Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

"What do we do now?" - A Review of SPECTRE


33 replies to this topic

#1 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 04:12 AM

I can't imagine that, being as I'm probably the last person on these forums to see SPECTRE, there's anything to be said about the 24th Bond film that hasn't already been said by one person or another, but I'll give it a shot.  

 

Long story short, I must say that I enjoyed SPECTRE, and much more than I anticipated I would after reading all of reviews and spoilers floating around here the past month.  I'm also very much willing to admit that reading all of that probably forced me to significantly lower my expectations for the film, so perhaps that helped, but I walked out of the theater much more satisfied with this outing than I did coming out of Skyfall.

 

One point of contention I feel like I have to make with regards to what has, at least to me, seemed to be the prevailing wisdom around here with regards to the tone of SPECTRE.  Quite a few have painted it as some kind of experiment of bringing Craig's Bond into the Roger Moore universe.  Having read quite a few comments that said basically that, I have to admit that I was worried about what kind of film SPECTRE would be.  I was thankful to find that it was a mostly serious affair, which a Daniel Craig Bond film should be, as that's where his strengths lie.  The comedy, however, was pretty good (for the most part, there were some missteps) this time around, a noticeable improvement from the constant misfires that were spread throughout Skyfall.  I thought the "Mickey Mouse" line was probably one of the worst lines to rear its head in a long time in a Bond film, and ditto for the whole "moron" and "careless" exchange towards the end of the film, but by and large I thought the humor was good.  Loved Q lowering the platform, thinking he would see 009's Aston Martin and instead finding a chilled bottle of champagne from Bond.  

 

Now, the elephant in the room when you talk about SPECTRE is the "twist" towards the end of the film.  Of course, we all know what I'm talking about, but I have to address it.  Shockingly, both to whoever is reading this as well as myself, the whole ripoff of Austin Powers in Goldmember didn't bother me as much as I thought it would.  Now, that doesn't excuse the stupidity of the plot device.  It's stupid, plain and simple.  But, they don't dwell on it too much.  It really adds nothing to the proceedings, thus making it easy to ignore.  Now, it's  a shame that the had to include it, as what makes Blofeld an interesting character isn't any kind of relationship between him and Bond.  It's that he leads SPECTRE and, later, kills Bond's wife.  The whole daddy issue thing is just unnecessary, pointless, or whatever adjective you'd like to pick to criticize it.  

 

Also, rather curiously, Blofeld only appears in something like three scenes in the film.  Why, after all of these years and endless legal battles to regain the rights to use SPECTRE and Ernst Stavro Blofeld, do they decide to feature very little of him.  I would understand it if they were keeping him a secret like they did in From Russia With Love and Thunderball, but that's all thrown out of the way very quickly once he reveals himself to Bond during the SPECTRE meeting.  EON, you've got Blofeld now, if you're going to have a film called SPECTRE, then use your villain, especially when you've hired a two-time Oscar winner to play him. 

 

To move on to the positives of SPECTRE, of which there are several, but first and foremost among them is Lea Seydoux.  Before I heap a great deal of praise on her, let me just say that I know what all of the complaints are surrounding her Madeleine Swann character.  I would agree with a good deal of them, but in the end, I quite frankly don't care.  She's already in the rarefied air of the Bond girls, right up there with my all-time favorite Pam Bouvier.  It's true, they don't develop her character well at all, and the ending of the film, as well as her "I love you" to Bond during the torture sequence, are in no way earned by what the army of hack writers put down on the page, but, as i already stated, I don't care.  Seydoux is magnificent in this film, upstaging even Daniel Craig.  All I can say is that Ms. Seydoux has gained herself a new fan.  I'm not sure that SPECTRE turns out anywhere near as good if she's not in the film.  In fact, I could easily envision SPECTRE falling completely on its face without her.  She's that good.  I actually managed to buy Bond leaving the service for her at the end, which I didn't think I would given that they gave the two of them nowhere near the actual character development on the page to justify buying that action at the end of the film, but she was so brilliant that I bought it.  Well done, Ms. Seydoux.  

