James Bond: Spectre
Discussion
As someone said before, it's a series of set pieces linked by strangeness.
Why would you try and kill the pilot of a helicopter which you're in the back of?
It's Ok. It's "a bond film" which is hardly a praise of critique.
Nice to see an SLR McLaren in the car park at the Spectre AGM.
Bond girl was HOT
Why would Blofeld dedicate his life JUST to annoy his adopted brother? You'd get over it eventually surely?
Why DID they go to the secret hideout in the Desert. And more accurately why did Blofeld know to send a Uber for him? (Joke stolen from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4kFqmv3RM
)
Also a bit too much CGI! bond films were always about real stunts
Why would you try and kill the pilot of a helicopter which you're in the back of?
It's Ok. It's "a bond film" which is hardly a praise of critique.
Nice to see an SLR McLaren in the car park at the Spectre AGM.
Bond girl was HOT
Why would Blofeld dedicate his life JUST to annoy his adopted brother? You'd get over it eventually surely?
Why DID they go to the secret hideout in the Desert. And more accurately why did Blofeld know to send a Uber for him? (Joke stolen from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4kFqmv3RM
)Also a bit too much CGI! bond films were always about real stunts
944fan said:
Noticed as well he barely has a drink. Some vodka in his flat, then orders 1 martini at the clinic which he doesn't get. Not very bond that.
I watched and enjoyed it again tonight on DVD so it's fresh in my mind. In that room where he smashed the wall down finding the room behind, he was swigging from bottles of wine and was clearly fairly pished. Then he had Vodka and Martini on the train. So he has quite a few really.Rich_W said:
As someone said before, it's a series of set pieces linked by strangeness.
Why would you try and kill the pilot of a helicopter which you're in the back of?
It's Ok. It's "a bond film" which is hardly a praise of critique.
Nice to see an SLR McLaren in the car park at the Spectre AGM.
Bond girl was HOT
Why would Blofeld dedicate his life JUST to annoy his adopted brother? You'd get over it eventually surely?
Why DID they go to the secret hideout in the Desert. And more accurately why did Blofeld know to send a Uber for him? (Joke stolen from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4kFqmv3RM )
Also a bit too much CGI! bond films were always about real stunts
All good points. Why would you try and kill the pilot of a helicopter which you're in the back of?
It's Ok. It's "a bond film" which is hardly a praise of critique.
Nice to see an SLR McLaren in the car park at the Spectre AGM.
Bond girl was HOT
Why would Blofeld dedicate his life JUST to annoy his adopted brother? You'd get over it eventually surely?
Why DID they go to the secret hideout in the Desert. And more accurately why did Blofeld know to send a Uber for him? (Joke stolen from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu4kFqmv3RM
)Also a bit too much CGI! bond films were always about real stunts
I think for me principally the film suffered from building up the antagonist too much, and resolving it in such a seemingly efficient way.
The main guy is billed as the architect of everything Bond has suffered in previous outings, the boss of the bosses, etc. Ultimately though for all his purported machinations Bond wipes out his entire army and blows up his entire facility in the space of about 3 minutes of set piece action, and then eliminates him by firing a handgun at his escaping helicopter from however far away.
I'm loathe to say it but when you compare it against something like Harry Potter (bear with me) where the "uber boss" is dealt with in a back and forth over multiple films it just felt shallow for this guy and his masterplan to be undone so quickly once established, with it all tied up in a little bow for the next outing.
In that respect there was no ambition in the storytelling, no arc of any substance.
I also found myself a bit weary at the obviousness of it all. Maybe that's more my problem of expectations of a pulpy film but when Moriarty got revealed I thought "ok he's ultimately going to be a bad guy", Seydoux was patently going to be the love interest as soon as she appeared. In a post-Batman Begins era of films having layered antagonists and grey area good guys this film was remarkably regressive and schlocky.
Plenty of stuff only seemed to make sense in the logic of ticking boxes. Like how Bond's stalker (?) from the meeting was just that one guy, very determined for some reason, with the other participants at the meeting and their resources completely inert.
There's probably a word or trope for stories that build themselves up too much - but this was certainly one of them. For all his machinations over decades Blofeld could've abducted or straight up killed Bond at any point, but instead he waits until Bond has seen him at a meeting to send some goon after him to run him off the road, throw him out of a train, stick needles in him in a facility or just blow him up. Why? Because that's what the story said? It didn't feel real.
