In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1171820222352

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    IMO Bond has to go back to STAND ALONE missions...something we can discuss, about an individual film ,individual villain,without having to link X,Y and Z other films...this is the biggest mistake of the Craig era.
    Yes ,make referrals to your past ...Lazenby lost Tracy..Moore referred to her,Dalton referred to her ...but a referral is enough....i want individual missions,individual villains,and Blofeld popping up ocasionally...a film every 2 years etc...but i know i've no chance.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2016 Posts: 20,199
    In response to a few posts ago, where @Getafix and @Mendes4Life called CR somewhat overrated if I understood them well, I'd like to say a few things. Obviously it's understandable that not everyone loves or has to love CR. I've always assumed that every Bond film finishes first on at least one person's list and also last on at least one other person's list. CR should be no different. Also, there are many things CR does very well, but it's probably not the only Bond film that does them so well.

    You see, we have a great James Bond with an amazing physical dominance over many of his foes, a superbly staged card game, an exceptionally clever plot, an inspiring sense of naturalism, an immensely well developed and attractive Bond girl... Each one of these elements can be found in other Bond films too. But what I have always considered to be the major strength of CR is that this film has all those great things packed in one single movie! In the Connery classics for example, I go to DN for starters, to FRWL for the main dish, to GF for desert and to TB and YOLT for some late-night snacks. With CR, however, I get the complete meal all at once.

    The film opens in a stunningly addictive way, never failing to pin me down in my seat, leaving me almost breathless with admiration for how much 007 power was conveyed in those first 3 or so minutes. The rest of the film offers one stroke of genius after the other, be it in terms of plot, acting, cinematography, or something else. And even after 2 hours and 20-something minutes of near-exhaustive worshipping, the final shots of Bond walking towards Mr White make me salivate with excitement and anticipation for what comes next. Then still, though I have known what comes next since 2008, I'm never not in the same state of exhilaration as I was in 2006 when I left the theatre with the promise that this James Bond - not just any James Bond but this James Bond - would return. Though GE is still my favourite Bond film, mostly due to my being at the proper age when that film was released - you might say it's my generation's Bond film or something like that, I don't know - CR is the only Bond film that doesn't let me down in any department whatsoever. Like magic, its call is irresistible and I, as one of its most fervid fans, cannot fully explain why.

    So while I agree with Getafix and Mendes that I may give the film perhaps too much credit, the problem is I cannot seem to cease revering CR with an almost religious fervour. I never completely joined the club of SF devotees, as that film has always existed in the shadows of the much better CR for me, no matter how good SF may or may not be. Many of the things people called "great" about SF slightly failed in my book when compared to CR. Silva a superb villain? Nah, surely not as great as Le Chiffre. Great action? Come on, the "parkour chase" and Miami International sequence top all of what SF has to offer. Yes, Naomi Harris. But she's no Eva Greene. And so on. I'm just saying that the 2012 hype surrounding SF felt a bit unfair to me, though I was pleased and proud as a Bond fan, because I was of the honest opinion that most if not all of that praise should have gone to CR. It's comparable I think to how I felt about the smashing success of The Dark Knight compared to the lukewarm reception Batman Begins had received box office wise. I was excited about The Dark Knight but I had hoped that Batman Begins would be able to retrospectively get some reappraisal too. And in this case I'm not even sure which Batman film I prefer over the other. In the case of the Craig Bonds, I do know for sure which film I consider the best. It's CR, leaps and bounds over the other three.
  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2016 Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In response to a few posts ago, where @Getafix and @Mendes4Life called CR somewhat overrated if I understood them well, I'd like to say a few things. Obviously it's understandable that not everyone loves or has to love CR. I've always assumed that every Bond film finishes first on at least one person's list and also last on at least one other person's list. CR should be no different. Also, there are many things CR does very well, but it's probably not the only Bond film that does them so well.