 

Shockingly, I thought that the MI6 team, or at least some of them, were much more tolerable this time around than they were in Skyfall.  I actually liked Q this time.  Naomie Harris is still woefully miscast as Moneypenny, but thankfully they don't give her much to do this time.  It was good to see Fiennes as M.  It'll be even better the next time when we, hopefully, see him spend more time behind his desk rather than out in the field helping Bond.

 

Putting the surveillance issue at the forefront was a good idea, although it could have been done better.  The idea of Blofeld getting into bed with the British government, as well as other world governments, to create a global surveillance system is a solid idea, but more attention needed to be paid to the acts of terrorism that he was using to coerce the governments into signing up for his surveillance system.  

 

The action was good, but I can't say that it was spectacular, one of the few areas of SPECTRE that I think comes up short in comparison to the otherwise inferior Skyfall.  The opening tracking shot, already talked about in great length around here, was spectacular, especially given the Licence to Kill-vibe that the location was giving off.  The rest of the sequence, as others have already pointed out, leaves something to be desired.  The actual stunt of doing the 360 flip with the helicopter is great, but it feels underwhelming as presented in the film, much like a lot of the action.  The car chase is an absolute dud.  Now, I'll admit to not knowing anything about the geography of Rome, but surely they would have encountered more than just the two cars they run into on the streets of the city during this chase.  Most of it is just Bond and Hinx drift gliding through the empty streets of one of the world's great cities with absolutely no sense of urgency to what they're doing.  

 

As for Craig, I can't say that this is his best performance as Bond, but I'm not sure how much of the blame for that, if any, I lay at his feet.  I think he was at his best in Quantum of Solace, and I do appreciate the humor that he brings to the role here, because there are quite a few good lines that he gets to deliver, but at the end of the day, the script for SPECTRE is a mess.  The fact that a good film managed to emerge from it is one of those rare feats of cinema that should be studied for years to come, because John Logan, P&W, and Butterworth manage to give us a 2.5 hour film in which not a whole lot of meaningful action happens.  We're introduced to SPECTRE, but they're a rather limp entity, at least in their current form.  Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.  There was a huge opportunity to really showcase SPECTRE as this big, bad organization that is a force to be reckoned with, but when it's all said and done, I felt that Quantum had ore menace about them than this incarnation of SPECTRE.  It seems to only exist because Blofeld hates Bond.  

 

While reading back through this review, it seems as though there are more negatives to point out than positives, but I must say that I did quite enjoy SPECTRE.  A lot of the problems with the film come down to the fact that the script was botched at every possible turn, but there is a strange combination of there being quite a few good ideas contained within the mess along with some truly great performances, most notably from the superb Lea Seydoux, to more than make up for it.  In a franchise that has quite a few films that one can manage to enjoy despite the fact that many would not seek to deem them of particularly high quality in any kind of objective sense, SPECTRE rises above the average Bond film, somehow, despite its many shortcomings, providing a rather fun trip to the theater, provided you can ignore the awfulness of the Dr. Evil and Mr. Bigglesworth reveal during the torture sequence towards the end of the film.

 

The end of SPECTRE does present the franchise with a rather unique situation moving forward.  Where, exactly, do they go from here?  Is Craig done?  I do know one thing, as much as I'd love to see You Only Live Twice properly adapted, I'm not sure I'm on board for it anymore, as doing so would require killing off Madeleine Swann.  i have no desire to see that.  Regardless of what they do, however, hopefully they go back to square one with the writing staff.  If a film like SPECTRE, which features a mess of a script that went through four different writers, can turn out as well as it did, imagine what they could do with a good writer on the job from day one.  I hope to find out what kind of film that yields when it's all said and done.