That all said and done, and a counterpoint, Lea Seydoux
Edited by Durzel on Saturday 27th February 02:51
RegMolehusband said:
944fan said:
Noticed as well he barely has a drink. Some vodka in his flat, then orders 1 martini at the clinic which he doesn't get. Not very bond that.
I watched and enjoyed it again tonight on DVD so it's fresh in my mind. In that room where he smashed the wall down finding the room behind, he was swigging from bottles of wine and was clearly fairly pished. Then he had Vodka and Martini on the train. So he has quite a few really.944fan said:
RegMolehusband said:
944fan said:
Noticed as well he barely has a drink. Some vodka in his flat, then orders 1 martini at the clinic which he doesn't get. Not very bond that.
I watched and enjoyed it again tonight on DVD so it's fresh in my mind. In that room where he smashed the wall down finding the room behind, he was swigging from bottles of wine and was clearly fairly pished. Then he had Vodka and Martini on the train. So he has quite a few really."Dirty"
Durzel said:
...
I'm loathe to say it but when you compare it against something like Harry Potter (bear with me) where the "uber boss" is dealt with in a back and forth over multiple films it just felt shallow for this guy and his masterplan to be undone so quickly once established, with it all tied up in a little bow for the next outing.
...
I don't see this being the end of it...just the beginning.I'm loathe to say it but when you compare it against something like Harry Potter (bear with me) where the "uber boss" is dealt with in a back and forth over multiple films it just felt shallow for this guy and his masterplan to be undone so quickly once established, with it all tied up in a little bow for the next outing.
...
When you saw Blofeld in the earlier films, didn't he already have the scar? Felt almost like this was the start of Blofeld's back story. Something I don't recall seeing before. Surely Blofeld will escape, Spectre hasn't been destroyed visibly yet so there's tons of scope for that to take twists and turns. (Not Waltz's best movie either, by a long way. So he needs another go or two
).There were lots of daft bits, the desert complex getting nailed in 2secs being perhaps the biggest. But I felt the film was an enjoyable 2.5hrs.
Mind you, I didn't try and read anything into it - films perhaps suffer too much these days with years of internet build up with genre nerds (not aiming at the poster quoted btw) analysing every last second of action and dialogue. Sometimes just watch a film for a bit of escapism. Same thing happened with Star Wars IMO.
The one thing that made me think "why?" in this film and previously was the love interest angle. He seems to be falling for the Bond girls as a key storyline too often at the moment. I could excuse that of George Lazenby as they realised the error of their ways and only played him once
Connery did it in You Only Live Twice but it was short lived. But it's been 2-3 times at least in the DC ones (for all his hard coreness elsewhere in the films).(btw - Vesper Lynd....faaaaaaar hotter than any of the rest)
Murph7355 said:
Mind you, I didn't try and read anything into it - films perhaps suffer too much these days with years of internet build up with genre nerds (not aiming at the poster quoted btw) analysing every last second of action and dialogue. Sometimes just watch a film for a bit of escapism. Same thing happened with Star Wars IMO.
I see it from the other way. Films can be helped with social media, as well as helping fellow aficionados. Social media can help end poor films. Previously people would have little if any ways to give instant feedback.Maybe the makers of said film will ignore them if the receipts are enough (when are they ever enough) but it might help others look at the blatant mistakes in a film and create something new.The web is also allowing those with less cash and more creativity to get started.
Me mentioning box-office made me go and look for comparisons with other big films of November release (US), there was one, but I looked at really the only comparable franchise film that exists, STar Wars, and the recent Marvel/Fox Deadpool effort;
Spectre November release
Budget $245–250 million
Box office $879.5 million
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 November release
Budget $160 million
Box office $652.9 million
Deadpool Feb release
Budget $58 million
Box office $531.4 million
Star Wars: The Force Awakens mid-Dec release
Budget $200 million
Box office $2.043 billion
Even though there might be grumblings, on the whole Deadpool and Star Wars were pretty much positive, I reckon that is seen in the box office. Last Hunger games, don't know anything about that, but it seems to be very successful. Bond, considering it must be one of the 'Big Three' has reaped a huge amount, but it also spent a huge amount.
I looked at the Spectre page on wiki, seems it's reviews are mixed. I hadn't realised it had gotten really good reviews off people. It has decent scores on the three review sites, though ultimately quite poor I reckon in view of the franchise/cash spent.
Halb said:
....
