In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1246752

Comments

  • To say nothing that the whole plot with the C character just felt completely forced.

    Add the whole Bond/Blofeld coincidence and the pretty mediocre Bond tropes of the second half of the film, and an awesome start just flattens out, for me.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think what really stings me about SP us tgat it had so much going for it in every aspect but conceptually it was flawed and the execution of it all was even worse. It had so much potential going into the preproduction stage, financial backing, great cast and crew, Mendes returning, awesome locations but it was all wasted and pretty much forgettable. SP's a decent movie at the extreme best but there's just no sparks and fireworks with the movie. It's a passing footnote that I for one can't see getting a significant positive reappraisal.

    You count that as having so much going for it!?

    Joking aside though I think you're right - the reason it gets hammered so much is not because it is plain bad but that it could've been truly great but it only ends up merely decent.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2016 Posts: 4,043
    The missed opportunity element is definitely one of the major factors why I was so disappointed with it but however some of you try to play down that Blofeld childhood element to me it just gets more blatant.

    I know some of you can see past it but for me it's one of the worst decisions in the series history to take an iconic character and reduce him to some childhood brat that became what he did because Daddy didn't love him enough.

    Now you fans of the film can say that isn't so but outside of the fan base this is what a good percentage of the people who saw it take from it.

    Yes they can move on after it I guess but I really don't think DC if he returns will want to let it go. I think he's a great Bond and his commitment to the role when he plays it is second to none but some of things he signed off on that film shows he's not much of an ideas man and please somebody hand P&W their P45's.

    Some have been willing to lay the blame at Logan's door but those 2 are far more responsible of the uneventful tension free film we got. After the PTS, pretty much all the action sequences are entirely lacking, though this is more Sam's fault. Rings that reveal the whole organisation just by scanning it, what lazy plotting, worst screenplay of this era.

    I can't believe how much I appreciated Skyfall but are just utterly non plussed about this film and Mendes needs to be done, his so called depth charges as he phrased them in interviews were bloody laughable. He was only person who thought he was offering any surprises with this film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Shardlake wrote: »
    it's one of the worst decisions in the series history to take an iconic character and reduce him to some childhood brat that became what he did because Daddy didn't love him enough.

    He didn't become what he did because Daddy didn't love him. He talks of realising his father had to die - it's a little more opaque than some people suggest. There's nothing to suggest he hadn't killed previously, for example. The idea that the true Fleming Blofeld is reduced in the circumstances, of course, I can accept that opinion, but I think the one we are presented with in SP isn't as one note as 'daddy issues' Blofeld. The story presented is just one of many windows into the soul of a psychopath.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,595
    I couldn't possibly say what the opinion would be in 10 years. I couldn't even say what my own opinion will be.

    My guess is that it will be better appreciated if the next batch of Bond films is hot garbage, and it will be less appreciated if the next batch of Bond films is ecxellent ESPECIALLY if said batch of films is more "traditional" like SP, but just better.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,986
    A pal of mine (not a Bond NUT like us, but a casual fan) just saw it last night, and this is what he had to say, basically:
    "It was pretty good, I guess, but it seemed like the most recent episode of the [Craig's] James Bond show. You kind of had to have seen all the other [Craig] movies to get all this stuff about all the people Blofeld posted all those pictures of... it just didn't seem like a movie that stands on its own much. I have to watch it again to see if I 'get' it better..."
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    it's one of the worst decisions in the series history to take an iconic character and reduce him to some childhood brat that became what he did because Daddy didn't love him enough.

    He didn't become what he did because Daddy didn't love him. He talks of realising his father had to die - it's a little more opaque than some people suggest. There's nothing to suggest he hadn't killed previously, for example. The idea that the true Fleming Blofeld is reduced in the circumstances, of course, I can accept that opinion, but I think the one we are presented with in SP isn't as one note as 'daddy issues' Blofeld. The story presented is just one of many windows into the soul of a psychopath.

    It's not that he killed his old man that's the problem. It's the preposterous stupidity of having Bond know them both that annoys people.

