thing. I see that in some of the reviews on this site too. That's what I mean in my earlier post. I think SF was emotionally consistent....maybe that was on account of Dench and Bardem.....I'm not sure.

    I thought DC was fairly consistent in SP. But he's always pretty consistent.

    One of the strongest impressions left on me by SF was how character motivations and actions were all over the place. M doesn't trust Bond again, then she does again (again). Everyone at MI6 is totally incompetent. M shows arrogance and pigheadedness when she needs to be penitent, and diplomatic. Malory happily sends M, the head of Mi6 and someone whose job he has his eyes on, off to Scotland, knowing she'll be in mortal danger. Then when Bond allows the demented Silva to fulfil his plan and gets his boss killed, he's welcomed as a returning hero in London.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 441
    bondjames wrote: »
    One could also say it's down to being 'the one with the OTT Javier Bardem' (I think he had a large part in the success of the film because he channeled the Joker). They really played him up in the North American market anway.

    There was plenty of that from the British press with 'best Bond villain in years' accolades but for my tastes he was uncomfortably OTT and by far the most overrated thing about the film.

    SF gets off to a great start with the PTS, exploration of a washed up Bond re-integrating himself into MI6, ominous fate for M, stylish thriller moment with the Jellyfish scene and has a feel of going onto something epic...and then Bardem arrives.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Yes though, I think Dench was a character that a lot of people could relate to.......both my parents & sisters recently told me at dinner that they thought she was a good M which really came as a surprise to me, given I've not been a fan of hers in the past.

    Her death was a poorly kept secret and so I do think it was a 'hook' for people to see the film and how it was handled. Besides her stage and film work ever since the early 80s sitcom 'A Fine Romance' Judy Dench has been a 'national treasure' in the UK. I expect the popularity of 'As Time Goes By' in the UK and US brought some of an older audience to SF too.

    It's interesting that some people are remarking on missing Dench and the gravitas she brought to the Bond films.
    bondjames wrote: »
    The 50th anniversary didn't play too much of a part in North America, although the concurrent blu ray boxset might have.

    It was the same here in the UK. Outside of fandom the anniversary itself wasn't much celebrated other than mentioned in press about SF.

    I celebrated the 50th anniversary with a Spy fiction from 1962 night given that Roger Moore debuted as The Saint and Honor Blackman made her first appearance in The Avengers in the same week Dr No released!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    SF was a character drama at its core. This is a Mendes specialty. That's why it worked.....for me.....and the masses. That's despite all its numerous plot flaws.

    SP is not a character drama. Maybe they initially wanted it to be, but that is ultimately not what they gave us. Therefore the plot flaws (which existed in SF as well) seem to be more immediately noticed by viewers, including myself.

    I don't think they knew what they wanted to give us with SP. I think they may have started out with SF2, but at the end they tried to have it both ways, and go back to traditional Bond. There is something schizophrenic about it for me when it's all said and done. The thematic & emotional consistency of SF is not there. People don't appear to react the way one expects the narrative to suggest they will react.....even the song is not in keeping with the way the characters engage with one another emotionally....although at the end the narrative is consistent with the song lyrics....because Bond appears to walk away.

    Funny. Almost everything you say about SP I would say about SF.

    At the end of the day SP is the only one of those two that I might rewatch.
    I'm not doubting its rewatch value. As I mentioned, it gets better for me every time I watch it. Like QoS.

    I still think it's emotionally inconsistent though,.....with what has come before and with what the narrative suggests. That's why the discussion about it is ongoing on these boards.

    I came out of it the first time confused emotionally and therefore feeling somewhat empty about the whole thing. I see that in some of the reviews on this site too. That's what I mean in my earlier post. I think SF was emotionally consistent....maybe that was on account of Dench and Bardem.....I'm not sure.

    I thought DC was fairly consistent in SP. But he's always pretty consistent.

    One of the strongest impressions left on me by SF was how character motivations and actions were all over the place. M doesn't trust Bond again, then she does again (again). Everyone at MI6 is totally incompetent. M shows arrogance and pigheadedness when she needs to be penitent, and diplomatic. Malory happily sends M, the head of Mi6 and someone whose job he has his eyes on, off to Scotland, knowing she'll be in mortal danger. Then when Bond allows the demented Silva to fulfil his plan and gets his boss killed, he's welcomed as a returning hero in London.
    Absolutely. All those points are definitely valid. I know we have discussed that in detail on the SF thread. Yet many were passionately defending that film. I think that's because of the emotional connection they had to each character, and the premise and driving force of the narrative (betrayal and revenge).