Even though there might be grumblings, on the whole Deadpool and Star Wars were pretty much positive, I reckon that is seen in the box office. Last Hunger games, don't know anything about that, but it seems to be very successful. Bond, considering it must be one of the 'Big Three' has reaped a huge amount, but it also spent a huge amount.
I looked at the Spectre page on wiki, seems it's reviews are mixed. I hadn't realised it had gotten really good reviews off people. It has decent scores on the three review sites, though ultimately quite poor I reckon in view of the franchise/cash spent.
The viewing public won't care about how much it cost to make (well, most of them anyway).Even though there might be grumblings, on the whole Deadpool and Star Wars were pretty much positive, I reckon that is seen in the box office. Last Hunger games, don't know anything about that, but it seems to be very successful. Bond, considering it must be one of the 'Big Three' has reaped a huge amount, but it also spent a huge amount.
I looked at the Spectre page on wiki, seems it's reviews are mixed. I hadn't realised it had gotten really good reviews off people. It has decent scores on the three review sites, though ultimately quite poor I reckon in view of the franchise/cash spent.
And at the end of the day, profit wise (assuming one can simply take "Budget" away from "Box Office - too simplistic really), Star Wars excluded it still made 50% more profit than the others noted so the studio won't care much either.
There are good and bad sides about the internet at large of course....I suspect the nerd fringe, however, suddenly have a much bigger voice as it's easier to reach people for them owing to them actually not having to go outside and interact with normal people
The primary objective of most films is to entertain. And I think Spectre does this for most. Yes there are plot holes, the script's a bit iffy, it's a bit formulaic etc....but it's fantasy. Starting to worry about whether Blofeld would really spend his whole life upsetting Bond is somewhat ironic in the circumstances
Murph7355 said:
The viewing public won't care about how much it cost to make (well, most of them anyway).
And at the end of the day, profit wise (assuming one can simply take "Budget" away from "Box Office - too simplistic really), Star Wars excluded it still made 50% more profit than the others noted so the studio won't care much either.
There are good and bad sides about the internet at large of course....I suspect the nerd fringe, however, suddenly have a much bigger voice as it's easier to reach people for them owing to them actually not having to go outside and interact with normal people
The primary objective of most films is to entertain. And I think Spectre does this for most. Yes there are plot holes, the script's a bit iffy, it's a bit formulaic etc....but it's fantasy. Starting to worry about whether Blofeld would really spend his whole life upsetting Bond is somewhat ironic in the circumstances
I know the public don't care about box office, I was speaking about the PoV of the studio, if it hits it's benchmarks, then the next film will be more of the same. Skyfall box office was 1.11 billion. Sometimes the suits expect a benchmark and even if the film makes a tonne of cash, if it doesn't hit that mark, it'll be seen as a failure. Bond is one of the big three but if the next SW film is a similar hit, it'll look weak.And at the end of the day, profit wise (assuming one can simply take "Budget" away from "Box Office - too simplistic really), Star Wars excluded it still made 50% more profit than the others noted so the studio won't care much either.
There are good and bad sides about the internet at large of course....I suspect the nerd fringe, however, suddenly have a much bigger voice as it's easier to reach people for them owing to them actually not having to go outside and interact with normal people
The primary objective of most films is to entertain. And I think Spectre does this for most. Yes there are plot holes, the script's a bit iffy, it's a bit formulaic etc....but it's fantasy. Starting to worry about whether Blofeld would really spend his whole life upsetting Bond is somewhat ironic in the circumstances
I don't bother with other sites or professional critics. I mainly use PH and mates. Sites are skewed to demographics. The love of anime on IMDB is a good example. Although the older the film, if it still pulls decent scores does give it more weight. It's good that a film entertains, but stuff like Spectre is like a sumptuous meal that tastes decent when one is eating it, but makes one feel slightly unwell afterwards. A film no matter how fantastical will always need to maintain an internal logic and credibility in it's world, that's why a lot of modern big films lose their shine rapidly, because they're hollow and unrewarding for long-term entertainment.
edit
out of interest, I went looking at the older films BO receipts, they all piddling save for the last two Bronsnan films. But I found this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_in_film#L...
I'll look forward to that with interest.
Edited by Halb on Sunday 28th February 20:05
Just finished it for a second time. Just as good - typically Bond I thought, although I am disappointed he did not leave the MI6 building in the jetski/speed boat thing from The World is Not Enough opening sequence!