    You see, we have a great James Bond with an amazing physical dominance over many of his foes, a superbly staged card game, an exceptionally clever plot, an inspiring sense of naturalism, an immensely well developed and attractive Bond girl... Each one of these elements can be found in other Bond films too. But what I have always considered to be the major strength of CR is that this film has all those great things packed in one single movie! In the Connery classics for example, I go to DN for starters, to FRWL for the main dish, to GF for desert and to TB and YOLT for some late-night snacks. With CR, however, I get the complete meal all at once.

    The film opens in a stunningly addictive way, never failing to pin me down in my seat, leaving me almost breathless with admiration for how much 007 power was conveyed in those first 3 or so minutes. The rest of the film offers one stroke of genius after the other, be it in terms of plot, acting, cinematography, or something else. And even after 2 hours and 20-something minutes of near-exhaustive worshipping, the final shots of Bond walking towards Mr White make me salivate with excitement and anticipation for what comes next. Then still, though I have known what comes next since 2008, I'm never not in the same state of exhilaration as I was in 2006 when I left the theatre with the promise that this James Bond - not just any James Bond but this James Bond - would return. Though GE is still my favourite Bond film, mostly due to my being at the proper age when that film was released - you might say it's my generation's Bond film or something like that, I don't know - CR is the only Bond film that doesn't let me down in any department whatsoever. Like magic, its call is irresistible and I, as one of its most fervid fans, cannot fully explain why.

    So while I agree with Getafix and Mendes that I may give the film perhaps too much credit, the problem is I cannot seem to cease revering CR with an almost religious fervour. I never completely joined the club of SF devotees, as that film has always existed in the shadows of the much better CR for me, no matter how good SF may or may not be. Many of the things people called "great" about SF slightly failed in my book when compared to CR. Silva a superb villain? Nah, surely not as great as Le Chiffre. Great action? Come on, the "parkour chase" and Miami International sequence top all of what SF has to offer. Yes, Naomi Harris. But she's no Eva Greene. And so on. I'm just saying that the 2012 hype surrounding SF felt a bit unfair to me, though I was pleased and proud as a Bond fan, because I was of the honest opinion that most if not all of that praise should have gone to CR. It's comparable I think to how I felt about the smashing success of The Dark Knight compared to the lukewarm reception Batman Begins had received box office wise. I was excited about The Dark Knight but I had hoped that Batman Begins would be able to retrospectively get some reappraisal too. And in this case I'm not even sure which Batman film I prefer over the other. In the case of the Craig Bonds, I do know for sure which film I consider the best. It's CR, leaps and bounds over the other three.

    This. It's all well and good nitpicking from film to film and people have valid criticisms of CR, but sometimes you just have to stand back accept that certain things are just a cut above. It's cool and 'ironic' these days to suggest that QoS is better. It's just not. CR is a bona fide classic and everyone knows it, even if they can't admit it to themselves.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I like QOS but to say it is better than CR is a blatant no ...of course not,CR is a modern classic.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,331
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In response to a few posts ago, where @Getafix and @Mendes4Life called CR somewhat overrated if I understood them well, I'd like to say a few things. Obviously it's understandable that not everyone loves or has to love CR. I've always assumed that every Bond film finishes first on at least one person's list and also last on at least one other person's list. CR should be no different. Also, there are many things CR does very well, but it's probably not the only Bond film that does them so well.

    You see, we have a great James Bond with an amazing physical dominance over many of his foes, a superbly staged card game, an exceptionally clever plot, an inspiring sense of naturalism, an immensely well developed and attractive Bond girl... Each one of these elements can be found in other Bond films too. But what I have always considered to be the major strength of CR is that this film has all those great things packed in one single movie! In the Connery classics for example, I go to DN for starters, to FRWL for the main dish, to GF for desert and to TB and YOLT for some late-night snacks. With CR, however, I get the complete meal all at once.