    I think that emotional connection is not so clear in SP, and so its 'conveniences', which may in fact be less in number overall, are laid more bare. The passion in its defense is not there, as a result. There is an appreciation of the Bondian elements that have been inserted, but I don't sense the fervor that SF solicited. Interestingly, I don't sense the hostility either. It's more a 'meh' feeling.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,910
    Wow, so much autopsy here. :))
    I just had fun.
    Blofeld isn't an evil guy because of Bond, that's just an additional eddy to his river of madness.
    I can deal. Just like in Keaton's Batman when it was Joker who killed Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill. Whatever. Entertain me without pretentious pseudo-serious angst & I'm good. \m/

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Wow, so much autopsy here. :))
    I just had fun.
    Blofeld isn't an evil guy because of Bond, that's just an additional eddy to his river of madness.
    I can deal. Just like in Keaton's Batman when it was Joker who killed Wayne's parents instead of Joe Chill. Whatever. Entertain me without pretentious pseudo-serious angst & I'm good. \m/

    Quite.

    All I've tried to do is offer an alternative viewpoint for some to maybe, just maybe, watch again with a more open mind and different perspective. I certainly had my perceptions changed regard elements of SF after looking at them from a different angle.

    After all, if Mendes has done anything it's to provide scenarios and characters that can be dissected in different ways. Hence the lengthy discussions. I don't buy that SP is any less resonant, or leightweight than SF in that regard, but I guess it's easy to point the finger at 'formula'. There's still enough heft behind SP and in my eyes it's counter-balanced by a much clearer, more simple narrative. Yeah, it's fleet-footed, but there's more than enough character work, great dialogue and top class acting to flesh it out.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Wow, so much autopsy here. :))
    I just had fun.

    Just out of my third viewing and I have to say this time I agree with the above.

    I had 3 caipirinhas before I went in this time which puts you at just the right level of pissed to still be able to concentrate on the film without dwelling too much on the flaws. I recommend it.

    Let's be honest we have had some absolute dross over the years - DAF, TMWTGG, DAD - and ok SPs last act is lacking but it still blows away a lot of the Moore and Broz eras.

    There's a danger, I feel, that we get too nostalgic about some of the old Bond films which actually aren't that good. Make no mistake SP is a classy product. A bit flawed in places but still a f**king quality evening at the cinema.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I had 3 caipirinhas before I went in this time which puts you at just the right level of pissed to still be able to concentrate on the film without dwelling too much on the flaws. I recommend it.
    I'll try that when it arrives on blu ray (I've done my 3 viewings in the theatres) and hopefully my experience mirrors yours....I have a feeling the drinks are talking though..
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 9,790
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Wow, so much autopsy here. :))
    I just had fun.

    Just out of my third viewing and I have to say this time I agree with the above.

    I had 3 caipirinhas before I went in this time which puts you at just the right level of pissed to still be able to concentrate on the film without dwelling too much on the flaws. I recommend it.

    Let's be honest we have had some absolute dross over the years - DAF, TMWTGG, DAD - and ok SPs last act is lacking but it still blows away a lot of the Moore and Broz eras.

    There's a danger, I feel, that we get too nostalgic about some of the old Bond films which actually aren't that good. Make no mistake SP is a classy product. A bit flawed in places but still a f**king quality evening at the cinema.

    Agreed.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,910
    Look, when we feel we've been betrayed, there's a certain amount of anger we feel as fans, I get that. I've felt it myself twice ("Here's to us" & Severine's demise), but hey, films aren't all art, they are a blend of art & business. To make a 200 million dollar movie is a huge undertaking, and peeps fronting the money WILL have their say. Producers WILL have re-writes, and directors WILL make snap decisions due to time & budgetary constraints. We need to be happy for the ones that we love, and be tolerant of the ones we don't IMHO. For this is a rather unique series of films and not every entry will please every fan.*

    *My attempt at the diplomatic thing here. :D
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Look, when we feel we've been betrayed, there's a certain amount of anger we feel as fans, I get that. I've felt it myself twice ("Here's to us" & Severine's demise), but hey, films aren't all art, they are a blend of art & business. To make a 200 million dollar movie is a huge undertaking, and peeps fronting the money WILL have their say. Producers WILL have re-writes, and directors WILL make snap decisions due to time & budgetary constraints. We need to be happy for the ones that we love, and be tolerant of the ones we don't IMHO. For this is a rather unique series of films and not every entry will please every fan.*

    *My attempt at the diplomatic thing here. :D
    You are absolutely correct. Sadly, analysis and pointless discussion is what we do here....but hopefully without any anger towards EON or Mendes or Craig or whomever. It's a tough gig, making a $1bn film and they don't do a half bad job of it when it's all said and done..
  • Posts: 10,365
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Wow, so much autopsy here. :))
    I just had fun.

