Where would you rank SPECTRE? (no spoilers)

1111214161736

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 15,980
    Ha ha, time for me to pull out an argument that was used so many times for SF; SP was a phenomenal Bond movie- just look at it's box office take!
    :P
  • The step brother angle. Eeesh. It just reeks of the stuff on the third Austin Powers film that made fun of Bond to begin with.

    It's just too much of a coincidence for me.

    Blofeld and Bond are not even step brothers!!! :(( :(( ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    The step brother angle. Eeesh. It just reeks of the stuff on the third Austin Powers film that made fun of Bond to begin with.

    It's just too much of a coincidence for me.

    Blofeld and Bond are not even step brothers!!! :(( :(( ;)

    Ok just for you - I hereby state that I accept that Bond and Blofeld were not step brothers, foster brothers or any other type of brothers. Bond and Blofeld once lived together after Bond's parents died when Bond was under the guardianship of Hannes Oberhauser but they were never ever legally step brothers in the conventional sense.

    Does that make you happy?

    You can call it what you like but it oesn't make it any less shit though does it?
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    edited February 2016 Posts: 28,316
    Some people are a little myopic. How the Hell could a reasonably not retarded adult watch that movie and not pick up on the fact that (semantics aside) EON is trying to shove a "brotherly" connection between the two? Not saying anyone here fits that description, I am simply at a loss. They spell it out, as Wizard noted, more than once.
  • FormulaMasaFormulaMasa Finland
    edited February 2016 Posts: 6
    I just watched it for the second time, this time on blu ray, and I must say I liked it even more than in the first time in cinema. It still does not top Skyfall or From Russia with Love on my list, but it is among the top 5, definitely.
  • I agree with Wizard above. Step, foster, adopted, whatever, it was too much of a coincidence and it sunk the story, for me.
  • I agree with Wizard above. Step, foster, adopted, whatever, it was too much of a coincidence and it sunk the story, for me.
    Why is a movie better or worse for that reason? I think Bond fans are a bit too conservative, the problem for a lot of them is that Blofeld and Bond had never had a backstory. I must admit that it doesn't make a better movie at all, but it doesn't ruin it neither. It is an odd coincidence, yes, but Bond films a d novels are plenty of them. Look at Silva's plan in SF, 006 as the bad guy in GE or Shatterhand is actually... ESB in YOLT novel.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Because the change is way too radical. Bond has never had such a personal connection to the villain, and the idea is that in the original films was that Bond didn't know who Blofeld was, which made his challenge all the more difficult. People can't imagine a brotherly Blofeld being like the ones in FRWL and TB and so on. Frankly, I can't, either. If Bond can easily recognize Blofeld even in the shadows, then there's no more of that "hidden visage" that contributed to how menacing Blofeld was in the original movies. But this is a new era, and perhaps we don't need that hidden visage at all. That being said, I still don't think there's a reason to connect Bond and Blofeld in this fashion.

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.

  • Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    It's not the notion of having a backstory as it is the poor execution of that backstory. As a result, it's far worse than a "blond Bond", a "black Moneypenny" or a "nerdish Q".
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,899

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    Don't mix all these arguments together. I don't think that anybody has a problem with a black Moneypenny or a nerdish Q as nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M. The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.
  • GBF wrote: »

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.
    I must agree here. Because of this, I think Bond 25 should be a standalone film, with some mild references to the previous 4 movies.
  • I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    What on earth are you talking about?
    MI6 is not an organisation that was setup to sort out Bond's family issues. How much damage has he indirectly caused them? They would fire him on the spot lest he has upset anyone else in the past who has then gone on to be a supervillian.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    GBF wrote: »

    Bond isn't really meant to be such a personally explored character. I think that's what's putting some fans off.
    I agree. In fact, it supports my theory: some Bond fans are a bit too conservative. A blond Bond? ^#(^ A black MoneyPenny? :(( A nerdish Q? [-X A Blofeld-Bond backstory? #-o

    Don't mix all these arguments together. I don't think that anybody has a problem with a black Moneypenny or a nerdish Q as nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M. The main problem is that meanwhile the writers try to connect everything with Bond or the MI6. I don't know why this is necessary because it reduces their opportunities to write a really good story. Why does everything needs to be connected with Bond? There is no reason for this, it feels extremely forced and makes the plot predictable. The other problem is that because of that, the villain and his actual plan (sub plot) have very little screen time. It is all about the personal relationship between Bond (or M) and the villain Just look at the last 9 Bond films and you will mostly find a motivation for the villain or Bond to take revenge for something that happened in the past. This is not a bad thing but I really think we have had enough of that.