    The film opens in a stunningly addictive way, never failing to pin me down in my seat, leaving me almost breathless with admiration for how much 007 power was conveyed in those first 3 or so minutes. The rest of the film offers one stroke of genius after the other, be it in terms of plot, acting, cinematography, or something else. And even after 2 hours and 20-something minutes of near-exhaustive worshipping, the final shots of Bond walking towards Mr White make me salivate with excitement and anticipation for what comes next. Then still, though I have known what comes next since 2008, I'm never not in the same state of exhilaration as I was in 2006 when I left the theatre with the promise that this James Bond - not just any James Bond but this James Bond - would return. Though GE is still my favourite Bond film, mostly due to my being at the proper age when that film was released - you might say it's my generation's Bond film or something like that, I don't know - CR is the only Bond film that doesn't let me down in any department whatsoever. Like magic, its call is irresistible and I, as one of its most fervid fans, cannot fully explain why.

    So while I agree with Getafix and Mendes that I may give the film perhaps too much credit, the problem is I cannot seem to cease revering CR with an almost religious fervour. I never completely joined the club of SF devotees, as that film has always existed in the shadows of the much better CR for me, no matter how good SF may or may not be. Many of the things people called "great" about SF slightly failed in my book when compared to CR. Silva a superb villain? Nah, surely not as great as Le Chiffre. Great action? Come on, the "parkour chase" and Miami International sequence top all of what SF has to offer. Yes, Naomi Harris. But she's no Eva Greene. And so on. I'm just saying that the 2012 hype surrounding SF felt a bit unfair to me, though I was pleased and proud as a Bond fan, because I was of the honest opinion that most if not all of that praise should have gone to CR. It's comparable I think to how I felt about the smashing success of The Dark Knight compared to the lukewarm reception Batman Begins had received box office wise. I was excited about The Dark Knight but I had hoped that Batman Begins would be able to retrospectively get some reappraisal too. And in this case I'm even sure which Batman film I prefer over the other. In the case of the Craig Bonds, I do know for sure which film I consider the best. It's CR, leaps and bounds over the other three.

    This. It's all well and good nitpicking from film to film and people have valid criticisms of CR, but sometimes you just have to stand back accept that certain things are just a cut above. It's cool and 'ironic' these days to suggest that QoS is better. It's just not. CR is a bona fide classic and everyone knows it, even if they can't admit it to themselves.

    @RC7 I like QoS far less. And I don't have issues with CR to be 'ironic' like some kind of millennial hipster. It's been discussed on multiple threads here how the plot is messy and overstuffed with "Bond begins" garbage that wasn't in the novel (although I agree the aesthetics are top notch). But feel free to carry on believing it's a masterpiece. I'd never try to make out like your opinion wasn't valid, or null and void...
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited December 2016 Posts: 20,199
    @barryt007
    Agreed.
    I will say this about QOS: I've come to enjoy it a lot more than I used to. I even dare say I enjoy it more than SF. But QOS is no CR. How could it possibly be? With a weaker villain, Bond girl, plot, cinematography, direction, ...?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,569
    If I'm being honest, I think Quantum is better from a visual standpoint. Needless to say that both are beautifully shot.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    QoS isn't superior to CR. It's a weak film overall made out of confusion. But, I enjoy it more than I enjoy CR.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,661
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. Embrace the comic flare.

    Couldn't have put it better. As long as it doesn't devolve into self-parody.
    Agreed. Heaven forbid they step into the Kingsman territory. The comic-flare is a must, but logical relevance is also required.

    Funnily enough, films like Kingsman seem to have done well off the back of Bond going down the emotionally rich, less humorous route. I don't know if a movie like Kingsman could have done as well as it did at any previous time. It's a niche in the market seeing as we don't have Mike Myers doing his thing anymore.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. Embrace the comic flare.

    Couldn't have put it better. As long as it doesn't devolve into self-parody.
    Agreed. Heaven forbid they step into the Kingsman territory. The comic-flare is a must, but logical relevance is also required.