    Just out of my third viewing and I have to say this time I agree with the above.

    I had 3 caipirinhas before I went in this time which puts you at just the right level of pissed to still be able to concentrate on the film without dwelling too much on the flaws. I recommend it.

    Let's be honest we have had some absolute dross over the years - DAF, TMWTGG, DAD - and ok SPs last act is lacking but it still blows away a lot of the Moore and Broz eras.

    There's a danger, I feel, that we get too nostalgic about some of the old Bond films which actually aren't that good. Make no mistake SP is a classy product. A bit flawed in places but still a f**king quality evening at the cinema.

    Glad to hear you've come round to this view.

    I had a similar experience. First time rather underwhelmed. Second viewing thought it was really entertaining.

    I feel it has rewatch value as well and that it could be a film that grows in stature and reputation over time. Probably not a full blown classic, but quite a solid entry.
  • Posts: 1,077
    I have seen SP five times now, As a movie its just a hair below SF & CR but as a BOND movie its probably the best since Goldeneye IMO.

    I see a lot of complaints on here how it didnt have the same drama & emotional depth as SF. But we all know just about everyone was screaming for a full blown Bond movie, & Eon listened. The mixed reception the film has recieved may be followed up with SF2.

    Maybe its just me but their starting to run out of ideas to suit the Craig era.

    I dont think EON knows what the next step is as of yet, & I dont believe its solely going to be where SP left off. If we dont here an announcement by next summer its not a good sign, the studio debacle doesnt help either.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Tuck91 wrote: »
    I see a lot of complaints on here how it didnt have the same drama & emotional depth as SF. But we all know just about everyone was screaming for a full blown Bond movie, & Eon listened. The mixed reception the film has recieved may be followed up with SF2.

    Maybe its just me but their starting to run out of ideas to suit the Craig era.

    I dont think EON knows what the next step is as of yet, & I dont believe its solely going to be where SP left off. If we dont here an announcement by next summer its not a good sign, the studio debacle doesnt help either.
    I don't think the complaints in general centre around it lacking drama and emotional depth per se. I think they focus primarily more on the plot contrivances and unnecessary retconning.

    It is my personal observation that the lack of emotional connection to the characters is leading some to focus on these contrivances, which were also present in SF (although not as much retconning). I may or may not be wrong on that. The acting is superb by all concerned, so it must be the writing itself that is to blame. Good acting can only go so far to elevate what is on the page.

    I don't think they will follow up with SF2. I think they know that SF was a one off (and a Mendes demand, to kill off Dench to create a drama). As I said on another thread, I really think Mendes is gone, so they will likely forge a new path with B25. Even if they follow up the SP story, they can change the tone, like they did on QoS even though it directly followed CR and had a new director. The sequel to SP, if it must be a sequel, can just as easily be a simple thriller.

    Again, from my personal viewpoint, I don't have a problem with a full on Bond film. I just don't think they executed such concept so well here, and I think some others feel that way as well. We are all Bond fans, so of course we want a Bond film, although with 24 films, it's difficult to define what that really is anymore , even if you exclude the recent Craig reboot.

    You may be right on ideas in the Craig era. He is a very specific kind of actor, and specific kinds of scripts suit him best I think. Something with meat on the bones, to showcase his acting range. That's my view.[/quote]
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited November 2015 Posts: 15,910
    For ME, Dalton ultimately defined Bond.
    But Craig re-defines Bond.
    And SPECTRE shakes AND stirs it up.

    I feel bad for those who cannot feel my joy. :x
  • Now that the dust has settled......After all that's said and done, Moonraker is still the best 007 movie of all time! Yep! 36 year old and still watchable! Spectre is a galaxy away but still better than skyfall!
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 25,886
    MOONRAKER and SPECTRE have something in common. Both times, when I left the theatre, I was so disappointed that I questioned whether or not I could ever enjoy a Bond film again. Took me a long time to recover after 1979.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,910

    Birdleson wrote: »
    MOONRAKER and SPECTRE have something in common. Both times, when I left the theatre, I was so disappointed that I questioned whether or not I could ever enjoy a Bond film again. Took me a long time to recover after 1979.

    In my teens I hated the insulting MR. In my 50's I resented moments in SF. Today I embrace SP
    as a work of Bond art.
Sign In or Register to comment.