Sam Smith song a great opener - and I hated it before the movie came out, but it works with the titles.
I for one hope DC does another Bond - I can't think of a suitable actor to take it on just yet.
Sam Smith song a great opener - and I hated it before the movie came out, but it works with the titles.
I for one hope DC does another Bond - I can't think of a suitable actor to take it on just yet.
The theme song was first class but the rest of it was very superficial rubbish, a waste of Leah Seydoux, Daniel Craig and Christoph Waltz, not to mention the DB10.
A Bond film doesn't have to have a brilliant story, but it needs a good script and this didn't. Skyfall was a fluke partly because QoS was a far better film than most give it credit for and built up expectation, partly because Xavier Bardem was good and partly because DC was good. But in retrospect the weakness in the story was there to see. There won't be anything like the same degree of anticipation for the next one because Spectre was glossy crap.
Mendes ought to be shot, never mind sacked. Did they not learn from Casino Royale that within certain bounds you have to keep it real, and this is DC's strength?
They should never have abandoned the Quantum storyline. Spectre was just a sequence of tedious and repetitious set pieces loosely strung together flimsily. You can't have a major villain like that appear from nowhere and fizzle out like a damp squib. And you cannot endlessly recycle old devices as if they are clever references. It was a very lazy, boring exercise, like the later Roger Moore films, and the prime failure was on the part of the scriptwriters, who utterly failed to earn their crust.
A Bond film doesn't have to have a brilliant story, but it needs a good script and this didn't. Skyfall was a fluke partly because QoS was a far better film than most give it credit for and built up expectation, partly because Xavier Bardem was good and partly because DC was good. But in retrospect the weakness in the story was there to see. There won't be anything like the same degree of anticipation for the next one because Spectre was glossy crap.
Mendes ought to be shot, never mind sacked. Did they not learn from Casino Royale that within certain bounds you have to keep it real, and this is DC's strength?
They should never have abandoned the Quantum storyline. Spectre was just a sequence of tedious and repetitious set pieces loosely strung together flimsily. You can't have a major villain like that appear from nowhere and fizzle out like a damp squib. And you cannot endlessly recycle old devices as if they are clever references. It was a very lazy, boring exercise, like the later Roger Moore films, and the prime failure was on the part of the scriptwriters, who utterly failed to earn their crust.
Something occurred to me over the weekend having seen multiple bus adverts for the disc release.......Unlike previous Bonds I've felt no urge to go and buy the Bluray. Nothing about the film struck me as especially bad, but at the same time I have absolutely no desire to watch it again. 
I was put off going to see it by the reviews and comments. I bought the DVD when it came out and only bothered to look at it last night.
I thought it was typical Bond but better than most.
The storyline is not fantastic but has its own strength. Bond the renegade. Good acting all round I thought. Whilst it was a bit predictable, it is no worse than anything that the franchise has dished up in the past. I would assume much of the audience loves the familiarity.
Whilst things should improve over time, this one compares well with earlier ones. I was never a big fan of Connery, at least as an actor. Come to that, not for anything.
Not a perfect movie, but a good one. Well worth the £7.
I thought it was typical Bond but better than most.
The storyline is not fantastic but has its own strength. Bond the renegade. Good acting all round I thought. Whilst it was a bit predictable, it is no worse than anything that the franchise has dished up in the past. I would assume much of the audience loves the familiarity.
Whilst things should improve over time, this one compares well with earlier ones. I was never a big fan of Connery, at least as an actor. Come to that, not for anything.
Not a perfect movie, but a good one. Well worth the £7.
Derek Smith said:
I would assume much of the audience loves the familiarity.
Derek, I think that Mendes assumed the same, and the problem is they don't. There was hardly an event in that plot which wasn't ripped off a previous film. It's just not clever. I found the helicopter carry on at the start boring, the aircraft chase boring verging on ludicrous, the car chase OK but still nothing on the one in Bullitt (For goodness sake - all the Director has to do is watch that to know how to do it) the visit to Altaussee gratuitous, the desert hideaway obvious, repetitive and boring, the appearance of a Rolls Royce ripped off Romancing the Stone, the introduction of Blofeld for the sake of a couple of decent soundbites disappointing, Moriarty brought in because he was Moriarty. Bond has been a renegade in EACH of the last four films. I just thought, how much do these script guys get paid not to come up with original ideas? It is not rocket science - look what Ian Fleming did with a simple plot line in Casino Royale.I haven't bought the DVD - its the sort of film I fall asleep in.