    Funnily enough, films like Kingsman seem to have done well off the back of Bond going down the emotionally rich, less humorous route. I don't know if a movie like Kingsman could have done as well as it did at any previous time. It's a niche in the market seeing as we don't have Mike Myers doing his thing anymore.
    It's not the concept of Kingsman or the characters I have problem with. It's the ridiculous features in it that makes things seem like a forced comedy that bothered me during the film... Well, one of the many things that bothered me... I definitely prefer the comic book. At least that didn't laugh at itself. An Austin Powers was clear at being parody, while this wasn't. Kingsman's Kick-Ass ridiculousness was its lowest point.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    Kingsman had some emotional baggage with it too. It was trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Aside from the Bondesque soundtrack it wasn't anything to phone home about. The angsty punk Eggsy ruined the film for me. I'd have rather had the film be all about Colin Firth's character. He was interesting and fun.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, @Murdock, that was the original premise of the comic book, as well. A punk teen raised in a thuggish family is taken under the wing of his uncle to "become the next James Bond." From a thug to a sophisticated gentleman. The comic book does it better.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,116
    Well, @Murdock, that was the original premise of the comic book, as well. A punk teen raised in a thuggish family is taken under the wing of his uncle to "become the next James Bond." From a thug to a sophisticated gentleman. The comic book does it better.

    I know that was the point of the comic but since it was already strafing from the source material anyway I'd have been much happier if Eggsy was axed altogether.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited December 2016 Posts: 15,423
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Kingsman had some emotional baggage with it too. It was trying to have it's cake and eat it too. Aside from the Bondesque soundtrack it wasn't anything to phone home about. The angsty punk Eggsy ruined the film for me. I'd have rather had the film be all about Colin Firth's character. He was interesting and fun.

    I thought it started out okay, but by the last third I was pretty sick of it.
    +1
    Murdock wrote: »
    Well, @Murdock, that was the original premise of the comic book, as well. A punk teen raised in a thuggish family is taken under the wing of his uncle to "become the next James Bond." From a thug to a sophisticated gentleman. The comic book does it better.

    I know that was the point of the comic but since it was already strafing from the source material anyway I'd have been much happier if Eggsy was axed altogether.
    I guess it strafed away from the source material because the comic was too much like James Bond, so they had to alter some stuff to avoid getting threatened lawsuit by Eon/MGM/Danjaq. I personally think that the Kick-Ass elements should have been axed first hand, and someone better should've been cast as Eggsy... or Gary (as in the comic) as I call him. Taron Egerton was wrong for the choice. And even though I liked Colin Firth in the role, Jason Isaacs should've taken the part instead. The elder spy in the comic was drawn to resemble him. But, I guess Hollywood avoids "the obvious choices" as always.
  • Posts: 469
    It's not too late for EON to cut their losses. I don't think Spectre has a foundation for a whole trilogy. Diamonds Are Forever, arguably the weakest of the Blofeld trilogy, happened at the very end. Spectre is starting out weak from the beginning.

    Is Spectre a bad movie? No. Is Spectre any more deserving of two directly linked sequels than Live and Let Die or World Is Not Enough? No.
  • Seven_Point_Six_FiveSeven_Point_Six_Five Southern California
    Posts: 1,257
    It has now been over a year since the last time I have seen Spectre. I think it is finally time I give it another viewing so I can refresh all my thoughts on it. Perhaps over the weekend.

    But as it stands now, I can't see SP becoming more appreciated in the future.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 719
    But as it stands now, I can't see SP becoming more appreciated in the future.
    Just did that but I turned it off again right after the train fight - I can't stand the last third and for me I fear this will never change.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In response to a few posts ago, where @Getafix and @Mendes4Life called CR somewhat overrated if I understood them well, I'd like to say a few things. Obviously it's understandable that not everyone loves or has to love CR. I've always assumed that every Bond film finishes first on at least one person's list and also last on at least one other person's list. CR should be no different. Also, there are many things CR does very well, but it's probably not the only Bond film that does them so well.

    You see, we have a great James Bond with an amazing physical dominance over many of his foes, a superbly staged card game, an exceptionally clever plot, an inspiring sense of naturalism, an immensely well developed and attractive Bond girl... Each one of these elements can be found in other Bond films too. But what I have always considered to be the major strength of CR is that this film has all those great things packed in one single movie! In the Connery classics for example, I go to DN for starters, to FRWL for the main dish, to GF for desert and to TB and YOLT for some late-night snacks. With CR, however, I get the complete meal all at once.