#2 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 08 December 2015 - 05:45 AM

Great to read your thoughts, tdalton. I was hoping you'd be pleasantly surprised. It is indeed a serious film, and a lot darker than many people on here have described it.



#3 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 08 December 2015 - 06:11 AM

Thanks for the review, tdalton!  Very good points all around!



#4 thecasinoroyale

thecasinoroyale

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 14358 posts
  • Location:Basingstoke, UK

Posted 08 December 2015 - 08:28 AM

Glad you managed to see this tdalton, and your points make a lot of sense. :)



#5 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 10:24 AM

In some ways, reading your thoughts, it suggests to me how fortunate we all were that The Spy Who Loved Me came out as well as it did.  It had a ton of script writers cooking in the kitchen, and like SPECTRE, plays like an anthology of Bond scenes--train sequence, car chase, ski chase, indestructable henchman, world domination (of some sort.)

 

Totally agree with you on focusing more on the terrorist plots.  Instead of M's office, they could have showed us Tunisia and the other "linked" attacks to set the ball rolling.  Then Bond gets his official mission instead of the rogue bit again.

 

I still think there's a way for EON to give us the YOLT novel for Bond 25 to get themselves out of this corner.  Indeed, SPECTRE had to sort of combine Thunderball and OHMSS before that could happen.  But we could see a Bond film that really deconstructs the formulaic Bond movie for Bond 26, should they go that route.

 

Or they could give us something like DAF and pretend SPECTRE didn't really exist.  However, unlike OHMSS and LTK, SPECTRE is a box office success, so they will probably continue to build on it.



#6 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 01:37 PM

TD - Unfortunately I agree with many of your misgivings about the film (general state of the script), most notably what feels like a lost opportunity with the introduction of Blofeld. But I'm glad that as a whole it hung together for you.

 

Writers, writers, writers......



#7 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 08 December 2015 - 01:55 PM

Your thoughts on Seydoux are exactly the same as mine. She carried this film, and because of this fact I would like her character to be explored further. Just please EON don't kill her off... at least not immediately if you have to!!



#8 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 04:51 PM

In some ways, reading your thoughts, it suggests to me how fortunate we all were that The Spy Who Loved Me came out as well as it did.  It had a ton of script writers cooking in the kitchen, and like SPECTRE, plays like an anthology of Bond scenes--train sequence, car chase, ski chase, indestructable henchman, world domination (of some sort.)

 

Totally agree with you on focusing more on the terrorist plots.  Instead of M's office, they could have showed us Tunisia and the other "linked" attacks to set the ball rolling.  Then Bond gets his official mission instead of the rogue bit again.

 

I still think there's a way for EON to give us the YOLT novel for Bond 25 to get themselves out of this corner.  Indeed, SPECTRE had to sort of combine Thunderball and OHMSS before that could happen.  But we could see a Bond film that really deconstructs the formulaic Bond movie for Bond 26, should they go that route.

 

Or they could give us something like DAF and pretend SPECTRE didn't really exist.  However, unlike OHMSS and LTK, SPECTRE is a box office success, so they will probably continue to build on it.

 

The terrorist plots should have been the focus of the film, or at least the first half of the film rather than Bond going rogue yet again and having a lot of the time spent on M, Q, Tanner, and Moneypenny tracking his movements and covering up for him.  After reading what a lot of people had to say about the film, and hearing about the terrorist attacks that SPECTRE was involved in before having actually seen the film, I had thought that the shot of Bond standing in the rubble in Mexico City, just after the explosion and building collapse, was actually going to be a scene of Bond actually at the scene of one of these attacks, so I had at least some hope that we were going to get at least a bit of that even though I knew that it wasn't going to be a focus of the film.  I was a bit disappointed then, at that moment, to see it in the PTS, realizing at that point we were going to be getting a lot of "tell" and no "show" when it came to that aspect of the script.  

