It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
-- Daniel Craig would have to play old and grizzled.
-- It probably would be closer in tone to SF (dour and contemplative) than SP (more
frothy and frivolous)
-- We would have got the conclusion to the Blofeld story.
-- Both Lea Seydoux and Christoph Waltz would have returned.
-- Possibly it would have borrowed from Logan
I hope not, but accidents do happen
-- We'd have likely got the adaptation of Fleming's YOLT many were hoping for.
This is the only one I’m doubtful of.
Me too. More inspired maybe but the same approach and very similar vision.
But the photography is pretty wonderful.
The Benz in that clip (280SL Pagoda) is one I've always lusted after. One day, hopefully.
Because they filtered the sh*t out of the film…
The photography of Spectre was outstanding in my opinion. I love Hoyte's work, perhaps even more than Deakins. For anyone that really knows great cinematography, you'll be able to see the echoes Gordon Willis in Hoyte's work. I'm obsessed with that whiskey-hued look that Spectre has.
I created this thread to talk about all things related to Spectre's goregeous cinematography:
I mean look how beautiful and artisan these shots are. In a world full of disposal popcorn/tent-pole films, you have to appreciate a blockbuster that are also an example of high art.
Exactly. The PTS especially looks pretty bad.
And Emma Stone wasn't in SP so naturally it wouldn't look as good.
It really does. They overdid the filters way to much in SP. The post in this link shows how it could have looked like with more natutal colours:
Never understood the attraction of Emma Stone. What am I missing?
I've been a fan since Easy A. I like her zany style.
Haha! I can understand she's the "right type" for some, but I've always looked at her personality as a Jennifer Lawrence "light" – and I can't stand Jennifer Lawrence.
It's a slight shame that we won't be getting Mendes back to finish off his triology. especially if they are going back to the Purvis and Wade script (which is heavily rumoured to be Shatterhand).
I don't care what people say about the idotic brother angle, Mendes totally nailed the visual look of Blofeld.
Wouldn't it have been cool if Bond 25 was Blofeld teaming up with the Russians to take out British agents. Bond having to come back into action and finding his old foe was behind the second Cold War.
Damn it looks better than the original. Where can I get one of this?
It's the interview personas I can't get over. It's just too much most of the time.
I haven't read the whole thread, but I guess it's just some clips colour corrected by whoever made these GIFs.
If only I could get to download the whole movie from a link like these GIFs
Wait, "original"? So how many Emma Stones are there?
Agree! Wonder if watching SP in natural colours would improve my opinion of the film or not.
It could be visually stunning but you might have to mute the Audio because dialogues are really pathetic. I wonder which scene has the worst dialogue in SP?
Good point. Really don't know which scene has the worst dialogue as I found it quite bad throughout. The scene with Mr. White was probably the only exception.
L'american/Mr White/hofler klinik/Nine Eyes/Train Sequence - these are the scenes which had a bit decent lines.
Hoffler Klinik/Nine Eyes/train Sequence never did much for me, but the whole film is rather uneventful script wise. I hope Bond 25 will be an improvement in that department – as well as the others.
I can't stand anything to do with Nine Eyes-- not as a story element, but the way it's presented-- it's all exposition.
And C... C, ugh, well, I did find him to be... (family site)... He was dull and over the top and should have grown a mustache, giving his fingertips something to do.
And this is SPECTRE. I would have liked to see them do what they do best-- terrorizing and extorting and seeking revenge, and so on... A movie should show, not tell...
So, for ages now, I FF through anything to do with C and Nine Eyes, and I enjoy the film enough, right up to the last third.
And this act is just terrible.
The headshots ("so dull, so dull"), hammering us over the head that everything's connected, running into Blofeld. And Bond "finding" Madeleine behind the door that he just happened to stand beside (as he peered out at Blofeld in "defeat").
It would have been better if they developed the third act in Blofeld HQ's. The dinner scene. The couple being separated. Bond being beaten/tortured. His escape from captivity, but he still has to save the girl and destroy the Big Bad.
