Spectre (Bond 24)

Japandamo

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

Telecaster58

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE.

4. Q: From Goldfinger right up to Brosnan's films, there was always that compulsory scene of comedy between Bond and Q. At first, it was funny but it became more or less the same thing repeated over and over. It seemed totally out of place in Licence to Kill for instance. There was a hint of this revived in Skyfall and I hope it does not get continued.

You're going to be disappointed then. Much larger role for Wishaw in this one

aphex™

Never had a problem with that. Surely it's a result of a clash of two characters- the messer and the science boffin.

Generally takes place before he goes out on a mission so how is it 'out of place'.

mynameis905

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Still haven't got around to seeing SPECTRE. Unfortunately, watching all the real life SPECTRE and their actions in Paris dominated this week.

The problem in past Bonds is that elements were brought in that worked well in one film but were foolishly continued on in other films and did not work. Examples include:

1. The Louisiana police chief in Live and Let Die. Excellent in this film and fits in with the proceedings. Unneeded and distracting in The Man With The Golden Gun.
2. General Gogol was a great character but I felt was often just put into some of the films for the sake of it. He is essential in The Spy Who Loved Me and Octopussy but serves no real purpose apart from mild comedy cameo in the otherwise excellent The Living Daylights as Pushkin has taken over.
3. Miss Moneypenny: the hints at romance between her and Bond became cliched and distracting and was tired by the late Connery films let alone Lazenby's and Moore's as well. I hope they do not revive this storyline.
4. Q: From Goldfinger right up to Brosnan's films, there was always that compulsory scene of comedy between Bond and Q. At first, it was funny but it became more or less the same thing repeated over and over. It seemed totally out of place in Licence to Kill for instance. There was a hint of this revived in Skyfall and I hope it does not get continued.

One of the laziest things the series could do is go back to remaking earlier films. Talks of another Thunderball remake have been rife for years as have a remake of OHMSS. If these were to happen, then a new Goldfinger, FRWL and Dr No could also follow. Instead, there is plenty unused Fleming material there. The contents of the short story From A View To a Kill and the entire novel The Spy Who Loved Me were never used for instance. Some good stuff there in both. Of course, a new name should be used as these 2 titles have already been used but ONLY the titles. The 3 Fleming titles never used are 007 in New York, The Property of a Lady and The Hildebrand Rarity. The middle one is the best title and was meant to be Dalton's 3rd. Of course, the contents of that short story already are included in Octopussy but perhaps using that title with unused Fleming material from The Spy Who Loved Me and From a View To a Kill would be a good idea.

Unfortunately Moneypenny and Q have pretty big roles in this movie. Q even randomly appears half way through the action to order a vegetable smoothie. Yes you read that right. I wish I was joking.

I think they made a huge mistake in killing off M in Skyfall. The implied sexual tension between Judi Dench and Daniel Craig is sorely missed in Spectre.

eviltimeban

mynameis905 wrote: »

The implied sexual tension between Judi Dench and Daniel Craig is sorely missed in Spectre.

You might be alone in that. :eek:

eeguy

mynameis905 wrote: »

Unfortunately Moneypenny and Q have pretty big roles in this movie. Q even randomly appears half way through the action to order a vegetable smoothie. Yes you read that right. I wish I was joking.

What's worse is the actual reason he's there was written out, so it looks like he just popped into the movie for a bit, then disappears.

BuilderPlumber

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

I like Moore's Bond too. Many of his films are very underrated such as Octopussy, Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. Others are 'officially' appreciated like Live and Let Die and The Spy Who Loved Me. Some of the elements criticised by Bond fans about Moore's era, such as the jokes with Q and reliance on gadgets actually started long before Moore's era. As early as Goldfinger actually! Perhaps, by A View To A Kill, he looked tired and somehow sidelined. But this too is underappreciated and does not deserve the reputation it has: Walken's Zorin is perhaps the best villain ever and his realistic portrayal of a violent psychopath is perhaps what sidelined everything else here incl. Bond.

The Man With The Golden Gun is admittedly a bit of a disappointment but these things happen. Perhaps, the fact it was made one year after Live and Let Die and its concept changed a lot (from an Iran-set film to what we get) meant it was a bit rushed. The action is poor in Bond terms and the waste of Christopher Lee, who could have well played one of the best villains if given the plot, on a guy who just has a solar energy source is a crime. Still, I'd rate this film higher than Brosnan's last 2.

