In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1394042444551

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973


    Tech plots are always the hardest, as there's an element of disconnect when it comes to the threat of a plan of that nature. It's never going to be as thrilling to watch a race to stop an upload as it is to see Bond physically fight a foe. This was a weak element of SF too, which was so computer and hacking based, more so that even SP, really, that it's hard to feel the impact of Silva's acts at times. There's no great way to make a hack look cool, and all we really get is the aftermath. We watch the files of agents from the drive being released, we watch the explosion of MI6, we watch Silva's computer knock out MI6's network, etc. It's just harder to get invested in.
    GBF wrote: »
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

    well Goldeneye did it very well. The most important thing is: You need a satisfying climax and we need to see Bond struggle to succeed in his mission. And Spectre does not deliver in this regard. Destroying the crater base is much much much much much too easy. And it only needs a few shots and everything blows up. Wow. If a single man can destroy the villain's plan so easily there is no real threat.
    You both touch on what for me is the main problem: there's no plan in SP. SF and GE both had solid plans, one to bring down Britain and get 'more money then God' in the proces, the other to get to M. Not talking about the execution here, but these were very solid results, with very fighting-the-clock elements in it, either stopping the whole bomb or just trying to save the lives of NATO agents.

    But SP HAS no plan, it HAS no danger? What"? oh no the biggest surveillance program in the world is set up and it's not democratically governed? That's..... ehm.... terrible. It doesn't put people in jail, it doesn't destroy countries, far from it probably a quarter of the audience would go 'well that's a good idea'. And it's horrible because it's, what, run by a creep? Yes, Blofeld is behind it and he's not just a villain, he's worse then that, because.... well...... because Mr. White was very fague about it! Oh and in retrospect it was Blofeld behind Silva and his mommy complex, and behind Greene and Quantum and their extortion programmes, and behind Le Chiffre as a criminal's banker. Even that part makes no sense. SPECTRE isn't introduced as a criminal organisation which is there to enrich it's members like it was introduced in Thunderball. We get nothing, and so we don't really feel the need to stop this unethically program. I feel for M, as I'm a civil servant too and his fight is a righteous one, but it isn't film material. And certainly not Bond-film material.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @CommanderRoss, we know that the plan is for Bond to stop Blofeld from achieving absolute "knowledge" as the villain would put it, which he would be able to use to counter-attack any plans against SPECTRE, and find anyone or any piece of data they needed as an organization from all across the globe. I agree that the idea could've been featured more, but there is a core scheme there that is given context and backing by Blofeld.

    I personally loved how SPECTRE was portrayed in a nice modernizing of the old guard, and I have never felt its purpose was to enrich members. It's a place for people with power complexes and dreams of wealth and influence, but also where you can die in seconds if you screw up. Looking at the TB meeting it shares a similar feeling to SP's. Blofeld commands respect, but also massive fear, to the point that even those who aren't guilty of pilfering money are still fearful of being killed when he announces that there is a guilty party amongst them. Blofeld also has his own branch for killing SPECTRE members who disappoint him, again creating a very strange atmosphere where you can never be sure when your ticket is punched. You wonder why all of them stick around, given their boss and work environment, but that is the fantasy of it all.

    With Waltz's Blofeld, he seems to have even more control, such that I could imagine he took all his desert base agents, strapped them to the torture chair and drilled their skulls to get them to answer his every word as the blank slates they now were, like Pavlov's dogs. The minute he clicks his fingers, all the agents rise and turn to him, perfectly in sync. It's a haunting and disconcerting image. The Nine Eyes program is simply an extension of that power and influence he can't live without. Blofeld was able to facilitate terror attacks in London through Silva, and also worldwide (as in South Africa) to get the program approved by governments who bought into the fear mongering. C was corruptible enough that he was willing to let Blofeld kill a few innocents all so his golden plan and dreams of a connected surveillance network came to be, achieving what he saw as safety at the risk of all privacy and democracy.

    We can argue how successful this take on Blofeld was, but nobody could accuse him of being inconsistent. I thought we was a well drafted character, and was able to fall in line with who we expect Blofeld to be, essentially an egotist who shrivels with fear at the first sign of Bond.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Blofeld gaining power by gathering information is straight out of Thunderball by Fleming.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Of all the criticism of Spectre I hear, this is the one I understand the least. How could Spectre infiltrating and gaining access to the entire forreign intelligence community not be viewed as threatening? It's incredibly more severe than for instance a bank being blown up in the middle of nowhere US!
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 3,195
    I would also say that total surveillance is quite a threat, however, it is difficult to visualise it and make it look dangerous on screen. You also need a chase against the clock element to put any weight on Bond's mission. I mean why should SPECTRE otherwise stop their surveillance ambitions?
    My critic is that it is much too easy for Bond to stop Blofeld. Instead of a huge battle or the use of some clever infiltration skills, Bond just makes the whole crater lair explode with a few shots. This feels so lame, so anticlimactic. And it somehow also shows that the writers did not really care all that much about the surveillance plan at all. Otherwise they would not have made another climax in London which actually only deals with the personal rivalry between Bond and Blofeld....
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 533
    How on earth can anyone know whether "SPECTRE" will be more or less appreciated in the future? It's a waste of time to speculate on that question, because most people will base it upon their own preference. It's an irrelevant question. And I find it arrogant that anyone would assume to know the answer to such a question.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DRush76 wrote: »
    How on earth can anyone know whether "SPECTRE" will be more or less appreciated in the future? It's a waste of time to speculate on that question, because most people will base it upon their own preference. It's an irrelevant question. And I find it arrogant that anyone would assume to know the answer to such a question.