And then, with the explosion of the base, Bond sees from the helicopter that Blofeld and some of his goons have escaped.
The final scenes would have been reporting to M that the mission was a failure. Blofeld had escaped (to Die Another Day). Perhaps M temporarily dismisses 007 from active service (to "go and stick his head in the sand for a while"). Bond storms out of HQ and into his Aston Martin, where, to his surprise, Madeleine's waiting for him.
They share a smile, a kiss and off they drive... Bond theme blaring. James Bond will return...
No Mi6 building, no running around having Bond scream his head off, no chasing a helicopter and taking it out with a few bullets... None of that...
Oh, well, it is what it is now. There are, of course, bigger issues than the final act. There really was a lack of genuine stakes. One nicely framed scene rolled into another, but there was no urgency.
So I look at this film, and consider it to be, a beautiful mess. One I accept as such, and can enjoy about 2/3-- warts and all.
Bond will return.
From my point of view, Skyfall and Spectre are an ideal ying and yang of a deconstructive character's study about Bond and the Bond franchise, and how Bond is still very much relevant after more than fifty years. But I don't think Spectre's concept and execution are less powerful and interesting than its predecessor. In fact, they're even more compelling. Skyfall was more emotionally focused, because it dealt with Bond's inner demons, his relationship with M(om) and more importantly with the notion of how Bond could face aging in a brave new world less black and white than before. On the other hand, if Skyfall brought Bond back to square one by the end of the movie, what Mendes courageously does in Spectre is an even wider, more theoric and far-sighted discourse about 007 as an icon that carries a formidable legacy, and even to today's world tout court as well, in which personal data, information and cyber surveillance are trade for power.
The main reason why Spectre's concept and narrative works is because Bond's journey towards the choice of continuing or not his life as a spy is tightly interpose with the evil plot of the movie. From a narrative and dramatic point of view, Bond is forced to change. On the contrary, he wants to change. To deviate from old tic and lifestyles, to embrace new ones. Following Moneypenny's advice (how things change!) in the end he decides to try "life", but for doing that he first needed to retracing its own history. Which is the history of the franchise, the reason why Bond is Bond. On the other hand, from a more conceptual standpoint, Spectre's celebration of "all things Bond" that puts 007 as an ideal care-taker of the value of history and tradition is put against someone who stands, on the contrary, for the annihilation of the past, both from a personal and from a world order perspective. "You only live twice, Mr. Bond". Mendes' Blofeld was conceived as an ideal and symbolic nemesis of Bond, and that's the reason why worked. They're both archetypes that stands for something bigger than just a character.
Spectre's thesis and meaning is that anyone who wants to revolutionize the present just in the name of an ideal future - perhaps mortifying the past, denying it and killing it - is not a visionary, but one to lock up into an asylum. Who says "this is the future, you are the past", denying history and its achievements (how many days did it take to build Rome? C doesn't know) and its lessons is just a cocky little bastard doomed to make a bad end. In this way Sam Mendes brings the 007 taken to zero degree of his origin in Skyfall and makes him return re-crossing step by step the gallery of memorabilia of his past and, more importantly, of the character's mythology. To put it in front of a mirror (even literally, on more than one occasion) and to reinvent it again. A license to kill is also a license not to kill.
The only possible, logical continuation of Skyfall was this: push Bond forward by beating the streets behind him, because Spectre's representation of the past is the one seen with the eyes of the present. It is the past of nostalgia, the one that becomes legend but that looks right to tomorrow, from behind the wheel of an immortal DB5, waiting for the next villain, the next Bond girls, new threats, more martinis and new missions.
The Dead are Alive, and from yesterday's grave they walked until tomorrow.
Whether the Craig films did them good or not, I'll always appreciate the fact that they at least tried to do something different each time unlike Brosnan's era which clearly wanted to aspire to something what the Craig films did but were undermined by timidness (hello, TWINE).