 

Somewhere in the wreckage of the script is an all-time classic Bond film trying to get out, but even while saddled with such a poor script, Mendes, the crew, and the cast still managed to deliver a Bond film that is better than a good number of the entries in the franchise.  They should be commended for that, while all four of the credited writers on this film should be shown the door and new blood should be brought in for Bond 25.



#9 Tiin007

Tiin007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1696 posts
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 08 December 2015 - 06:19 PM

Very glad you enjoyed it, tdalton.

 

I had a similar reaction upon leaving the theater-- despite its flaws, I walked away with a generally more favorable opinion than I did upon my first viewing of SF (and QoS, for that matter).

 

And after seeing SPECTRE a second time, I think it is certainly more rewatchable than Skyfall.

 

Truth is, if only judging the film in front of me, I think Skyfall was perhaps a better crafted film. Yet, in the grand scheme of where the series has been the past couple decades and where it is (hopefully) heading, I think SPECTRE was a step in the right direction, whereas Skyfall was a step in the wrong direction.

 

So I'd say that while Skyfall may have been better from an objective standpoint (hard to measure in terms of objectivity, I know), I much prefer SPECTRE. 



#10 S K Y F A L L

S K Y F A L L

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6889 posts
  • Location:CANADA

Posted 08 December 2015 - 08:49 PM

I think you are on the money too about NINE EYES. Which could be why I had a lack of interet in it. 



#11 coco1997

coco1997

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2821 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 08 December 2015 - 10:37 PM

Great review, tdalton. I too am quite pleased that you enjoyed the film. I was thinking of writing a lengthy review myself but at this point I probably need to see it again so it's fresh in my head if I'm to write a really informed, effective review.

 

I disagree, however, with your last point about how EON can continue the story in BOND 25. I don't think Swann's character necessarily needs to be killed off to get her out of the picture. Some creative people here have proposed a few rather interesting scenarios whereby Swann could live but be written out of the story while still having it feel like a suitably tragic ending for her and Bond.

 

I imagine SPECTRE ranks at number three for you among Craig's entries, behind QOS and CR and above SKYFALL?



#12 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 08 December 2015 - 10:44 PM

Great review, tdalton. I too am quite pleased that you enjoyed the film. I was thinking of writing a lengthy review myself but at this point I probably need to see it again so it's fresh in my head if I'm to write a really informed, effective review.

 

I disagree, however, with your last point about how EON can continue the story in BOND 25. I don't think Swann's character necessarily needs to be killed off to get her out of the picture. Some creative people here have proposed a few rather interesting scenarios whereby Swann could live but be written out of the story while still having it feel like a suitably tragic ending for her and Bond.

 

I imagine SPECTRE ranks at number three for you among Craig's entries, behind QOS and CR and above SKYFALL?

 

Right now, I'd rank SPECTRE at #2 behind Quantum of Solace.  It's just ahead of Casino Royale, but only just ahead.  I'm fully prepared to admit, though, that this might be because of the fact that SPECTRE is new, and I could easily see SPECTRE settling in at #3, but all three of those films I'd rank considerably higher than Skyfall.

 

Regarding Swann, I've read a lot of the theories about how to get her out of the picture.  I do think that a lot of them would work for a follow-up that doesn't base itself on You Only Live Twice.  My only thing is that, if they're going to do YOLT, in that case I do think that she has to die.  I do have a couple of possible plots in mind where they could conceivably go into a YOLT scenario where Swann lives, but I can't imagine that anyone, certainly not EON (or most people here, for that matter) would go for it.  



#13 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 08 December 2015 - 11:57 PM

Great review tdalton. I agree about Lea Seydoux and I hope her character Madeleine isn't killed off in the next film - too obvious. What should happen to her instead I'm not sure about.

There should have been more of Oberhauser/Blofeld. One can hope that Christoph Waltz will return for the next film, though as I've posted on other threads, the facial disfigurement would provide an excuse to cast another actor next time - the old plastic surgery excuse, and the fact that Blofeld also changed appearance in the books as well.

The Bond/Blofeld link was treated casually but in the end was not necessary - which leads to my main grouse about the film, and I repeat - it tries to be "Skyfall revisited" - lets explore Bond's past, again - and a classic 1960s/70s Bond simultaneously. That approach didn't quite work for me, but in the end, like you I came out of the cinema having enjoyed the film.

#14 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 09 December 2015 - 01:21 AM

I think I'd rather they do what they did in the last 3 movies - original plots (whilst introducing us to some familiar characters), but nothing rehashed. I don't see a need for Swann or Hinx to return but obviously Blofeld will be in it.

 

But I'd rather see a brand new idea in Bond 25.

 

--



#15 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 December 2015 - 03:12 AM

Great review tdalton. I agree about Lea Seydoux and I hope her character Madeleine isn't killed off in the next film - too obvious. What should happen to her instead I'm not sure about.

There should have been more of Oberhauser/Blofeld. One can hope that Christoph Waltz will return for the next film, though as I've posted on other threads, the facial disfigurement would provide an excuse to cast another actor next time - the old plastic surgery excuse, and the fact that Blofeld also changed appearance in the books as well.

The Bond/Blofeld link was treated casually but in the end was not necessary - which leads to my main grouse about the film, and I repeat - it tries to be "Skyfall revisited" - lets explore Bond's past, again - and a classic 1960s/70s Bond simultaneously. That approach didn't quite work for me, but in the end, like you I came out of the cinema having enjoyed the film.

 

I agree regarding Swann.  Don't want to see her killed off.  Now, I would admit that doing so would definitely provide the effect that they would certainly be going for by doing that, which would be a punch square in the gut of the audience.  I'd absolutely hate to see it, but it would be effective, at least on a purely emotional level.  I do think, though, that there are ways to bring her back and have her situation serve as fuel for Bond to want to go after Blofeld without having to outright kill her like they did Tracy.

 

I thought Waltz was a rather interesting case.  I didn't find him all that interesting in his two scenes as Oberhauser.  The SPECTRE meeting was, especially considering the centerpiece of the film that it should have been, an absolute dud.  The torture sequence was better, and he was clearly upping the menace factor considerably there from where he was the first time we saw him, but there was room for improvement.  But, once he got the facial scar and went full-on Blofeld, I liked him considerably more.  



#16 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:20 AM

I'd want BOND 25 to go either two ways: 

 

  • By returning to a more 'traditional Bond format' in SPECTRE we could continue down this road with a new Bond girl, new mission, and a stand-alone movie with or without Craig, and continue the franchise this way. 

OR

  • Have Swann return, and Blofeld. But PLEASE do not go for the easy option and carry out another revenge story by killing her off. If they have these characters return with Craig I'd like some new writers on the scene to see something fresh and explore the stories behind them further! 


#17 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:53 AM

I have an idea about how Madeleine could be integrated into the next film whether she appears in it or not.

Bond has either left the service or is on an extended sabbatical while he considers his future. During this period, Madeleine disappears without explanation. Around about the same time, Blofeld has escaped, and Bond puts two and two together and makes five - and off he goes in pursuit.

He finally tracks ESB down - only to be told that he, ESB, has no knowledge of where Madeleine is. No interest in fact - in spite of his dispute with her father, ESB is quite fond of her, he says - remembers her from the "gun under the sink" days, which by the way he knew all about. Never mind that he tied her up and left her to possibly be blown to bits in the old MI6 building - that was to get at Bond. Nothing personal about Madeleine, you understand - such is Blofeld's sick train of thought. Which gets Bond beginning to doubt himself - and Madeleine.

Bond either deals with Blofeld - kills him, or sends him back into custody - or ESB escapes, as he used to do in the Connery/Lazenby films. But still no explanation about Madeleine....until....