Wedwood

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

Roger Moore was great and hugely popular as Bond, he wouldn't have made 7 Bond movies if he wasn't.

Moore's movies are suffering a similar berating to the one dished out to ABBA during the 80's/90's, where they were castigated as outdated and old fashioned. They were made 'fashionable' again in the 00's after the musical Mama Mia came out and ABBA discovered a new younger audience.

Maybe as audience tastes yearn for a less serious Bond, Moore's movies will come back into vogue again.

BTW, I wouldn't confuse the rantings of a few anti Moore 'know it alls' as representing the mainstream view of Moore's movies.

beard_grower

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

possibly the worst actor ever to get paid for it but i still have a soft spot for his bond era , spy who loved me is a classic

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

Roger Moore was great and hugely popular as Bond, he wouldn't have made 7 Bond movies if he wasn't.

Moore's movies are suffering a similar berating to the one dished out to ABBA during the 80's/90's, where they were castigated as outdated and old fashioned. They were made 'fashionable' again in the 00's after the musical Mama Mia came out and ABBA discovered a new younger audience.

Maybe as audience tastes yearn for a less serious Bond, Moore's movies will come back into vogue again.

BTW, I wouldn't confuse the rantings of a few anti Moore 'know it alls' as representing the mainstream view of Moore's movies.

I think Brosnan's films were an attempt to recapture the feel of Moore's films after it was decided by the makers of the series the world was not ready for the more 'serious' Bond. Moore's films by and large were much better than Brosnan's it has to be said.

I do not think any actor should try and copy the previous one. That's why perhaps the Brosnan films suffered as the series then did not know what to do (it made a brave step with Dalton but shied away from it). I think Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig all made Bond their own whereas Brosnan, who was a good actor and a good Bond, was restricted by scrips that tried to incorporate a mix of Moore and the more humorous Connery Bonds. I'd have liked to have seen Brosnan in a Bond film designed around him rather than attempting to go back to the Moore/late Connery style. Craig's first 3 films have been daring and original and I just hope SPECTRE which I have yet to see does not go down the going back to the older films style as it did not work with Brosnan.

Gamb!t

Japandamo wrote: »

Am I the only one who liked Roger Moore as Bond?

He's getting an awful doing!

You have another fan here

skipper_G

Saw this last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I've heard and read some (imo) ultra critical comments which I don't understand at all. Perhaps my expectations were different. The only criticism I have concerns the score, it needed a bit more oomph. 7/10

Penn

The film was good. Probably not as good as Skyfall but certainly better than Quantum of Solace. Have to say Casino Royale is still my favourite Craig Bond film though. Don't even really know why. Maybe it's just because it was the least Bond-like film.

Riddle101

I've been watching the Brosnan bond movies the last few nights now. I've actually found myself appreciating those films more now, after watching Craig. They just come off as real action packed popcorn movies that you can just sit back and enjoy. Also I'm stating the think that Spectre is to Craig's Bond, as Die Another Day was to Brosnan's bond. Both were the fourth Bond movies to feature those two actors, and both have come under heavy criticism by Bond fans. I often hear people go on about how Die Another Day wasn't very good, and now with all the reactions to Spectre, it might be the same for Craig's Bond too.

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

FunLover18

Riddle101 wrote:

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

I think it's just a rare case of an actor playing the same character and two different franchises. Craig's Bond is definitely a reboot and not connected canonically with the previous films.

StringerBell

Finally got to go see it last night, I gotta admit overall I was pretty bored. It was ok, it could have done with some editing to shorten it and lose some needless scenes, or at least shorten some scenes.

I think Craig plays the character so naturally that it can appear he is sleepwalking or a little bored himself, I do wish he had been given a better script, didn't like a lot of that or the dialogue. Some very good set pieces and action sequences but overall it was just too long and it dragged in parts.

I would like to see him do one more but if they leave it at that with him I will ok, he will have done 1 excellent film, 2 very good ones and 1 alright one. No shame in that.

Don't get the hate for the main Bond girl, she was grand. Played the part well and I did enjoy the nod to Inglorious Basterds with herself and Walz. He was underused but then again that is how you want to introduce your super villain. You need to leave people wanting more of him. Looking forward to seeing how events unfold for him next time out. The computer geek baddie (not Q) has a very easy to hate face, so I guess that was good casting?