Edited by cardigankid on Monday 29th February 16:08
I'm working my way through a second viewing - in bitesize chunks.
Trouble is, I'm catching all the inconsistencies now, and there's no end of them. 'C' builds a massive eff-off gaff down the river but 'M' has to ask how HMG paid for it? What? Not even curious about a massive intelligence gathering centre built 0.5 mile from Westminster to find out every last detail about it and the money behind it? Pull the other one.
Anyhow, a quick question for afficionados - in nearly every Bond movie there is a staircase without handrails, often with chrome or bright steel treads, or failing that a bridge without handrails. Did you spot it in Spectre? - not where I thought it would be at all...
But why do they always have one?
Higgleston is looking good for the next re-incarnation.
Trouble is, I'm catching all the inconsistencies now, and there's no end of them. 'C' builds a massive eff-off gaff down the river but 'M' has to ask how HMG paid for it? What? Not even curious about a massive intelligence gathering centre built 0.5 mile from Westminster to find out every last detail about it and the money behind it? Pull the other one.
Anyhow, a quick question for afficionados - in nearly every Bond movie there is a staircase without handrails, often with chrome or bright steel treads, or failing that a bridge without handrails. Did you spot it in Spectre? - not where I thought it would be at all...
But why do they always have one?
Higgleston is looking good for the next re-incarnation.
Cardigan and Don,
I liked the references to the previous movies, almost like a homage. But then, that might not be a universal response it seems.
As for going through the film for inconsistencies, you can do that with all of them. To quote a poet: shovel them into the ditch of what each one means. It is fun, it is fantasy.
My father did some work for Martin Baker and they had a chap who was used for experiments in the early days of ejection seats. His spine was damaged. My father said that even now (30 years ago) pilots suffer damaged spines when ejecting and damage to limbs is common. Jet Bond did it and strolled away. My view is so what.
One thing, though. Did DC's suits seem too small to you? Certainly in the early part. I thought he looked scruffy.
I liked the references to the previous movies, almost like a homage. But then, that might not be a universal response it seems.
As for going through the film for inconsistencies, you can do that with all of them. To quote a poet: shovel them into the ditch of what each one means. It is fun, it is fantasy.
My father did some work for Martin Baker and they had a chap who was used for experiments in the early days of ejection seats. His spine was damaged. My father said that even now (30 years ago) pilots suffer damaged spines when ejecting and damage to limbs is common. Jet Bond did it and strolled away. My view is so what.
One thing, though. Did DC's suits seem too small to you? Certainly in the early part. I thought he looked scruffy.
Derek Smith said:
One thing, though. Did DC's suits seem too small to you? Certainly in the early part. I thought he looked scruffy.
Style, innit?I often emulate the same effect, but my wife insists it's because the clothes really are too small/old/out of date but what does she know?
Plot inconsistencies are unavoidable to a point, but, when a studio is hosing money at a production I would like them to at least try and fill a half-decent storyline. Bond is about the intelligence game, and there's his boss not knowing how another dept. have built the World's biggest intelligence gathering facility. Just up the road. Over there. See it? Complete mystery.
As is the case with the phone tapping. Spies discuss secret details over unsecured lines. Who knew?
'M' has to ask 'Q' where Bond is...in an IT environment where everything is available online, he ask to ASK SOMEONE ELSE to look at a monitor? Dafuq?
Derek Smith said:
Cardigan and Don...
One thing, though. Did DC's suits seem too small to you? Certainly in the early part. I thought he looked scruffy.
Totally, I know it's a fashion thing but its getting ridiculous.One thing, though. Did DC's suits seem too small to you? Certainly in the early part. I thought he looked scruffy.
I think it is too easy for homage to become lazy plagiarism. I was embarrassed at how much trouble AM had gone to for a twopenny halfpenny film. There also seems to be a thing with films these days, the trailers have to be visually stunning, portentous, loaded with excitement, implied storylines. Then the film itself is little more than the sum of the trailers stitched together. Spectre was the worst film I have seen for that - there wasn't a decent line in it that hadn't been run in a trailer - can I coin a name for this dross and call it trailer trash?
I wanted it to be great, but actually I felt defrauded, and probably won't bother to go to the next one when it is launched. If it is any good I will catch it on DVD. I've got a mate with a 79" TV and sound system so won't miss much.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff