54 replies to this topic

[rubixcub]

Since this is the first time in over 25 years that we'll have had back-to-back Bond films with the same director, I thought I'd start a conversation about what the anticipated result of this will be.

 

The first two Bonds were directed by Terence Young, and many agree that the 2nd was better than the first.  "Dr. No" set the standard but "FRWL" deepened the concept, with a more dense, spy thriller plot without the "camp" elements of a mad scientist villain with a physical deformity, sci-fi related plot, and the like.

 

Few would argue that Guy Hamilton's sophomore Bond effort, DAF, is better than GF.  As far as back-to-back Bonds go, LALD, while it's Mendes's favorite (I think it was the first one he saw, and one always has a soft spot for one's first), and despite some clever goings-on, is IMO more boring than DAF.  At least DAF has a couple of good action sequences -- the fight in the elevator, the oil rig ending -- while I struggle to think of a good action scene in LALD.

 

Lewis Gilbert's sophomore Bond, TSWLM, is regarded as one of the series' best.  His back-to-back follow-up MR is, rightly or wrongly, oft-maligned.  They're basically the same movie with various elements working better or worse in either and the increase of camp in the latter.

 

John Glen's first Bond, FYEO, is regarded as one of Moore's best; the follow-up, OP, one of the weakest.

 

Campbell experienced successes with both of his Bonds, basically reaching about the maximum expectation for either time period regarding what you could do with the character and with a Bond film and how far you could go with either.  CR, because it broke the mold, is generally more highly regarded.

 

My personal opinion is that, on the surface of things, SP looks to be going to great lengths to replicate the success of SF, so I think the films will be quite similar, with SF likely having the edge.

 

It's also the actor's 4th film, which often follows the vein of "bigger = better" (MR, DAD).  SP has the largest budget ever recorded for a Bond and the shooting schedule is longer, so IMO we're in for a bigger film but possibly also the longest yet.

 

How do you think Mendes's 2nd Bond film will turn out?

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 26 June 2015 - 07:11 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

My opinion differs:

 

Apart from Guy Hamilton´s second Bond effort I do like and mostly prefer the sophomore efforts of all Bond directors (FRWL, TSWLM, OP, CR).

 

And since I love SKYFALL I prepare myself for an even better SPECTRE.

 

Being familiar with the production team is extremely helpful for a director, therefore the second go will always be smoother and more effective.

[Ace Roberts]

Unfortunately, I'm often disappointed in films I have a high expectation for.  I actually was hesitant about Skyfall, so to have it turn out as good as it did was a pleasant surprise.  My fear is now that I have a high expectation for SPECTRE, history will rear its ugly head again and let me down.  That said, I do have faith that the good Mendes (Skyfall, American Beauty) is at work here and not the disappointing one (Revolutionary Road, Jarhead).  A great example of a film I had high expectations for, and one that was veiled in secrecy like this one, was Disney's Tomorrowland.  The premise and the talent across the board both in front and behind the scenes just reeked a huge hit, but as we know it was a let down. I'm rooting for SPECTRE to be spectacular.  From what I do know from following the progress so far, its set up to be a sophomoric winner. 

[glidrose]

No offense intended, but I never understand the point of these threads. We'll all know the answer after we've seen the film.

 

I'm familiar with those materials we're not allowed to discuss, so I suspect that its quality will be around the level of Skyfall while at the same time being an entirely different, much bigger film.

[jaguar007]

You really can't judge how good a film will be based on the historical patterns of different films with a different set of film makers. I'm sure some people will like Spectre better than Skyfall and some people will prefer Skyfall to Spectre.

[dtuba]

 At least DAF has a couple of good action sequences -- the fight in the elevator, the oil rig ending -- while I struggle to think of a good action scene in LALD.

 

What? The most epic speedboat chase of all time wasn't good enough?

 

I love LALD myself, but think that none of Guy Hamilton's follow up films were as good as GF. Perhaps it was the material (GF to me being one of the very few films that actually improved upon the Fleming) or maybe because his approach was fresher in 1964 than in the '70's. 

 

I also view Gilbert's films as being fairly consistent, directing-wise. Ditto for Glen's (although yes, I did see OP as a bit of a step backwards from FYEO).

 

I think - and am hoping- that SP will be better than SF - the budget is bigger, and Mendes won't have the 50th anniversary to worry about this time. 

Edited by dtuba, 27 June 2015 - 10:38 PM.

[Matt_13]

I'm guessing Mendes is aware of what worked in Skyfall and what didn't, so he'll be working hard to improve on the groundwork he laid previously. I'm expecting something pretty special.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I'm expecting to prefer Skyfall more than Spectre.

[Emrayfo]

I'm hoping for, and expecting, that SPECTRE will be better than Skyfall. And if it is done right, I will probably end up enjoying SF the more for it too: i.e. With some of the elements I enjoyed less in SF, such as the over-doing of the 'old dog-played out' theme just being another stepping stone towards Bond becoming Bond. Mendes will have learned a lot from the SF experience, and I expect has a better feel now for the character and his world.

 

And as SAF says above, working again with largely the same production team and body of actors will help as well.