    The film opens in a stunningly addictive way, never failing to pin me down in my seat, leaving me almost breathless with admiration for how much 007 power was conveyed in those first 3 or so minutes. The rest of the film offers one stroke of genius after the other, be it in terms of plot, acting, cinematography, or something else. And even after 2 hours and 20-something minutes of near-exhaustive worshipping, the final shots of Bond walking towards Mr White make me salivate with excitement and anticipation for what comes next. Then still, though I have known what comes next since 2008, I'm never not in the same state of exhilaration as I was in 2006 when I left the theatre with the promise that this James Bond - not just any James Bond but this James Bond - would return. Though GE is still my favourite Bond film, mostly due to my being at the proper age when that film was released - you might say it's my generation's Bond film or something like that, I don't know - CR is the only Bond film that doesn't let me down in any department whatsoever. Like magic, its call is irresistible and I, as one of its most fervid fans, cannot fully explain why.

    So while I agree with Getafix and Mendes that I may give the film perhaps too much credit, the problem is I cannot seem to cease revering CR with an almost religious fervour. I never completely joined the club of SF devotees, as that film has always existed in the shadows of the much better CR for me, no matter how good SF may or may not be. Many of the things people called "great" about SF slightly failed in my book when compared to CR. Silva a superb villain? Nah, surely not as great as Le Chiffre. Great action? Come on, the "parkour chase" and Miami International sequence top all of what SF has to offer. Yes, Naomi Harris. But she's no Eva Greene. And so on. I'm just saying that the 2012 hype surrounding SF felt a bit unfair to me, though I was pleased and proud as a Bond fan, because I was of the honest opinion that most if not all of that praise should have gone to CR. It's comparable I think to how I felt about the smashing success of The Dark Knight compared to the lukewarm reception Batman Begins had received box office wise. I was excited about The Dark Knight but I had hoped that Batman Begins would be able to retrospectively get some reappraisal too. And in this case I'm even sure which Batman film I prefer over the other. In the case of the Craig Bonds, I do know for sure which film I consider the best. It's CR, leaps and bounds over the other three.

    This. It's all well and good nitpicking from film to film and people have valid criticisms of CR, but sometimes you just have to stand back accept that certain things are just a cut above. It's cool and 'ironic' these days to suggest that QoS is better. It's just not. CR is a bona fide classic and everyone knows it, even if they can't admit it to themselves.

    @RC7 I like QoS far less. And I don't have issues with CR to be 'ironic' like some kind of millennial hipster. It's been discussed on multiple threads here how the plot is messy and overstuffed with "Bond begins" garbage that wasn't in the novel (although I agree the aesthetics are top notch). But feel free to carry on believing it's a masterpiece. I'd never try to make out like your opinion wasn't valid, or null and void...

    I never used the word masterpiece, but along with FRWL and OHMSS it's as close to a modern genre masterpiece as we've got. It's next level. Despite having some excellent moments, as an overall package QoS isn't close to the level achieved by that movie.
  • Posts: 469
    I think SP is a validation of QOS.

    QOS had its shortcomings, but it had a purpose, was thematically consistent and it was confidently taking the series into a new direction.

    SP regressed back to old Bond tropes, botched up the entire story arc, left little room for the series to move forward and is a symptom of EON spinning its wheels.

    I think will be remembered as a good fun entertainment product with a bad legacy for the franchise (like Mass Effect 3)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    I think SP is a validation of QOS.

    QOS had its shortcomings, but it had a purpose, was thematically consistent and it was confidently taking the series into a new direction.

    SP regressed back to old Bond tropes, botched up the entire story arc, left little room for the series to move forward and is a symptom of EON spinning its wheels.

    I think will be remembered as a good fun entertainment product with a bad legacy for the franchise (like Mass Effect 3)
    That's a pretty good summary from my perspective.
  • Posts: 4,431
    As usual, it depends on the audience. I am sure, as with almost all of the Bond movies, that within the fan community, there will be a sub-section that grows to really love it and sing it's praises.
    But out in the rest of the World, on a Sunday afternoon TV showing in, five years time, which will have the higher viewing figures? SF or SP? I think we all know the answer?
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,550
    Watching it for the about the fifth time the other day I find it a very enjoyable Bond film. But it's still a case of what could have been. It never gets close to the bar set by CR and QoS. And the 'romance' with Madeleine has all the depth of a puddle compared to Bond and Vesper in CR.