Overall I give it a 6 out of 10 I think, not terrible, just a poor cut more then anything else.

BuilderPlumber

Riddle101 wrote: »

I've been watching the Brosnan bond movies the last few nights now. I've actually found myself appreciating those films more now, after watching Craig. They just come off as real action packed popcorn movies that you can just sit back and enjoy. Also I'm stating the think that Spectre is to Craig's Bond, as Die Another Day was to Brosnan's bond. Both were the fourth Bond movies to feature those two actors, and both have come under heavy criticism by Bond fans. I often hear people go on about how Die Another Day wasn't very good, and now with all the reactions to Spectre, it might be the same for Craig's Bond too.

Has it ever been explained why Judi Dench's M was featured in both film series, despite Craig's Bond being a reboot? Dench was introduced in Goldeneye as Bond's new superior, yet in Casiono Royale, she is already Bond's superior before he becomes a double 0 agent.

Will finally get around to seeing SPECTRE tomorrow or Saturday. For some reason, the last film by all the Bonds remain underappreciated!!

For Connery, he had set the bar very high himself with early classics Dr No, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball and YOLT that Diamonds are Forever seems somehow lacking. The latter imo is very good but it was not what I expected at this stage. But the Bond franchise is unpredictable. That leads to OHMSS, its predecessor where Lazenby's only performance of Bond continues to get undeserved negative reaction.

The debate between the serious v lighthearted Bond started here. Some Bond fans loved the tragic ending of Lazenby's film and wanted more. But it sold relatively poorly Diamonds are Forever instead gave them a more happy go lucky Bond and sold way better. But this would only work in Bond: suppose Mad Max 1 ends with the scene where Toecutter and co kills his wife and child and Mad Max 2 follows with a happy go lucky rather than Mad Max joking and going about another mission in a carefree manner. It would not work. Of course, even though the revenge here was concluded in the first movie, the affect on Max's character is evident in the sequels.

The next Bond actor was Moore and his last film too is often slated for various reasons. Some say Moore was too old, others say it showed too much indiscriminate violence. A View To A Kill in fact has a lot going for it: perhaps the best villain in Zorin, some great action scenes including one of the best pretitle sequences, and an inventive climax that showcases Zorin's madness (the indiscriminate violence of Zorin killing all his innocent workers with a machinegun shocked some but it showed how evil and deranged this villain was).

Next we have Dalton. His second film was often criticised for being too un-Bondlike and that it was more Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon in style. True, it is not your typical Bond film but it one hell of an excellent film and perhaps gave us that revenge focused film we craved. Bond leaves the secret service to avenge the drug dealer who kill his friend's wife akin to how Blofeld did his own. Whether this incarnation of Bond went back or not to the MI6, we can decide but this film was the right way to wrap up the 1962-89 incarnation of Bond.

Jump to Brosnan. New reboot, new Bond. New era. After a good opener and a very good second film, the third was let down via having no strong villain and it seems the main villain was a mere henchman type allied to a mentally unstable rich woman. But Die Another Day while watchable was marred by invisible cars et al and was the worst of the series.

Craig set the bar high with classics like Casino and Skyfall. SPECTRE? I'll know soon!!

Boo Radley

Got to see this recently. I've been absent from Boards for a number of years now but was compelled to come back and see what's been going on.

So, I cliche doesn't even begin to describe this film. I know they're trying to go back to basics and whatnot but subtle this was not.

I'm fully expecting the next Bond film to have a henchman with actual hams for fists, as that seems to be the general trajectory of the franchise.

I'm not sure what the idea was with making Bond the centre of recent world events in the way they have. It changes him from a spy into a chosen one (as a friend put it). Anyway, I was underwhelmed. It looked beautiful. Craig is a great Bond, but as far as story telling goes this was a bit of a mess really.

Haven't read through all the posts in this thread so I'm probably not adding anything new, but there we have it.

Edit: Oh, and

aren't they just setting Craig's Bond to have his wife/partner shot a la Connery's Bond

?

Wedwood

i think Spectre ultimately falls into the Quantum of Solace bracket, rather than Casino Royale/Skyfall.