[Vauxhall]

I know I'll enjoy SPECTRE. 95% of us around these parts, simply because it's a Bond film.

I'm most concerned about possible plot inconsistencies, but I know it will look great on screen, the acting will be very strong and there are fantastic locations. Even if I end up preferring SKYFALL more, there's enough talent in SPECTRE that I just can't imagine it being a disaster.

[Orion]

We all know the first paragraph of every interview, article and review will just a long winded version of this question...

 

If it helps the generally accepted tally (BRACE FOR MASSIVE GERENALISATION) is 3/2 that it'll be an improvement (Young, Gilbert and Campbell improved. Hamilton and Glen made weaker films) Though I don't know if I'd agree with that, I think Campbell's two films are too different in style and tone, not to mention cultural context, to compare them fairly and tbh the Bond films are much too producer led as productions for the direction to have too much impact, especially pre Goldeneye.

[tdalton]

I have doubts about whether SPECTRE can surpass Skyfall, which wouldn't be that hard of a task to begin with.  The weaknesses of Skyfall are mostly down to its script, and that film enjoyed a much more seamless and trouble-free process with regards to its script than SPECTRE has.  That's not to say that SPECTRE's script will be poor, but the chances of that would be increased due to the fact that they had to bring in P&W for extensive rewrites on Logan's script just prior to production.

[Guy Haines]

If I exclude the first Bond films I saw when I was between eight and ten years old - which really formed by impressions of what a Bond film should be - I've gone to the cinema when a new Bond movie has been released expecting to be underwhelmed on first viewing in spite of what the film magazines and media say (And until the Craig era because of what the critics wrote!) and have usually emerged from the cinema a couple of hours or so later having my expectations exceeded. There were one or two exceptions which I won't bore my fellow posters with now, but on the whole my concerns have been proved groundless once I'd actually seen the film.

 

I shall go and see Spectre in November in that frame of mind.

[rubixcub]

One of my expectations is that SP will have a bit of a "sequel" feel.

 

There are a few Bond films throughout the canon that feel a bit sequel-ish:

- FRWL retains a similar start to "Dr. No" with Sylvia Trench, a meeting with Bond & M joined by Q (who was still referred to as Maj. Boothroyd or "armorer"), and various parties watching Bond as he arrives at the airport.

- with Hamilton/Mankiewicz and Moore + Clifton James as J.W. Pepper, TMWTGG feels like a sequel to LALD

- with Gilbert/Wood, Jaws, and basically the same plot, TSWLM & MR feel largely like the same film

 

To an extent, GE & TND have a similar feel, thanks probably to writer Bruce Feirstein.  Likewise, TWINE & DAD both suffer from some really poor dialogue and interesting plot elements (Bond fails, Bond gets captured) that become discarded and irrelevant as the films progress, and this is probably due to Purvis & Wade.

 

With the same director & writers in place for two consecutive films -- not to mention the teaser trailer that goes so far as to mention "Skyfall" by name -- I expect the two films will have a similar feel & tone.  It looks like the action sequences will be larger & more numerous, so SP may be an improvement over SF in that department.  Judging, as best I can, by the clapperboards, SP could be even longer than SF and could thusly suffer a bit.

 

Someone in another thread mentioned that the media is ready to pounce on SP as a comparative failure if it doesn't make the same $1B+ total as SF.  That's the one thing I'm not worried about.  When you have a picture that successful, the sequel almost always makes more, even crappy sequels (like the 2nd & 3rd "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies).

 

Dave

[glidrose]

I love LALD myself, but think that none of Guy Hamilton's follow up films were as good as GF. Perhaps it was the material (GF to me being one of the very few films that actually improved upon the Fleming) or maybe because his approach was fresher in 1964 than in the '70's.

Perhaps it was the change in editor. The editing in DAF and LALD is downright lazy. From what I remember of it, the editing in Hamilton's 1978 flick "Force 10 from Navarone" is stupefyingly inept.

[Hansen]

I see Spectre as a bigger Skyfall with the same atmosphere, same poor script and character development.
So I am prepared for an even worst Bond than Skyfall.
Poor me !!! :-(

[Jim]

Mr Sunshine rolls by.

[Guy Haines]

I'm certainly expecting a "sequel" feel to Spectre following SF. The teaser trailer in March indicates it in the opening two scenes - the MI6 building still in ruins and Moneypenny talking about personal effects recovered from Skyfall. But I'm not expecting the "start where the last one left off" approach of CR and QoS, though with Mr White involved in Spectre the movie there are bound to be some references back to the first and second Craig Bond films.

[Emrayfo]

I didn't like some of the themes in Skyfall, or at least how they were handled (especially the belabored and overwrought 'old dog/relic' motif. One or two references would have been sufficient in terms of the story they were telling, but instead they laid it on way too thick).  And some plot elements were just a bit too tidy for me (train exploding through the ceiling, anyone? Silva always planning to get caught to escape etc). But those lovely coincidences are action movies for you.  