MI6 appears. They are responsible for her disappearance. She's the daughter of Mr White. She may know too much for her own good - M has delved further into her background and believes she is either at risk or is a security risk. Whatever - cue final word from Madeleine. She's setting Bond "free" - she knows he can't live any other life than the one he has led. And she would be an extra burden to him - even if he did give up his way of life, she would still put him at risk.

Film ends with Bond reinstated, back in harness in the Double-O section - having started as a raw recruit in CR he's now the senior member, and we finish with him and M about to induct a new set of Double-O agents - with Bond about to advise them on the do's and don'ts of being a Double-O.

#18 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 09 December 2015 - 11:41 AM

I liked the start of this idea with ESB claiming not to be responsible for her disappearance, but I don't like the fact MI6 were behind it. Surely Bond would have more to say about that, and couldn't just accept that they have ruined his chance at happiness?!

 

If it was my decision I would have ESB claim he is not responsible (which he isn't), but maybe bring back Irma Bunt (again could be used as another nod to Tracy and OHMSS) as the one who has captured Madeleine in the hope she can impress ESB and be ranked higher within SPECTRE. Then, when ESB realises what Bunt has done he praises her and joins forces - Bond then has to go after the both of them to win Madeleine back. 

 

He succeeds and then they really do ride off into the sunset - perhaps in the DB5 after being married and that's the end of Craig's era. He has a heartbreak at the start but all's well that end's well. 

 

A new actor can then come in for Bond 26 (I think EON would struggle to keep Craig past BOND 25) with a blank slate and keep Craig's era on a different timeline. 



#19 Guy Haines

Guy Haines

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3075 posts
  • Location:"Special envoy" no more. As of 7/5/15 elected to office somewhere in Nottinghamshire, England.

Posted 09 December 2015 - 02:53 PM

I liked the start of this idea with ESB claiming not to be responsible for her disappearance, but I don't like the fact MI6 were behind it. Surely Bond would have more to say about that, and couldn't just accept that they have ruined his chance at happiness?!

If it was my decision I would have ESB claim he is not responsible (which he isn't), but maybe bring back Irma Bunt (again could be used as another nod to Tracy and OHMSS) as the one who has captured Madeleine in the hope she can impress ESB and be ranked higher within SPECTRE. Then, when ESB realises what Bunt has done he praises her and joins forces - Bond then has to go after the both of them to win Madeleine back.

He succeeds and then they really do ride off into the sunset - perhaps in the DB5 after being married and that's the end of Craig's era. He has a heartbreak at the start but all's well that end's well.

A new actor can then come in for Bond 26 (I think EON would struggle to keep Craig past BOND 25) with a blank slate and keep Craig's era on a different timeline.

I think what I had in mind is what supposedly happened to Tatiana Romanova in FRWL the book - I think we learn in one of the other books - John Pearson's "biography" of Bond I think, or it may been Bond himself considering what would happen - that Tania would go off under an assumed identity to Canada or another safe haven for her own protection.

My point is that even though we might want Bond and Madeleine to have a happy ending, she is still at risk. Her father was Mr White. She knows what SPECTRE is. They know that she knows - hence Hinx's attempt to kidnap her. And MI6 might want to tap her knowledge - even find her a non-violent post within the organisation. And yet here's Bond wanting to leave the service and take her with him! I think I was trying to find a way to (1) continue the Bond/Blofeld/Madeleine story without the latter ending up dead and (2) bring some sort of closure to the whole Craig-era "Bond becoming Bond" theme which has dominated his highly successful tenure in the role.

I think one serious flaw in my idea, on reflection, is that had MI6 "removed" Madeleine from Bond's life without notice and then after all the conflict with Blofeld and SPECTRE in finding her it is revealed that his own side, after all, were responsible it would breach whatever trust Bond has in his superiors - even if they did it with Madeleine's consent and for her, and Bond's own good.

(I came up with the scenario after thinking about an episode of the 1960s TV series "The Champions" in which Craig Sterling is held in a prison cell and repeatedly questioned by an unknown interrogator about a mission, presumably in the hope that certainly "anomalies" about the assignment would be revealed - such as where did he get his super-powers!. The twist at the end is that he has been imprisoned by his own side!)

#20 Surrie

Surrie

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Location:Surrey Heath

Posted 09 December 2015 - 03:12 PM

 

I liked the start of this idea with ESB claiming not to be responsible for her disappearance, but I don't like the fact MI6 were behind it. Surely Bond would have more to say about that, and couldn't just accept that they have ruined his chance at happiness?!

If it was my decision I would have ESB claim he is not responsible (which he isn't), but maybe bring back Irma Bunt (again could be used as another nod to Tracy and OHMSS) as the one who has captured Madeleine in the hope she can impress ESB and be ranked higher within SPECTRE. Then, when ESB realises what Bunt has done he praises her and joins forces - Bond then has to go after the both of them to win Madeleine back.

He succeeds and then they really do ride off into the sunset - perhaps in the DB5 after being married and that's the end of Craig's era. He has a heartbreak at the start but all's well that end's well.

A new actor can then come in for Bond 26 (I think EON would struggle to keep Craig past BOND 25) with a blank slate and keep Craig's era on a different timeline.

I think what I had in mind is what supposedly happened to Tatiana Romanova in FRWL the book - I think we learn in one of the other books - John Pearson's "biography" of Bond I think, or it may been Bond himself considering what would happen - that Tania would go off under an assumed identity to Canada or another safe haven for her own protection.

My point is that even though we might want Bond and Madeleine to have a happy ending, she is still at risk. Her father was Mr White. She knows what SPECTRE is. They know that she knows - hence Hinx's attempt to kidnap her. And MI6 might want to tap her knowledge - even find her a non-violent post within the organisation. And yet here's Bond wanting to leave the service and take her with him! I think I was trying to find a way to (1) continue the Bond/Blofeld/Madeleine story without the latter ending up dead and (2) bring some sort of closure to the whole Craig-era "Bond becoming Bond" theme which has dominated his highly successful tenure in the role.

I think one serious flaw in my idea, on reflection, is that had MI6 "removed" Madeleine from Bond's life without notice and then after all the conflict with Blofeld and SPECTRE in finding her it is revealed that his own side, after all, were responsible it would breach whatever trust Bond has in his superiors - even if they did it with Madeleine's consent and for her, and Bond's own good.

(I came up with the scenario after thinking about an episode of the 1960s TV series "The Champions" in which Craig Sterling is held in a prison cell and repeatedly questioned by an unknown interrogator about a mission, presumably in the hope that certainly "anomalies" about the assignment would be revealed - such as where did he get his super-powers!. The twist at the end is that he has been imprisoned by his own side!)

 

 

It would be nice for them to have their happy ending - but I am not confident we will get it. EON have pushed a lot of boundaries in this era, but that might just be a step too far away from the Bond franchise we've known for the last 50 years. I think I must be some sort of a romantic!! I really liked your idea, and the ways they could use Madeleine's character to bring her back for the next installment but I feel if it was MI6 to carry out the act then it would make Bond seem feeble to just take it on the chin and be ever loyal to 'Queen and Country' especially after all that he has been through in this timeline of events. 

 

Saying that - he was quick to return after Vespers death and then actually claimed 'I never left' at the end of QOS... but MI6 hadn't used underhand tactics to get him back. Whether he would take that lying down or not I'm just not sure of.



#21 Logie

Logie

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 81 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 09 December 2015 - 06:25 PM

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.



#22 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 December 2015 - 06:40 PM

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.

 

All of that was probably my biggest gripe with the film.  Add to that the fact that resolving it probably eliminates the need for the second biggest gripe to exist, which is Bond going rogue again. 

