Spectre (Bond 24)

BuilderPlumber

eeguy wrote: »

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.

I think Goldeneye and Casino Royale are the only two real reboots. The Bond from Dr No through to Licence to Kill are the same character played by different actors. Brosnan's Bond is a different Bond and Craig's Bond is a different Bond again and the first incarnation where he is just starting out.

There is a big effort made to impress when a new actor takes over the first time, especially from Dalton onwards. Dalton's 2 films were excellent and I think the series needed these updates at the time: Making the same format film over and over could have ended the series. Moore's Bonds do tend to be underrated but you can only make an Octopussy or TSWLM type film a few times just like a FRWL or Casino Royale type film can only be made a few times. When the series just using a template, things get boring and uninspired.

Brosnan's first 2 had the feel of the early classics but his last 2, which are the just using a template type things, seem all over the place. One foot in Moore's era, another foot god only knows where and coming across as somewhat lacking. Craig's Bond reignited the series in Casino Royale and Skyfall. QoS remains underrated imo. But what will SPECTRE hold? Or what's the future of Bond?

I think what we call the 'Roger Moore type Bond' began well before Moore. The roots of the template we see in TSWLM, Moonraker and Octopussy were laid out in films like Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice. The first jokey Bond may well be Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die was stepped back from that to be more serious actually. Traditional Bond elements tended to gather from film to film: the gadget packed car, the main Bond girl besotted with Bond, the innocent victim (usually the minor Bond girl), the disfigured villain, the superpowered henchman, the super watch/shoe/pen/etc, the cross M, the joking with Q, the flirts with Moneypenny, etc. Many if not all of these were started in the Connery era and the series felt it had to religiously follow them in all the films.

BuilderPlumber

Wedwood wrote: »

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.

Having a Bond film set in the past would make sense. Perhaps have a film or maybe a few films focusing on the period after the Connery/Lazenby era focused on Bond's revenge against Blofeld, Irma Bunt and SPECTRE using material from the You Only Live Twice book but not a remake of this obviously! But characters could be revived certainly: if I was Bond and my wife was killed, I would look for allies. Notably, Draco (Tracy's father) and Tiger Tanaka (you could have him also losing a loved one to Blofeld). They could provide the firepower for the finale, united against the common enemy. You'd work the story around OHMSS and Diamonds Are Forever and maybe have it set at either side to explain things? This is what would have been better than reinventing Blofeld for today's era.

Of course, Bond has been transplanted back to the 1960s/70s in the books like Devil May Care. A film of this book may be excellent too when the West and Iran are on friendlier terms and a film can be filmed there.

Another idea would be a Bond film set in Bond's formative days in the Navy perhaps coming first into contact with elements of SPECTRE?

eviltimeban

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Traditional Bond elements tended to gather from film to film: the gadget packed car, the main Bond girl besotted with Bond, the innocent victim (usually the minor Bond girl), the disfigured villain, the superpowered henchman, the super watch/shoe/pen/etc, the cross M, the joking with Q, the flirts with Moneypenny, etc. Many if not all of these were started in the Connery era and the series felt it had to religiously follow them in all the films.

The problem is, as soon as you leave those elements out, a very vocal group will start shouting "it's not a Bond film without [insert missing element]!"

And then when they put them back in, another very vocal group will start shouting "It's just the same movie again, with all the [insert elements here]!", as evidenced by this thread for one.

It's either "a Bond movie", or just a movie about a character called James Bond. The world will expect the former, the fans will want the latter - a good story, a good script, good acting, etc. I feel this is what we got with Skyfall (crazy plotholes not withstanding), where there were only nods to the original tropes.

SPECTRE went a bit further, but I never felt I was watching a Moore-era film. It wasn't THAT bad. My gripes were more to do with the constant location changes, and the fact that Blofeld was undercooked.

Mendes is a quality director and it does feel like a great movie. It'll be interesting to see if there was any pressure from the studio to make it more "traditional".

For me, they made what they set out to make - a Bond movie, that expanded out from Skyfall. Skyfall felt smaller, and more insular and Spectre is the opposite. And it's a different movie from all the other Craig Bond movies. Nothing wrong with that.

As for a follow up, Craig will probably do another one, though if he doesn't, I see a wait of about 5 years before they decide what to do next.

smurf492

eviltimeban wrote: »

As for a follow up, Craig will probably do another one, though if he doesn't, I see a wait of about 5 years before they decide what to do next.

6 year wait worked for Goldeneye... and i love the Dalton films but Craig is too intense for old school Bond wit and innuendo...

Red King

I think people are latching onto the "traditional Bond elements" in the mistaken belief that they are at fault for why Spectre falls somewhat flat when the actual fault lies with the ridiculous plot and characterisation of Blofeld.

Which is unforgiveable given the rich potential of him being Bonds arch nemesis, whose actions led to the death of Bonds wife.

The writers blew it and perhaps, in hindsight, Mended actually saved it somewhat. (I had previously criticised him perhaps somewhat undeservingly)

Dades

People seem to be complaining about the very things that make a Bond movie a Bond movie. Leave out the gadgets and the ladies and you might as well watch Jason Bourne. Leave out the action and you have Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, or whatever. If you don't include the tropes, you don't have Bond.

Spectre has flaws, for sure. Mendes said it was a mistake trying to hide that Blofeld was the villain, and he's right. Better to have the name Blofeld mentioned and then find out it's Bonds step-brother (ish). Otherwise the namedrop is purely an audience moment.

But Bond is a formula. Do Bond fans really want the franchise stripped of what has endeared it for generations? How difficult is it for the current caretakers to try and cater for fans/non-fans/studios? I can't imagine. They've done admirably well in the Craig era. Even if Daniel Craig impossibly tight suits/outfits will look ridiculous in 10 years.

suicide_circus

What a forgettable film. About 30 minutes too long. Bloefeld was atrocious, not even slightly menacing. Boring, flat, bland. The opening sequence was the only saving grace.

e_e

suicide_circus wrote: »

The opening sequence was the only saving grace.

Sam Mendes after filming the opening scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoCtPojDQT4

BuilderPlumber

Dades wrote: »

People seem to be complaining about the very things that make a Bond movie a Bond movie. Leave out the gadgets and the ladies and you might as well watch Jason Bourne. Leave out the action and you have Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy, or whatever. If you don't include the tropes, you don't have Bond.

Spectre has flaws, for sure. Mendes said it was a mistake trying to hide that Blofeld was the villain, and he's right. Better to have the name Blofeld mentioned and then find out it's Bonds step-brother (ish). Otherwise the namedrop is purely an audience moment.

But Bond is a formula. Do Bond fans really want the franchise stripped of what has endeared it for generations? How difficult is it for the current caretakers to try and cater for fans/non-fans/studios? I can't imagine. They've done admirably well in the Craig era. Even if Daniel Craig impossibly tight suits/outfits will look ridiculous in 10 years.

Certain things are needed in a Bond film that if absent would make it not a Bond film! You do need action, Bond girls, villains attempting to take over the world, having it set on locations, etc.

They should have kept Blofeld faithful to the old Blofeld in my view. But most likely it was written before they had the rights to the character and then just turned this stepbrother villain into Blofeld.

Avatar MIA

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

You do need action, Bond girls, villains attempting to take over the world, having it set on locations, etc.

All good, well, most of it.

By the same logic the original spoof Casino Royale was a Bond movie. Doesn't make it good.

It's a sad indictment of the audience that for it to be a "Bond movie" it has to be produced to a rigid formula.

After getting over the initial shock of such an obvious reboot (with the same M, strangely) I really enjoyed the New CR, which was still Bond - but without the self parody.

BuilderPlumber

Avatar MIA wrote: »

All good, well, most of it.

By the same logic the original spoof Casino Royale was a Bond movie. Doesn't make it good.

It's a sad indictment of the audience that for it to be a "Bond movie" it has to be produced to a rigid formula.

After getting over the initial shock of such an obvious reboot (with the same M, strangely) I really enjoyed the original CR, which was still Bond - but without the self parody.

If one looks at how the series progressed, we see things being added with each film. The exciting, all action pretitle sequence for example did not exist in the first films or either did the Q character. Dr No was a serious, solid spy thriller more or less faithful to the book. Connery was perfect for the role and set the bar high. FRWL upped the action content (the concept of train fights was introduced) and Goldfinger brought in the gadget packed car chase and the large scale shootout climax (although, FRWL had a similar one but half way through) and also humour inclusive of the Q scenes. Thunderball introduced underwater scenes and by now, the pretitle sequences were getting more and more actionpacked and the Moneypenny character was being used more. YOLT introduced Blofeld as the main bad guy and a plot that has been copied for TSWLM and Tomorrow Never Dies. OHMSS was the first to have a different actor playing Bond in Lazenby and was full of what by now had become part of the Bond formula: a cross M, a jokey Q, Moneypenny's love for Bond, an all action climax and another staple of Bond: The ski chase/shootout/fight. DAF revisited the formula of Goldfinger and extended the humour and maintained the shootout/chase/fight action scenes. It brought back Connery. Connery would go on and play Bond one last time in the non EON Never Say Never Again, which was an update on Thunderball that was quite good and foreshadowed Dalton's films perhaps.

When Moore came to play Bond, the formula was set in stone. LALD introduced him in a serious, straight ahead film that echoes Dr No in a few ways. It also was the first Bond since FRWL where Bond does not appear in the pretitle. The pretitle sequence's importance was still not recognised here. The usual fights, shootouts and chases occur then in the first film since Goldfinger not to feature Blofeld or SPECTRE. TMWTGG followed and was the last not to feature Bond pretitle. It was a poor mess of a film and huge potential was lost. Christopher Lee could have been the best Bond villain, instead of being a solar energy producer. TSWLM revived the YOLT-style Bond film and was the first to really introduce the pretitle as a major action part of the film: a ski chase/shootout like OHMSS and a parachute jump in this case. The glossy, big budget, all action Bond film was defined by this film and more or less set the tone for the future. By now, less and less of the original books were being used as well. Moonraker followed suit and brought Bond into space. FYEO was an attempt to bring back a serious Bond. It got rid of Blofeld in the opening action scenes and then set a story around feuding Greeks and a revenge mission by the Bond girl. The usual action scenes like ski chases, shootouts, fights and car chases were in abundance. Octopussy was the first film to feature a Russian villain and reflected the time of improving relations between the USSR and the West. The film has the Russians dealing with their own bad guy and Bond dealing with the other bad guys. Again, it was full of the usual action scenes and some Q comedy. AVTAK proved to be Moore's last film and it decided to ditch some of the cliches. The pretitle was a typical all action one, again a ski chase/shootout. It may even be the best pretitle of the series. Then, a weird and scary villain in Zorin is introduced. His lack of compassion and his madness steal the show and make for a chilling villain in what is an underrated and quite different Bond film.

Dalton's era was up next and TLD was a traditional style action film with a Goldfinger-style carchase in the then communist-controlled Slovakia. The current events like the Afghan/USSR war and greedy arms dealers provided the action and the villains. Like Octopussy, we have a bad Russian being taken care of by his own while Bond takes down the bad arms dealer. A lot of the Moore era is intact here but if TLD proved to be a very good typical Bond film, LTK proved to be the most different film ever. Sure, there are comedy scenes with Q and the usual shootouts, chases and fights are there, this film is more a drug dealer v cops Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon style one than a Bond film. It is also much more violent than any other Bond film.

Brosnan's Bond debuted in Goldeneye, a film as far removed from LTK as possible. Some of the plot is too like DAF for comfort and while I found it a let down after the Dalton films, it is not a bad film. TND was much better and is Brosnan's best. It is a variant of YOLT and TSWLM of course and introduced many of the elements from these films. TWINE was the poorest film since TMWTGG and as all we see after an interesting pretitle where we see a man plunge to his death saying he can't be protected from a ferocious enemy is a depressed rich woman and a dying Yugoslavian henchman and no really scary evil mastermind in site. The action scenes are sometimes good but the climax is poor. While TWINE and TMWTGG had their moments, DAD set the bar for poor Bond films at a new low. Elements of the plot are robbed from DAF and Goldeneye, there are scenes robbed from Dr No and many other films in there too. But all this could be forgiven if there were no invisible cars and Far Eastern dictators transforming into ethnically English businessmen! The opening scenes were Bond is a prisoner of war in a Far Eastern dictatorship, supposedly a breakaway from North Korea, and this part is well done, realistic and gritty unlike the rest of the film. The climax is a copy of the TWINE one and even poorer.