    Amen to that brother.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    Posts: 4,042
    Spectre is my number 11 on my current list. I now find the theme song brilliant along with the pre-title sequence. Newmans score remains average....he needed to use Sam Smith's song a lot more. Still not convinced by the nine eyes plot or Blofeld.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,316
    It is a bad thing.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,038
    24 for me now. It is disappointing, frustrating and deflating.

    At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,389
    w2bond wrote: »
    24 for me now. It is disappointing, frustrating and deflating.

    At least QoS has a decent score, and is only disappointing, and SF is frustrating

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.
  • RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.
  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2016 Posts: 10,389
    RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.

    If you were disappointed with the follow-up, frustrated by the third and disappointed, frustrated and deflated by the fourth I wouldn't say the odds of number five being a 'hit' for you are particularly good without a changing of the guard and direction.
  • GBFGBF
    Posts: 2,899
    RC7 wrote: »

    You should probably check out until a new actor is confirmed.

    But the majority who are disappointed with Craig's last 3 liked Casino Royale. It's not Craig that's the problem for most folk.

    It is certainly not his fault. He is indeed a very good actor. I also liked Skyfall. I found that Javier Bardem was great and giving M a bigger part was also cool. I also think that it was a very sad and emotional film. There was also a personal relationship but it was much more deeply rooted and explained better. The reason for revenge was also at least plausible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger On Her Secret Majesty s Service
    Posts: 35,511
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,596
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.

    You sexist pig...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger On Her Secret Majesty s Service
    Posts: 35,511
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    GBF wrote: »
    nobody had a problem with Judy Dench playing M.

    I did. Worst M ever.

    You sexist pig...

    Interesting combination of words.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,596
    I try, I try, good @Thunderfinger.

    So I've been very slow going with this random Bondathon (that I hope to finish up in the next few days), and after that, I'll probably do another one, from DN to SP, in hopes of finally being able to properly place SP in my rankings list.
  • Nah, the guy who replaced Bernard Lee was the least of the Ms. for me.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,316
    Robert Brown gets overlooked, but he had a couple of good moments (THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS PTS) and one great moment ("We're not a country club 007!"). He does look small next to the two monuments, but I'd take him over Fiennes, at this point.
  • I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 28,316
    And, as has been said (often by me) ad nauseam, MI6 has become an organization that just deals with issues stemming from MI6 members.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,389
    I like Fiennes as M.

    And yeah, what @Birdleson said earlier. I'm so done talking about it. How can people not see the connection they were trying to make?

    Why is it bad? It waters down Blofeld as a character, it waters down his motivations, it makes him look like a pathetic child instead of a creepy and intimidating genius presence. At the end of the film I almost felt "poor little Blofeld" which is terrible.

    The dumbest thing in the entire franchise, bar none. Worse than the floating gondola and the CG tidal wave.

    Bit over the top. The tidal wave is the one thing in the series I don't think you can justify. It's an abomination. The Oberhauser/Blofeld angle is just a different take on the source, the sort of thing you see all the time in comics (yes, I know Bond isn't a comic). I see it as an experiment that won't be repeated, but it isn't enough to make me loath the movie. I see it as a creative decision that was made for valid reasons in the mind of Mendes, something that cannot be said of Tamahori's decision making.

    I also don't see the watering down of Blofeld's motivations. As an entity and organisation they are exactly what I would expect. Blofeld's thirst for power is not motivated by anything other than his psychopathic tendencies. For Bond the events of the four films comprise his world, for Blofeld, they aren't. Bond represents the proverbial fly in the ointment whose destruction is serendipitously personal. The reason it is front and centre is because this is a series of Bond films, not Blofeld films.

    Totally understand why people wouldn't like this angle, it's very obvious to me why.
Sign In or Register to comment.