    Because it's fun?

    As someone who likes SP, I still agree that if it's going to be appreciated, it'll take a while, as it did with QoS. That doesn't match up with my preference of it or what I wish would happen (basically, it being loved starting tomorrow), but I am able to take on an opinion that doesn't comfort me or validate how I feel. I think many posters here are able to do the same, taking themselves out of the equation while simply looking at trends from the past to make their judgements on this question.

    We can't be sure how the chips will fall, but most of what we're doing lately is speculation based on subjectivity anyway. We can't tell what future Bond stories will be, for instance, so why do we bother sharing them? Well, because it's a fun and imaginative way to spend time. And it's also a great opportunity to make bets to prepare for eventualities where you can tell people, "I told you so," if a certain prediction of yours proves true.

    The key is not to take anything seriously, especially oneself.
  • QuantumOrganizationQuantumOrganization We have people everywhere
    Posts: 1,187
    GBF wrote: »
    I would also say that total surveillance is quite a threat, however, it is difficult to visualise it and make it look dangerous on screen. You also need a chase against the clock element to put any weight on Bond's mission. I mean why should SPECTRE otherwise stop their surveillance ambitions?
    My critic is that it is much too easy for Bond to stop Blofeld. Instead of a huge battle or the use of some clever infiltration skills, Bond just makes the whole crater lair explode with a few shots. This feels so lame, so anticlimactic. And it somehow also shows that the writers did not really care all that much about the surveillance plan at all. Otherwise they would not have made another climax in London which actually only deals with the personal rivalry between Bond and Blofeld....
    this.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    GBF wrote: »
    I would also say that total surveillance is quite a threat, however, it is difficult to visualise it and make it look dangerous on screen. You also need a chase against the clock element to put any weight on Bond's mission. I mean why should SPECTRE otherwise stop their surveillance ambitions?
    My critic is that it is much too easy for Bond to stop Blofeld. Instead of a huge battle or the use of some clever infiltration skills, Bond just makes the whole crater lair explode with a few shots. This feels so lame, so anticlimactic. And it somehow also shows that the writers did not really care all that much about the surveillance plan at all. Otherwise they would not have made another climax in London which actually only deals with the personal rivalry between Bond and Blofeld....
    this.
    Seconded.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    @Denbigh, there's not much carry over from SF I'd have liked. The only thing I really wanted to see was Max Denbigh using the attacks Silva brought on London as the perfect reason for why Britain and the rest of the world needed his surveillance program. It would've been a more subtle way to show the possible links he could have than the very obvious meeting with M as Bond is about to leave that screams, "I'm bad news!" Having a minute long scene where C pitches his Nine Eyes idea with a powerpoint showing the aftermath of the MI6 bombing and the inquiry and all those dead would've not only grounded the film in the danger Bond stopped, but it would also provide a clue that Silva was financed to serve C and Blofeld's big agenda through his fear-bringing attacks, a twist which would be revealed later.

    By the way, I'm happy to see that you find SP to be a very dark film, as I do. Some think it's Craig's Moore film, and that has blown my hair back a little with surprise. There's some heavy content in it, and it has an ominous feeling from start to finish.

    I think that's the main problem with this film: the whole nine-eyes program just isn't threatening in itself. Bond is supposed to stop acute threats, not lingering powernetworks that may or may not be used for bad things. Just like people still go 'i have nothing to hide' when surveillance is expanded. They just don't see the dangers. And I guess that transmitted to the whole film. Bond never feels truly in danger, except fr in the torture chair. Funny thing is, that is straight out of Colonel Sun, so P&W are good at using someone-elses ideas, but don't come up with anything themselves it seems.

    Tech plots are always the hardest, as there's an element of disconnect when it comes to the threat of a plan of that nature. It's never going to be as thrilling to watch a race to stop an upload as it is to see Bond physically fight a foe. This was a weak element of SF too, which was so computer and hacking based, more so that even SP, really, that it's hard to feel the impact of Silva's acts at times. There's no great way to make a hack look cool, and all we really get is the aftermath. We watch the files of agents from the drive being released, we watch the explosion of MI6, we watch Silva's computer knock out MI6's network, etc. It's just harder to get invested in.