    For all it's enjoyment value the film seems soulless and written by a committee. No bad thing for a Bond film but I would have liked more from a Craig Bond film.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 6,661
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. Embrace the comic flare.

    Couldn't have put it better. As long as it doesn't devolve into self-parody.
    Agreed. Heaven forbid they step into the Kingsman territory. The comic-flare is a must, but logical relevance is also required.

    Funnily enough, films like Kingsman seem to have done well off the back of Bond going down the emotionally rich, less humorous route. I don't know if a movie like Kingsman could have done as well as it did at any previous time. It's a niche in the market seeing as we don't have Mike Myers doing his thing anymore.
    It's not the concept of Kingsman or the characters I have problem with. It's the ridiculous features in it that makes things seem like a forced comedy that bothered me during the film... Well, one of the many things that bothered me... I definitely prefer the comic book. At least that didn't laugh at itself. An Austin Powers was clear at being parody, while this wasn't. Kingsman's Kick-Ass ridiculousness was its lowest point.

    Fair enough assessment. I didn't love Kingsman although there are a few sequences in it that are really good and the ending didn't do a lot for me. I didn't read the comic book, either.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 35,390
    RC7 wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In response to a few posts ago, where @Getafix and @Mendes4Life called CR somewhat overrated if I understood them well, I'd like to say a few things. Obviously it's understandable that not everyone loves or has to love CR. I've always assumed that every Bond film finishes first on at least one person's list and also last on at least one other person's list. CR should be no different. Also, there are many things CR does very well, but it's probably not the only Bond film that does them so well.

    You see, we have a great James Bond with an amazing physical dominance over many of his foes, a superbly staged card game, an exceptionally clever plot, an inspiring sense of naturalism, an immensely well developed and attractive Bond girl... Each one of these elements can be found in other Bond films too. But what I have always considered to be the major strength of CR is that this film has all those great things packed in one single movie! In the Connery classics for example, I go to DN for starters, to FRWL for the main dish, to GF for desert and to TB and YOLT for some late-night snacks. With CR, however, I get the complete meal all at once.

    The film opens in a stunningly addictive way, never failing to pin me down in my seat, leaving me almost breathless with admiration for how much 007 power was conveyed in those first 3 or so minutes. The rest of the film offers one stroke of genius after the other, be it in terms of plot, acting, cinematography, or something else. And even after 2 hours and 20-something minutes of near-exhaustive worshipping, the final shots of Bond walking towards Mr White make me salivate with excitement and anticipation for what comes next. Then still, though I have known what comes next since 2008, I'm never not in the same state of exhilaration as I was in 2006 when I left the theatre with the promise that this James Bond - not just any James Bond but this James Bond - would return. Though GE is still my favourite Bond film, mostly due to my being at the proper age when that film was released - you might say it's my generation's Bond film or something like that, I don't know - CR is the only Bond film that doesn't let me down in any department whatsoever. Like magic, its call is irresistible and I, as one of its most fervid fans, cannot fully explain why.

    So while I agree with Getafix and Mendes that I may give the film perhaps too much credit, the problem is I cannot seem to cease revering CR with an almost religious fervour. I never completely joined the club of SF devotees, as that film has always existed in the shadows of the much better CR for me, no matter how good SF may or may not be. Many of the things people called "great" about SF slightly failed in my book when compared to CR. Silva a superb villain? Nah, surely not as great as Le Chiffre. Great action? Come on, the "parkour chase" and Miami International sequence top all of what SF has to offer. Yes, Naomi Harris. But she's no Eva Greene. And so on. I'm just saying that the 2012 hype surrounding SF felt a bit unfair to me, though I was pleased and proud as a Bond fan, because I was of the honest opinion that most if not all of that praise should have gone to CR. It's comparable I think to how I felt about the smashing success of The Dark Knight compared to the lukewarm reception Batman Begins had received box office wise. I was excited about The Dark Knight but I had hoped that Batman Begins would be able to retrospectively get some reappraisal too. And in this case I'm not even sure which Batman film I prefer over the other. In the case of the Craig Bonds, I do know for sure which film I consider the best. It's CR, leaps and bounds over the other three.