 

Those things aside it was a beautifully shot film with some lovely sequences - the two fights with Patrice, as well as the locations Shanghai, Macau, and Scotland in particular showing up well. Some scenes were framed very nicely. Severine was outstanding. Nearly all the actors did a very good job in their role. Some of the action sequences were also very good too (the shoot-out on the island, the aforementioned fights with Patrice). While for me the net impact of the negatives is greater than the positives there is a lot to like and a lot of potential to build on for SPECTRE.

 

I'm hoping that more of the positives and less of the negatives from Skyfall will manifest in SPECTRE. I think this is achievable given the experience Mendes now has. The only thing that concerns me is the purported length. Over-long films in this genre rarely work well. That part (length) probably comes down to ambition in Mendes and Craig. In the end, hopefully they remember it is just a Bond film and not a candidate for greatest film of all time.

[Shrublands]

I think it will feel less like a sequel to SF and more like a film that cements the idea that SF and SP are two chapters in a story of Bond that began with CR.

[Guy Haines]

As I've contributed elsewhere on the site, to me the Craig Bond films have been as much "films about the man James Bond" as James Bond films. In CR he gained double O status but lost the first love of his life. In QoS he gains closure for Vesper and some knowledge about his opponents. In SF characters who will regularly recur in his life are introduced but one major character dies and is replaced. In SP?...... he discovers who his real nemesis is? (Although there have been occasions when Bond's worst enemy is staring at him in the shaving mirror!)

 

Shrublands may be onto something about SF. My concern is what comes after SF? Craig's Bond is finally complete and he moves on with the fully formed Bond played by someone else? Or a final showdown in Bond 25 between him and  "the Blofeld otherwise (or formerly?) known as Franz Oberhauser"?

[Shrublands]

As I've contributed elsewhere on the site, to me the Craig Bond films have been as much "films about the man James Bond" as James Bond films. In CR he gained double O status but lost the first love of his life. In QoS he gains closure for Vesper and some knowledge about his opponents. In SF characters who will regularly recur in his life are introduced but one major character dies and is replaced. In SP?...... he discovers who his real nemesis is? (Although there have been occasions when Bond's worst enemy is staring at him in the shaving mirror!)

 

Shrublands may be onto something about SF. My concern is what comes after SF? Craig's Bond is finally complete and he moves on with the fully formed Bond played by someone else? Or a final showdown in Bond 25 between him and  "the Blofeld otherwise (or formerly?) known as Franz Oberhauser"?

 

Yes, I'd say something very like that.

I can well imagine them wanting to begin Craig's Bond's story with CR and end with a similar treatment of Fleming's YOLT for Bond 25.

[Hansen]

The idea would have come along then as obviously there is no predetermined arc for Craig's Bond.
It is a tricky situation as it can be difficult to keep the whole thing consistent and may create far-fetched explanation when you have to deal with previous events

[SecretAgentFan]

Why is it obvious that there is no predetermined arc?  What do we know how EON planned to proceed?

[Shrublands]

I know it could just be a coincidence but I now find it very interesting that back in the days of CR's production they had it mention on the official website that as a teenager Bond had a father figure in Hans Oberhauser, after the death of his parents. Who subsequently mysteriously vanished.

 

It was a cryptic thing to include - Perhaps they have had certain things in mind all along. 

[Emrayfo]

Now that I didn't know. If it was purposeful foreshadowing then they are far more prescient than I would have given them credit for.

[Shrublands]

Yes, it was in the new Bond's dossier, which had been retconed to fit a Bond born in the late 60s.

It was also interesting that they left the disappearance of Oberhauser hanging as it were, not concluding it with the information from Fleming's Octopussy.

 

Going out of their way to mention an unresolved mystery from Bond's childhood was an odd thing to do. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´m sure EON did not try to reboot their universe without a clear outline of where they wanted to go.  

 

Of course, circumstances were causing impediments and restrictions - but since EON emerged stronger and in control of the rights to "Spectre" and "Blofeld" I can also imagine that this was always part of their master plan.

 

The idea of tieing all Craig-films closer together, by the way, is a very good one, IMO.  It creates a stronger impetus for the whole era and establishes a firmer ground for future installments to start from.

[Shrublands]

I´m sure EON did not try to reboot their universe without a clear outline of where they wanted to go.  

 

Of course, circumstances were causing impediments and restrictions - but since EON emerged stronger and in control of the rights to "Spectre" and "Blofeld" I can also imagine that this was always part of their master plan.

 

The idea of tieing all Craig-films closer together, by the way, is a very good one, IMO.  It creates a stronger impetus for the whole era and establishes a firmer ground for future installments to start from.

 

 

Exactly. I think Quantum was a backup plan should negotiations to get Spectre and Blofeld back have failed.

Now it's quite a simple matter to say that, perhaps, Quantum is/was the tip of a tentacle belonging to a much bigger monster.

 

The perfect way to stitch this all together is to have Bond's arch enemy behind it all.

Craig's 5 Bond films will stand as a unique period in the franchise, with an almost standalone and rather epic story running through them. 

[Hansen]

I´m sure EON did not try to reboot their universe without a clear outline of where they wanted to go.
.

I would love it to be true but having worked within studio industry, I can say that strategy is much more at short term.
And EoN never had this kind of vision during 50 years.