    To be honest if, in the face of all sanity, they couldn't resist pressing ahead with this step brother bullshit then what we got was about as good as it could've been. They way it turns out you can practically ignore it and it doesn't affect the story. It could have been a lot more intrusive and infuriating.
  • [/quote]

    It's not that he killed his old man that's the problem. It's the preposterous stupidity of having Bond know them both that annoys people.
    [/quote]

    I completely agree with this. I didn't buy it then, and it submarines the better qualities of the picture and brings it down to soap opera level.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    it's one of the worst decisions in the series history to take an iconic character and reduce him to some childhood brat that became what he did because Daddy didn't love him enough.

    He didn't become what he did because Daddy didn't love him. He talks of realising his father had to die - it's a little more opaque than some people suggest. There's nothing to suggest he hadn't killed previously, for example. The idea that the true Fleming Blofeld is reduced in the circumstances, of course, I can accept that opinion, but I think the one we are presented with in SP isn't as one note as 'daddy issues' Blofeld. The story presented is just one of many windows into the soul of a psychopath.

    It's not that he killed his old man that's the problem. It's the preposterous stupidity of having Bond know them both that annoys people.

    I get that. I was referring to the above post that implies the ridiculous aspect is the so called 'daddy issues'. As you say, the fact they know each other is the real sticking point.
    To be honest if, in the face of all sanity, they couldn't resist pressing ahead with this step brother bullshit then what we got was about as good as it could've been. They way it turns out you can practically ignore it and it doesn't affect the story. It could have been a lot more intrusive and infuriating.

    That's how I see it. What's done is done. It could've been much worse.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    RC7 wrote: »


    That's how I see it. What's done is done. It could've been much worse.

    Just as long as in the next film he's just Blofeld and they never mention it again then I think we can get past it. The absolute worst thing they could do now is dredge up more crap from their childhood skiing with Hannes.

    It wouldn't surprise me if they make Irma Bunt a tasty Tyrolean madchen who was Franz's bird who Bond nicked, then shagged, then dumped and they've both still got the arseache with him about it so cue more authoring of pain for Bond.

    That's the awful level of writing we're operating at these days.
  • @The_Reaper
    Well of course in the critical perspective you are quite right - those are facts after all. But they still prove my point really - Brosnan's films used to be higher, but now that it is Craig's era, his ratings have gone down. What I am supposing is that the same will happen to Craig when a new actor takes over, provided he is received better than say, Lazenby.

    And when I was talking about the pattern of 'one good film followed by three bad or decent films' I did mean in terms of how they are received by the general fanbase sphere, not the critical sphere. I don't think SF is quite as revered by fans as by critics, and QOS is hammered even further by fans.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited February 2016 Posts: 11,090
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I think what really stings me about SP us tgat it had so much going for it in every aspect but conceptually it was flawed and the execution of it all was even worse. It had so much potential going into the preproduction stage, financial backing, great cast and crew, Mendes returning, awesome locations but it was all wasted and pretty much forgettable. SP's a decent movie at the extreme best but there's just no sparks and fireworks with the movie. It's a passing footnote that I for one can't see getting a significant positive reappraisal.

    You count that as having so much going for it!?

    Joking aside though I think you're right - the reason it gets hammered so much is not because it is plain bad but that it could've been truly great but it only ends up merely decent.

    Precisely. Also, Mendes coming back was interesting because we were getting the same director and because he kept on saying that there were so many things he wanted to do differently in SF and that for SP he wasn't interested in making SF2. That was music to one's ears in that Mendes was going to improve upon what he did for SF but unfortunately, well, we ended up getting something different alright just not anything close to what a number of us were expecting. A massive shame.

    RE: Blofeld, I watched SP again last night in parts and Blofeld's character to me became even more ruined for me as his reasoning for initially hating Bond and killing his pops as a child wasn't because his daddy didn't love him enough but because he didn't want to share...? It's not like Blofeld was ostracised from his father's love or anything, if anything that all important picture shows how very much involved Blofeld was in looking after Bond not to mention he says he was told to treat Bond like a brother. I mean did the guy really hate responsibility THAT much?
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,595
    I always read Blofeld saying "Franz died in the avalanche that day" as a pretty cut and dry way for Blofeld to basically say that he does have some pretty serious daddy issues. I mean he killed his dad because dad liked James better, and then changed his name, which everyone would likely cite as a catalyst at a pretty big moment in their life. "Franz Ob. died on the slopes that day."

    Regardless, that's not the main reason why it bothers me (although the daddy issue angle has always bothered me with Bond villains). I don't think he started the entire criminal organization because dad liked James better, but I certainly think that started him on the path and it was a huge motivation for his madness.

    The main reason obviously is that they know each other. all of the above, for me personally, as well as the way themovie plays out, makes Blofeld just very un-intimidating and just an almost pathetic villain. It's a cardinal sin for a Bond movie. The best I can say is some slight creepiness I feel now and then, but often I don't feel threatened or intimidated (certainly not in the last act).

    The SPECTRE meeting is a bit different, because that's before we really know what's up. But once he says "cuckoo" his evil presence and any menacing vibe poofs away
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I certainly am appreciating it more on a technical level, including cinematography. I've got over the piss colour and am enjoying Hoyte's framing much more with every rewatch. I also am quite impressed with the 'scale' & 'grandeur' that the film gives off.

    Even all the flaws in the script are slightly more palatable with familiarity, but not any less unforgiveable.
  • I've been thinking of SP in terms of cooking a meal. You (the filmmakers, producers, actors, writers) get world class ingredients to make a potentially stunning and delicious steak dinner, but you didn't cook it enough and the meat's a bit burnt. Editable, but not rememberable for good reasons.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,189
    I've been thinking of SP in terms of cooking a meal. You (the filmmakers, producers, actors, writers) get world class ingredients to make a potentially stunning and delicious steak dinner, but you didn't cook it enough and the meat's a bit burnt. Editable, but not rememberable for good reasons.

    I love analogies like this. You're right, all of the ingredients are there, except a decent title song :P, but it just didn't come out right; it's good, edible as you said, but not great.

  • edited February 2016 Posts: 267
    Spectre was a weird film for me because I wanted to enjoy it a lot more than I did. It wasn't DAD level bad, and it had a fully conceived plot as opposed to QoS, but in the end it just felt lazy. It wasn't necessarily a bad film, but it was hugely disappointing IMO. They finally had Bond re-established after "becoming Bond" in CR & QoS, and him being washed up at the start of SF, they had an opportunity to bring SPECTRE into the modern Bond films by tying it into the Quantum organization from Craig's first 3 films, they had multiple Oscar winners working on the film, etc.

    In the end it just came off as an incredibly lazy attempt. There were great sequences (the PTS, the train fight, etc.), but there was zero danger and heft to the plot that it made them feel weak. It was a film that seemed far more concerned with the style of the film over the actual substance and as a result there were countless issues with the plot and characters, and to just make it worse they tried to ret-con SPECTRE as those behind the events of the previous 3 films and backed Bond 25 into a corner with where it can go if Craig does indeed return for a 5th film.

    And even with all those issues, I did like the first 2/3 of the film to where a great ending might have seriously rescued my opinion of the film. But then we get a very quick, anticlimatic fight at the SPECTRE base, and an even flatter ending in London that just felt tacked on for the hell of it.

    My opinion of SPECTRE years from now will have a lot to do with how Bond 25 tries to fix some of the mistakes made by SPECTRE - which is kind of why I hope they take a page out of OHMSS' book and just ditch all continuity for Bond 25 from the end of SPECTRE. Make no mention of Bond/Blofeld's shared past, Madeline Swann, etc.
  • I think SP's reputation will depend a lot of what happens next. They decided not to kill Blofeld (in the October script, he was killed by Bond); so now they have him alive in the Bond universe. SP could be remembered as the beginning of something good, bad, or a one shot, depending if Blofeld is used for something good, bad, or not heard about.