    I lament this all the time, but things were so much easier in the 60s to the 80s, as the pre-tech era and the pre-ubiquity of technology made for schemes where Bond was in direct conflict with his enemies without any fancy keyboard magic. With plots like SF and SP, the enemy is at times people with keyboards, and the effect that has on the impact of a story isn't grand. It's why so many spy writers make the conscious decision to set their plots in period piece locations, either pre-WWII, in the middle of it or in the Cold War. Nowadays technology is everywhere and it's hard to write around it, especially when you can find out so much about anyone with a simple click.

    One of the reasons why I worry for the future of Bond is that the stories we get told could lack the power they once did. Technology muddles everything, and is rather boring and convenient as a plot device, beyond dumbing down our species.

    100% agree with you. This aspect of SF in particualr bored me rigid and is one of the main reasons that film turned me off from the start. Hacking is such a turn off for me - the moment someone starts tapping away at a computer in a movie my eyelids start closing - it's like a reflex. Having a laptop in the PTS was enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

    I really don't think its necessary for the Bond to be tied up with these sorts of plots. Other action/thriller movies don't always go down that route. It just requires a bit of skill from the writers. Tech doesn't have to dominate the Bond universe just because it's so ubiquitous in our own lives.

    Bond is supposed to be about escapism, whereas tech is now so everyday and dull.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    @OBrady as @Thunders pointed out, the intel scheme is straight from Fleming. But other then the movies, Fleming does explain why: to become insanely rich and powerful. That's also why people join and stay. And why Blofeld kills them if they fail, it's accepted on these grounds. And that we've seen in the movies too.

    All in all, the story works on paper, but I think the film missed a few essentials. Blofeld and the danger of his scheme were assumed too much. As@GBF states:
    You also need a chase against the clock element to put any weight on Bond's mission. I mean why should SPECTRE otherwise stop their surveillance ambitions?
    SP just misses this imo.
  • Posts: 676
    I would have found it more engaging if destroying the crater base shut down Nine Eyes. Then Bond would actually have a goal when he goes to the base (what is his goal in the movie? walk into almost certain death? that was fine in the Moore films, not in the Craig films), destroying the base would have a consequence, and we could skip the boring "hacking" crap in London. Get M to authorize an attack on the base, as well, and you have a right proper old-fashioned YOLT/TSWLM/MR finale.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Milovy wrote: »
    I would have found it more engaging if destroying the crater base shut down Nine Eyes. Then Bond would actually have a goal when he goes to the base (what is his goal in the movie? walk into almost certain death? that was fine in the Moore films, not in the Craig films), destroying the base would have a consequence, and we could skip the boring "hacking" crap in London. Get M to authorize an attack on the base, as well, and you have a right proper old-fashioned YOLT/TSWLM/MR finale.
    Well said, sir.
  • Posts: 1,680
    For as much hate as it gets, Blofelds crater base is my favorite segment of the film. The style, music, & emotional hurdle Bond faces after all these years comes front & center. I also like it due to the fact it harkens back kind of to Dr No.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    Milovy wrote: »
    I would have found it more engaging if destroying the crater base shut down Nine Eyes. Then Bond would actually have a goal when he goes to the base (what is his goal in the movie? walk into almost certain death? that was fine in the Moore films, not in the Craig films), destroying the base would have a consequence, and we could skip the boring "hacking" crap in London. Get M to authorize an attack on the base, as well, and you have a right proper old-fashioned YOLT/TSWLM/MR finale.

    Bond walks into Silva's base in SF to almost certain death as well. Going to SF with M is also arguably a certain death scenario which defies logic. It's a Mendes motif
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    I would have found it more engaging if destroying the crater base shut down Nine Eyes. Then Bond would actually have a goal when he goes to the base (what is his goal in the movie? walk into almost certain death? that was fine in the Moore films, not in the Craig films), destroying the base would have a consequence, and we could skip the boring "hacking" crap in London. Get M to authorize an attack on the base, as well, and you have a right proper old-fashioned YOLT/TSWLM/MR finale.

    Bond walks into Silva's base in SF to almost certain death as well. Going to SF with M is also arguably a certain death scenario which defies logic. It's a Mendes motif

    It's a Bond tradition. It's what he does.
  • Posts: 11,425
    True I guess. Although there is usually some attempt to avoid capture.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    True I guess. Although there is usually some attempt to avoid capture.

    Sometimes, but certainly not all. It was very clearly a DN like situation, where Bond had to wade into the waters willingly to get to the location he needed to be at.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Yes but in DN he doesn't just walk up and wave his arms at Dr No's goons. He creeps up on the island at dark and tries to evade capture - it's a key and tense sequence in the film.