It's hard to see where Bond movies should go from here, maybe a hiatus for a while.

The further Bond leaves the Cold War era behind, the less recognisable he is as Fleming's Bond. Perhaps the next series of Bond movies should place him back in the '60's', where he truly belongs.

Agricola

Thought it was poor enough. Even for a Bond film, the very obvious procession of setpieces was too much. Oh heres the first reference to sex, heres the OTT action scene, heres the car chase, heres the intense brawl, heres the second reference to sex, now the third.... etc etc.
I'd love to see a Bond film that completely breaks the mould, even more so than Casino Royale. Stop trying to hit all these marks for once and write a spy thriller first and foremost. It'll never happen of course.

dirtyden

Agricola wrote: »

Thought it was poor enough. Even for a Bond film, the very obvious procession of setpieces was too much. Oh heres the first reference to sex, heres the OTT action scene, heres the car chase, heres the intense brawl, heres the second reference to sex, now the third.... etc etc.
I'd love to see a Bond film that completely breaks the mould, even more so than Casino Royale. Stop trying to hit all these marks for once and write a spy thriller first and foremost. It'll never happen of course.

Agree completely. Even for a bond film it was quite clichéd. Casino Royale appeared to be getting away from that and it was rightly lauded as perhaps a change in direction in the franchise. They have gone right back to the tried and tested formula though.

It was a reasonable film but played out completely as per the bond formula. Craig looked like he could not care less. He obviously has had his fill of Bond films.

BuilderPlumber

Agricola wrote: »

Thought it was poor enough. Even for a Bond film, the very obvious procession of setpieces was too much. Oh heres the first reference to sex, heres the OTT action scene, heres the car chase, heres the intense brawl, heres the second reference to sex, now the third.... etc etc.
I'd love to see a Bond film that completely breaks the mould, even more so than Casino Royale. Stop trying to hit all these marks for once and write a spy thriller first and foremost. It'll never happen of course.

Still did not get around to it. May wait for it on DVD at this stage. The times it is on in the cinemas nearby are awkward enough to fit in with my other things.

Yes, I'd like to see some different types of Bond films too. Perhaps, a type of post apocalypse Bond film might work out good. Perhaps, Bond is dealing with the fallout literally from a major nuclear attack on a major country and is tracking down the bad guy responsible (who also has killed Bond's wife or important girlfriend) and combining a revenge mission and working for a government that is poorly funded and crumbling. Mad Max 1 meets OHMSS perhaps but it would be interesting!

Harry Palmr

Spectre has crossed the $750,000,000 mark so I don't see any likelihood of pressure to re-tool the series.

BuilderPlumber

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Spectre has crossed the $750,000,000 mark so I don't see any likelihood of pressure to re-tool the series.

History has shown that a lot of the Bond films that went away from the traditional format did not do as well commercially. Licence to Kill is a good example: it did well but not as well as others and was criticised at the time for being very un-Bond. It remains the most different Bond of the series and also one of the best too. OHMSS is another: it broke a lot of the Bond traditions with Bond marrying the girl and the girl getting shot in the Love/Hate-style ending. Ironically, OHMSS and Licence to Kill both have Bond leaving MI6. While not as radically different, For Your Eyes Only and A View To A Kill were films that experimented with new ideas and got away from the typical Moore era film as defined by TSWLM, Moonraker and Octopussy.

The tried and trusted format has been used time and time again from Goldfinger to date. Among the elements considered essential are a pretitle sequence featuring a major stunt like parachuting down a mountain or being in a plane chased by a bomb, etc. Then, a car chase involving often a gadget-packed car, a major shootout at the end, a fight on a train, a boat chase, an underwater battle, a ski chase, a plot to cause a major war, and deranged villains and henchmen have all become the norm.

I think the pretitle sequence was first considered to be very important with TSWLM. From that film until now, it has become a highlight of every film. Before that film, the sequence often was just setting things up and did not feature any of the elaborate pretitle action sequences we have seen in TSWLM and every Bond since then.

BuilderPlumber

FunLover18 wrote: »

I think it's just a rare case of an actor playing the same character and two different franchises. Craig's Bond is definitely a reboot and not connected canonically with the previous films.

Craig's Bond is a different Bond to Brosnan's as Casino Royale is a reboot. But was Brosnan's Bond a different Bond to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton one? I presume so too.