    This. It's all well and good nitpicking from film to film and people have valid criticisms of CR, but sometimes you just have to stand back accept that certain things are just a cut above. It's cool and 'ironic' these days to suggest that QoS is better. It's just not. CR is a bona fide classic and everyone knows it, even if they can't admit it to themselves.

    QoS barely edges CR in my ranking, but in terms of the finished film itself, CR wins every time. Love it or hate it, as you say, it is most certainly a classic.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    edited December 2016 Posts: 403
    In regards to @Mendes4Lyfe's comments on objectivity in art, allow me to quote the great Vincent Gambino, "What that guy just said was bullshit". Art is intrinsically subjective, therefore trying to "objectively" determine whether one work of art is better or more merit worthy than another is futile because then in that case anything goes. Subjectively for me, The Godfather is a superior film to Batman and Robin. This is a belief held by many others. Does this mean that somehow The Godfather is in fact worse than it's traditionally held up as being great, and that B&R is somehow better because it it traditionally looked down on as a POS? If that's the case there's no point of qualitative difference between any work of art, work of literature, film, whatever, which to me is unconvincing considering the massive divides in Bondom.

    In a not unrelated point, could someone possibly post a discussion link or describe the earlier drafts of SP? I avoid spoilers with Bond and don't seek out script leaks before the film is released. Some of the differences are telling and other omissions speaks volumes to how much of a scattershot production it must of been. I've said from the start the third act needed massive work and Mendes was clearly not the director to be able to deliver a coherent product at that stage.

    Really enjoyed this discussion so far. It's interesting how people are much more aware of the film's problems now than when it came out. I remember discussions going on about how mature, complex, and well put together the film was and that seems totally incongruous with the mixed to negative reaction now. Or maybe it's just that the problems are just more obvious? The film has had time to settle and seems more flawed and patched together than ever before. Having watch both this and QoS this year, I gained a new appreciation for QoS (even though I always liked that movie. It gets better every time I see it whereas SP just seems to be stagnant, not getting better and almost certainly ready to nosedive in my rankings after I do a rewatch of the Craig movies or maybe the whole series sometime soon. It's already dropped a point).

    So basically in summary this one's reputation might be on the downturn in the years to come, especially considering what comes after.

    Oh, and TB is so much better than SP it's not even funny.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,000

    Oh, and TB is so much better than SP it's not even funny.

    Funny, I see them as fairly equal....
    :))
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Kind of boggles my mind, to be honest. One is classic Bond through and through that some people just seem to be obsessed with knocking how "awful" the underwater stuff is and how "it's slow". Cinematography, Connery, quips, epic scope, great story, good romance, great locale, memorable villains. Whereas almost SP's entire third act is just a mess after a promising first two acts. I still like it but TB is firmly enshrined in my top 10 were as SP as it stands never could be. The potential was there, but hell, DAD had some potential as well. Not to compare SP to the turd known as DAD, but squandered potential is what makes me downrate DAD so much. Thankfully SP could never get that bad.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    Having SP at the very bottom is a little puzzling, but if you don't enjoy anything in it, then why not?
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    edited December 2016 Posts: 403
    That I get. I don't agree with it for this movie (that pretty much describes me and DAF, a pretty wretched experience barring the even lower lows of DAD) but the series is based on entertainment in a superficial way and if a film doesn't adhere to those expectations, it should be at the bottom. Again though, I haven't gone that far with SP and am unlikely to considering you pretty much hated it from the start and I did not (though again, I pretty much hated everything about DAF right from the get go and the film has not improved on the 4 or so subsequent rewatches).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    SP has firmly stood on top of my ranking for a year now.
    At the moment I am reconsidering if it will stay there. It's still too new to do the final judgement. Of course it's clear it will stay in the Top 5 at least.
Sign In or Register to comment.