    The way it's been done in the Mendes films is perfunctory and devoid of suspense or tension. Bond walks up, gets captured, turns the tables, escapes. It's like a parody of Bond films of old.
  • Posts: 4,325
    I wish Bond had just contacted Felix Leiter and had the CIA drone bomb the crater base - no stupid torture then kill everyone computer video game, no London nonsense etc.
  • Posts: 11,425
    It needed a climactic scene - just not two.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    They seemed to be very fixated on that London Climax and in many of their scripts (as well as some of the notes), they insisted upon it which was a blown out of water obvious it was forced. That London finale should have been a pre-title sequence for the next film and treated as such.
  • edited May 2017 Posts: 11,425
    I really don't understand why Mendes insisted on returning to London. Very very strange. He needs to draw on a wider pool of ideas and writers if he returns again. Left to his own devices he lacks the rigour to develop strong ideas.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Basically SP is very lazy in places...using London again is lazy,destroying Vauxhall Cross is unnecessary and lazy,and using the same score as SF is lazy.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Spectre put too many things in one place trying to be "epic" and compressed it, which is why it failed to represent what it has always intended.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,500
    They needed to wrap up Bond and Blofeld's "climactic" final confrontation and they could shoot at home on a sound stage?; perhaps they had extra set pieces of London at Pinewood?

    Whatever the reason, it did feel unimaginative, lazy, and it was very sloppily executed (say what you will about the rest of the film, but most of the scenes are shot beautifully; I couldn't stand that Blofeld supposedly had all this time time to put up pics of Bond's past (that looked like publicity shots from those films), kidnap Maddy, tie her up, and how easy it was for Bond to her in a building that looked and felt to be a giant maze).
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote: »
    Yes but in DN he doesn't just walk up and wave his arms at Dr No's goons. He creeps up on the island at dark and tries to evade capture - it's a key and tense sequence in the film.

    The way it's been done in the Mendes films is perfunctory and devoid of suspense or tension. Bond walks up, gets captured, turns the tables, escapes. It's like a parody of Bond films of old.

    Not really. Bond sees the "dragon," gets shots off and then stops when he sees it's a mechanical thing. Then they are approached by gunman and he makes no moves (it'd be stupid to, they'd kill him). Hence the capture.

    Both films put Bond in a situation where he has to infiltrate the villain's base by the villain's terms. Bond knows Blofeld would never allow them to meet unless he wanted it, so he gets close to the marking White gave him on his laptop/tracker in the hotel and waits to be received once Blofeld tracks him through his own surveillance near the crater base. Blofeld couldn't resist the chance to entertain both Madeleine and Bond and use them as his toys once further, but Bond has an exploding watch up his sleeve (or under it in sartorial terms) if he needs an out. He had to go into the belly of the beast to do his job and he knew Blofeld wouldn't resist passing it up.

    It's the classic Bond/villain meeting where the hero and villain enter with a gentlemanly greeting to each other all while they are mutually planning how to kill one other behind their grins.
  • Posts: 676
    I wonder if the crater base being made of CGI had something to do with how little time was spent there. Must have been expensive and time consuming to do those scenes. (Of course, I'm sure they could have afforded to build the base for real if they didn't spend all that money on the London finale...)
    Getafix wrote: »
    Milovy wrote: »
    I would have found it more engaging if destroying the crater base shut down Nine Eyes. Then Bond would actually have a goal when he goes to the base (what is his goal in the movie? walk into almost certain death? that was fine in the Moore films, not in the Craig films), destroying the base would have a consequence, and we could skip the boring "hacking" crap in London. Get M to authorize an attack on the base, as well, and you have a right proper old-fashioned YOLT/TSWLM/MR finale.

    Bond walks into Silva's base in SF to almost certain death as well. Going to SF with M is also arguably a certain death scenario which defies logic. It's a Mendes motif
    Bond does have a plan when meeting Silva, though: he activates Q's homing device right before arriving. If he can stall a while, backup will come to arrest Silva.

    Whereas in Spectre he announces his intention of killing Blofeld to the man's face, but Blofeld has the upper hand in every way. It's a very, very overconfident thing, just strolling into the base with no plan. Very Moore-esque, not like Craig's Bond IMO.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    They spent a record amount of explosives blowing up a cgi creation?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Sean's Bond does the same thing to Dr. No at dinner (saying he wants the revenge department to kill the man who got Strangways and Quarrel, etc.) despite having less of a plan than Dan's Bond. Bond in SP has the watch that he knows he can use if he gets into a spot of trouble, and he knows he's got to bait Blofeld a bit and tick his ego.

    In both films Bond is dealing with madmen who he can't beat without getting inside their base, and to do that they need to make themselves vulnerable. It's ballsy, sure, but he's James f#$%ing Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.