    I think for instance that shoehorning SF into Blofeld's saga has lowered a bit SF's reputation for the future. On the other hand, I feel CR's appraisal is still untouched by the Blofeld saga...
  • Bond and Blofeld being step-brothers really sunk this story, in my opinion.
  • I pretend that SF has nothing to do with SPECTRE. Screw what the film tries telling me. That movie works better as a one-off.
  • Posts: 4,325
    Maybe Blofeld was just lying ... :)
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 562
    Spectre regressed Bond back to the worst of the Brosnan era imo.

    The ending alone was something out of a superhero film. I thought Casino Royale was a recognition by EON that this didn't have a place in Bond. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case.

    I'm no fan of skyfall either, of the film in general or the whole 'invincible Bond' with no explanation of his miraculous recovery.
  • Posts: 1,611
    I pretend that SF has nothing to do with SPECTRE. Screw what the film tries telling me. That movie works better as a one-off.

    Agreed. The retconning of the Craig era, especially in the case of Skyfall, was a big mark against Spectre.

    As for the question posed by the thread, I don't think that Spectre will be more appreciated as time goes. I think once people are able to watch the film right alongside Craig's other films, the retcon and somewhat illogical nature of everything being forced to fit together when it was never meant to from the outset, combined with the awful step-brother angle will only serve to detract further from the film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    SP gives me the feeling I had decades ago first discovering Bond. It has the grandiosity of a TSLWM or a YOLT. I hope SP resonates similarly with new young fans. I'm sure it will.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited February 2016 Posts: 7,331
    I got the Blu-Ray this morning.

    Definitely a 4 star film, possibly 4 and a half. I have no idea how a film so steeped in tradition can feel like such a breath of fresh air. That being said I can see how this will be lost on some. It'll be years of growing appreciation before this film gets the recognition it deserves. Best Bond since the sixties, certainly Craig's best. 98 percent of the criticism this film gets is just people missing the point.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 13
    Birdleson wrote: »
    They fall through the holes in his hands.

    But didn't they drive the nails through the wrist as the tissue in the hand is not strong enough to bear the body weight and they would just rip off?

    Another ahem nail in the coffin for those who take the bible literally.

    Not true. They have done tests and both can hold the weight of a human being. More answers here:
    http://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html

    As for SPECTRE, I don't think it will be seen as a franchise high in years to come, despite me personally liking it. It's major flaw being the Blofeld plot which detracts from the previous three DG films.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 389
    It´s the first movie I have watched three times in theatres. The most amazing experience was the first one, but it´s still on muy Top 5 and I think it will be on my top 10 for the next two decades.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    C007 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    They fall through the holes in his hands.

    But didn't they drive the nails through the wrist as the tissue in the hand is not strong enough to bear the body weight and they would just rip off?

    Another ahem nail in the coffin for those who take the bible literally.

    Not true. They have done tests and both can hold the weight of a human being. More answers here:
    http://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html

    Well I guess there's only one way to find out for sure - nail someone up for real. Mendes, Newman or P&W?

    Wonder if we could get Mythbusters interested?
  • Why some people can´t understand that JB and ESB are not even step brothers? It´s a bit annoying for me. :((
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    Why some people can´t understand that JB and ESB are not even step brothers? It´s a bit annoying for me. :((

    I think you miss the point.

    I know full well they are not it is just easier to type 'step brother' than 'Bond was under the guardianship of Hannes Oberhauser so spent time with the family and thus encountered Franz Oberhauser'.

    It's not the nature of the relationship that matters. They could be step brothers, cousins, next door neighbours, f**king gay lovers - it's irrelevant!

    The point is having them know each other at all is a bollocks concept that shouldn't have made it past a brainstorming session let alone the final script.

    Saying 'but they're not step brothers Bond just lived with the Oberhauser's for a bit ' is ignoring the fundamental issue.
Sign In or Register to comment.