DAD could and nearly did end the franchise. But luckily enough, Craig's debut in CR revived it. It rebooted the whole thing and gave us a fresh Bond newly given 007 status. It was also quite violent compared to other Bonds. It also was the first since OHMSS where things don't go 100% for Bond and he loses a loved one who happened to also betray him. CR had no Q, not much jokey parts, and no invisible cars (thankfully!) and had some great action scenes. QOS followed and was the first direct sequel to a Bond film ever. It is not as good as CR but does not deserve the hate it gets. It has great action and does what it says on the tin for a Bond film imo. Skyfall confirmed Bond's Scottish ancestry and indeed concludes in Bond's old family home. One of the greatest films in the series too, Craig by now was being considered the best Bond since Connery. Q and Moneypenny were reintroduced here and M is killed. The film was the first to be filmed on location in China and the first to have a major part of it set in the UK. I will get to see SPECTRE soon and will see what I think. A continuation of a strong revival of Bond films or the beginning of a slide towards poorer Bond films?

smurf492

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

If one looks at how the series progressed, we see things being added with each film. The exciting, all action pretitle sequence for example did not exist in the first films or either did the Q character. Dr No was a serious, solid spy thriller more or less faithful to the book. Connery was perfect for the role and set the bar high. FRWL upped the action content (the concept of train fights was introduced) and Goldfinger brought in the gadget packed car chase and the large scale shootout climax (although, FRWL had a similar one but half way through) and also humour inclusive of the Q scenes. Thunderball introduced underwater scenes and by now, the pretitle sequences were getting more and more actionpacked and the Moneypenny character was being used more. YOLT introduced Blofeld as the main bad guy and a plot that has been copied for TSWLM and Tomorrow Never Dies. OHMSS was the first to have a different actor playing Bond in Lazenby and was full of what by now had become part of the Bond formula: a cross M, a jokey Q, Moneypenny's love for Bond, an all action climax and another staple of Bond: The ski chase/shootout/fight. DAF revisited the formula of Goldfinger and extended the humour and maintained the shootout/chase/fight action scenes. It brought back Connery. Connery would go on and play Bond one last time in the non EON Never Say Never Again, which was an update on Thunderball that was quite good and foreshadowed Dalton's films perhaps.

When Moore came to play Bond, the formula was set in stone. LALD introduced him in a serious, straight ahead film that echoes Dr No in a few ways. It also was the first Bond since FRWL where Bond does not appear in the pretitle. The pretitle sequence's importance was still not recognised here. The usual fights, shootouts and chases occur then in the first film since Goldfinger not to feature Blofeld or SPECTRE. TMWTGG followed and was the last not to feature Bond pretitle. It was a poor mess of a film and huge potential was lost. Christopher Lee could have been the best Bond villain, instead of being a solar energy producer. TSWLM revived the YOLT-style Bond film and was the first to really introduce the pretitle as a major action part of the film: a ski chase/shootout like OHMSS and a parachute jump in this case. The glossy, big budget, all action Bond film was defined by this film and more or less set the tone for the future. By now, less and less of the original books were being used as well. Moonraker followed suit and brought Bond into space. FYEO was an attempt to bring back a serious Bond. It got rid of Blofeld in the opening action scenes and then set a story around feuding Greeks and a revenge mission by the Bond girl. The usual action scenes like ski chases, shootouts, fights and car chases were in abundance. Octopussy was the first film to feature a Russian villain and reflected the time of improving relations between the USSR and the West. The film has the Russians dealing with their own bad guy and Bond dealing with the other bad guys. Again, it was full of the usual action scenes and some Q comedy. AVTAK proved to be Moore's last film and it decided to ditch some of the cliches. The pretitle was a typical all action one, again a ski chase/shootout. It may even be the best pretitle of the series. Then, a weird and scary villain in Zorin is introduced. His lack of compassion and his madness steal the show and make for a chilling villain in what is an underrated and quite different Bond film.

Dalton's era was up next and TLD was a traditional style action film with a Goldfinger-style carchase in the then communist-controlled Slovakia. The current events like the Afghan/USSR war and greedy arms dealers provided the action and the villains. Like Octopussy, we have a bad Russian being taken care of by his own while Bond takes down the bad arms dealer. A lot of the Moore era is intact here but if TLD proved to be a very good typical Bond film, LTK proved to be the most different film ever. Sure, there are comedy scenes with Q and the usual shootouts, chases and fights are there, this film is more a drug dealer v cops Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon style one than a Bond film. It is also much more violent than any other Bond film.

Brosnan's Bond debuted in Goldeneye, a film as far removed from LTK as possible. Some of the plot is too like DAF for comfort and while I found it a let down after the Dalton films, it is not a bad film. TND was much better and is Brosnan's best. It is a variant of YOLT and TSWLM of course and introduced many of the elements from these films. TWINE was the poorest film since TMWTGG and as all we see after an interesting pretitle where we see a man plunge to his death saying he can't be protected from a ferocious enemy is a depressed rich woman and a dying Yugoslavian henchman and no really scary evil mastermind in site. The action scenes are sometimes good but the climax is poor. While TWINE and TMWTGG had their moments, DAD set the bar for poor Bond films at a new low. Elements of the plot are robbed from DAF and Goldeneye, there are scenes robbed from Dr No and many other films in there too. But all this could be forgiven if there were no invisible cars and Far Eastern dictators transforming into ethnically English businessmen! The opening scenes were Bond is a prisoner of war in a Far Eastern dictatorship, supposedly a breakaway from North Korea, and this part is well done, realistic and gritty unlike the rest of the film. The climax is a copy of the TWINE one and even poorer.

DAD could and nearly did end the franchise. But luckily enough, Craig's debut in CR revived it. It rebooted the whole thing and gave us a fresh Bond newly given 007 status. It was also quite violent compared to other Bonds. It also was the first since OHMSS where things don't go 100% for Bond and he loses a loved one who happened to also betray him. CR had no Q, not much jokey parts, and no invisible cars (thankfully!) and had some great action scenes. QOS followed and was the first direct sequel to a Bond film ever. It is not as good as CR but does not deserve the hate it gets. It has great action and does what it says on the tin for a Bond film imo. Skyfall confirmed Bond's Scottish ancestry and indeed concludes in Bond's old family home. One of the greatest films in the series too, Craig by now was being considered the best Bond since Connery. Q and Moneypenny were reintroduced here and M is killed. The film was the first to be filmed on location in China and the first to have a major part of it set in the UK. I will get to see SPECTRE soon and will see what I think. A continuation of a strong revival of Bond films or the beginning of a slide towards poorer Bond films?

Well said sir. Nice summary

canhefixit

Pretty poor movie in fairness and could of been alot shorter as it just dragged on and on

Would not even recommend it as even a maybe movie to watch

3 out of 10 for me

meh

Icaras

Radiohead version of the theme. I like the song but doesn't really feel like a bond theme

https://soundcloud.com/radiohead/spectre

Sad Professor

Awesome! So the rumours were true. Yorke says they made it their own so this isn’t how it would have sounded had Eon used it.

Radiohead back in the studio! Hopefully this means an album is forthcoming.

Heckler

I'm an hour and seventeen minutes in and turning it off. I know its Bond but can someone please explain to me where he got the plane from in the space of 2 minutes to chase after yer one ? !! Utterly ridiculous.

And the sex scene with Bellucci was bizarre and awkward.

Avatar MIA

Heckler wrote: »

I'm an hour and seventeen minutes in and turning it off. I know its Bond but can someone please explain to me where he got the plane from in the space of 2 minutes to chase after yer one ? !! Utterly ridiculous.

And the sex scene with Bellucci was bizarre and awkward.

Shur, it's Christmas. Great time for a turkey!

e_e

Icaras wrote: »

Radiohead version of the theme. I like the song but doesn't really feel like a bond theme

Feels much more Bond than Sam Smith's tbh.

Having just listened to Radiohead's incarnation it makes me all the more annoyed about how mediocre the one they picked was. It's the safe X Factor choice, ugh. Although it is kind of indicative of Spectre's regressiveness overall.

fin12

Heckler wrote: »

I'm an hour and seventeen minutes in and turning it off. I know its Bond but can someone please explain to me where he got the plane from in the space of 2 minutes to chase after yer one ? !! Utterly ridiculous.

And the sex scene with Bellucci was bizarre and awkward.

Ya I thought that about the sex scene as well, so weird and came out of nowhere and why would a widow be wearing lingerie like that at her husbands funeral, there not the mot comfortable thing to wear so ya I found he whole scene weird...

fin12

fin12 wrote: »

Ya I thought that about the sex scene as well, so weird and came out of nowhere and why would a widow be wearing lingerie like that at her husbands funeral, there not the mot comfortable thing to wear so ya I found he whole scene weird...

Yes the sexy lingerie thing occurred to me too. Husband's funeral is more a day for Bridget Jones kacks.

expectationlost

what a bad film, a series of set pieces, many throwbacks, think they were depending on the revelations of who blofield was to support the film but it didn't, Skyfall was so much better

silverharp

watched it last night, it just seemed to drift along, could have cared less what happened to any of the characters

GreNoLi

Really poor, I'll mind my Ps and Qs and just leave it at that.

Peter Anthony

I watched it in the cinema a few weeks back, I thought it was enjoyable enough. Alot of the stuff people want changed or are disappointed in is standard James Bond stuff, almost as if some people want yet another sort of superhero film. It's certainly a decent watch for me. Don't think Sam Smith was a good chance for the theme tune though.

On the other hand I'm just watching Quantum of Solace on ITV2, and this is without doubt the worst James Bond film I have ever seen. What utter turd. Terrible song, no plot, terrible villian, almost unwatchable which is precisely why I never sat through it. Die Another Day, certain Moore films and TWINE get stick but I actually could sit through and enjoyed them. This is a poor mans Expendables., another Jason Bourne. I see people are saying its better than Spectre. I think time has healed peoples thoughts on QOS, its the worst film of the series for me.

Casino Royale and Skyfall are very good I think, Spectre is good and QoS is turd. Not sure what they should do with the next one.

Shemale

Worst Bond EVER!

Peter Anthony

Shemale wrote: »

Worst Bond EVER!

Quantum of Solace it has to be!

Peter Anthony

Just one last post complaining about QoS. One of the Bond girls in is supposedly a Bolivian, but instead they get in Olga Kurylenko a Russian actress, and proceed to cover her in horrible fake spray tan. Impossible to take her seriously.

Shemale

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Quantum of Solace it has to be!

Not for me, this was the first Bond I turned off, seriously lacking in script, dialogue and credibility.

Even with the bloody plane, not only where did he find it, how it took off from the top of a snowy mountain, it was made of some material yet to be discovered that they will make tanks out of and with no fuel or wings it seemed to operate as normal for 5 more minutes. Oh and the ****e Sam Smith song

Either way it's safe to say Ian Fleming is turning in his grave, Skyfall and Casino Royale are good, the two mentioned are probably the two worst ever.

Shemale

Peter Anthony wrote: »

Just one last post complaining about QoS. One of the Bond girls in is supposedly a Bolivian, but instead they get in Olga Kurylenko a Russian actress, and proceed to cover her in horrible fake spray tan. Impossible to take her seriously.

Quantam of (Ambre) Solaire, :eek:. TAXI!

MilesMorales1

QOS is not nearly as bad Spectre. The more I think about spectre, the less I like it. Its a shame considering Casino Royale and Skyfall are so good.