Cartel Mike

Saw it a few days ago.
It's a comedy . The white cat , the desert hideout\evil empire ,the evil leader who wants to rule the world, the employees all dressed in back (presumably too evil to have lives or familes), the henchman, Q, Monneypenny,the car, Bond taking it without permission, the cheesey oneliners, improbable love story, glamourous locations.

This is the conclusion to the storyline started in Casino Royale?

Man

Hard to belive this is where Craig's 'New Bond' actually ended up.

Red King

I never doubted that Craigs Bond would end up where he is to be honest. Casino Royale was a reboot and there was no way in hell that they wouldn't reintroduce all the familiar elements in "updated" form.

What I didn't expect was that they'd make it all so bland and uninteresting in Spectre.

I mean they spent so long trying to regain the rights to the Blofeld character and then they do this with him.

Being Bond's butthurt step-brother is bloody daft in the extreme.

And Waltz delivered a pretty ordinary performance, though to be fair the script for his character was dire.

That they got Blofeld so completely wrong is just unforgiveable. The whole film suffers for it.

And Hinx is just wasted as the henchman, physically imposing and that is about it. Boring.

Even the car chase was boring. And the helicopter scene was just so over the top and long that I started to roll my eyes.



Mendes has to go after this. And whoever came up with the new Blofeld shouldn't be allowed near a Bond movie ever again.



Maybe it is best that Craig walks so some new ideas can be brought to the table. Personally I'd love to see Fassbender tackle the role but I doubt it will ever happen.

Fassbender as Bond, Bryan Cranston as Blofeld

eeguy

The "Still Untitled" podcast made the point that the first film in every Bond reboot is fantastic, Casino Royale, Goldeneye, OHMSS, Living Daylights, but as the movies progress they get pulled back into the campy, jokey, womanising homages of the Roger Moore era.

MrTom1

Thought the movie was awful , everything seemed rush and no plot

BuilderPlumber

Red King wrote: »

I never doubted that Craigs Bond would end up where he is to be honest. Casino Royale was a reboot and there was no way in hell that they wouldn't reintroduce all the familiar elements in "updated" form.

What I didn't expect was that they'd make it all so bland and uninteresting in Spectre.

I mean they spent so long trying to regain the rights to the Blofeld character and then they do this with him.

Being Bond's butthurt step-brother is bloody daft in the extreme.

And Waltz delivered a pretty ordinary performance, though to be fair the script for his character was dire.

That they got Blofeld so completely wrong is just unforgiveable. The whole film suffers for it.

And Hinx is just wasted as the henchman, physically imposing and that is about it. Boring.

Even the car chase was boring. And the helicopter scene was just so over the top and long that I started to roll my eyes.



Mendes has to go after this. And whoever came up with the new Blofeld shouldn't be allowed near a Bond movie ever again.



Maybe it is best that Craig walks so some new ideas can be brought to the table. Personally I'd love to see Fassbender tackle the role but I doubt it will ever happen.

Fassbender as Bond, Bryan Cranston as Blofeld

I didn't get to see it but have to agree with you regarding Blofeld. They should have stayed as faithful as possible to the Blofeld Fleming invented. They probably had written this character as he is before they got the rights to use the name Blofeld again?

The 'former friend turned enemy' of Bond has been done to death at this stage imo. Goldeneye started this bad guy concept, Skyfall mastered it and SPECTRE go for it once again, just making him a relation instead of friend.

It was inevitable that the Craig films would start adding back elements from the older films as they went along. Personally, I enjoyed Craig's first 3 but many others longed for the elements of traditional Bond to be reintroduced. I can't see myself hating SPECTRE and I can't see it being in the bottom pile of Bond films but how much will I like it is the main question.

What I already said I don't want to see happen is for elements of the old classics to be redone. I don't want something like the robbery of nukes flown into some unknown location in space by SPECTRE agent Largo who says he will use them unless he gets a lot of money sort of plot. It would be Thunderball in space. Or I don't want to see Rosa Klebb, Red Grant or Dr No pop up as Blofeld's helpers in a new film. Neither do I want to see OHMSS 2017 or Goldfinger 2019 and so on. The rebooted Bond has to go different places or else it becomes just a copy of the old Bond comparing poorly to it and all.