 

The first several scenes of the film should have directly dealt with the acts of terrorism that Blofeld was committing against the prospective Nine Eyes nations.  Bond is on hand to stop Sciarra and his plot in Mexico City.  That should have been an official mission authorized by M.  We could have then gotten another action sequence after the titles where we see another agent, perhaps 009, engaged with the enemy in one of the nations mentioned in the film that Blofeld has targeted.  009 fails to foil the terrorist attack and gets himself killed, necessitating M to send Bond there to investigate. 



#23 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:27 PM

 

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.

 

All of that was probably my biggest gripe with the film.  Add to that the fact that resolving it probably eliminates the need for the second biggest gripe to exist, which is Bond going rogue again. 

 

The first several scenes of the film should have directly dealt with the acts of terrorism that Blofeld was committing against the prospective Nine Eyes nations.  Bond is on hand to stop Sciarra and his plot in Mexico City.  That should have been an official mission authorized by M.  We could have then gotten another action sequence after the titles where we see another agent, perhaps 009, engaged with the enemy in one of the nations mentioned in the film that Blofeld has targeted.  009 fails to foil the terrorist attack and gets himself killed, necessitating M to send Bond there to investigate. 

 

 

Agreed. It's like the producers think the fans want to see Bond going rogue. How ironic that we actually want the opposite. The interesting thing about Bond is that he does take on the missions given to him, but doesn't follow orders exactly - he likes to do things his own way, without "going rogue". 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



#24 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:29 PM

 

 

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.

 

All of that was probably my biggest gripe with the film.  Add to that the fact that resolving it probably eliminates the need for the second biggest gripe to exist, which is Bond going rogue again. 

 

The first several scenes of the film should have directly dealt with the acts of terrorism that Blofeld was committing against the prospective Nine Eyes nations.  Bond is on hand to stop Sciarra and his plot in Mexico City.  That should have been an official mission authorized by M.  We could have then gotten another action sequence after the titles where we see another agent, perhaps 009, engaged with the enemy in one of the nations mentioned in the film that Blofeld has targeted.  009 fails to foil the terrorist attack and gets himself killed, necessitating M to send Bond there to investigate. 

 

 

Agreed. It's like the producers think the fans want to see Bond going rogue. How ironic that we actually want the opposite. The interesting thing about Bond is that he does take on the missions given to him, but doesn't follow orders exactly - he likes to do things his own way, without "going rogue". 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

I also found it rather humorous that the one mission that Craig's Bond has taken on that has actually been assigned to him in a manner similar to what one would expect to see (M, behind a desk, giving Bond the mission) comes in SPECTRE, from a deceased character via a DVD.  Then we finally get a proper scene in M's office and it's a repeat of the scene in Casino Royale when Bond breaks into M's apartment, right down to the newspaper toss.



#25 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:40 PM

 

 

 

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.

 

All of that was probably my biggest gripe with the film.  Add to that the fact that resolving it probably eliminates the need for the second biggest gripe to exist, which is Bond going rogue again. 

 

The first several scenes of the film should have directly dealt with the acts of terrorism that Blofeld was committing against the prospective Nine Eyes nations.  Bond is on hand to stop Sciarra and his plot in Mexico City.  That should have been an official mission authorized by M.  We could have then gotten another action sequence after the titles where we see another agent, perhaps 009, engaged with the enemy in one of the nations mentioned in the film that Blofeld has targeted.  009 fails to foil the terrorist attack and gets himself killed, necessitating M to send Bond there to investigate. 

 

 

Agreed. It's like the producers think the fans want to see Bond going rogue. How ironic that we actually want the opposite. The interesting thing about Bond is that he does take on the missions given to him, but doesn't follow orders exactly - he likes to do things his own way, without "going rogue". 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

I also found it rather humorous that the one mission that Craig's Bond has taken on that has actually been assigned to him in a manner similar to what one would expect to see (M, behind a desk, giving Bond the mission) comes in SPECTRE, from a deceased character via a DVD.  Then we finally get a proper scene in M's office and it's a repeat of the scene in Casino Royale when Bond breaks into M's apartment, right down to the newspaper toss.

 

 

True - although there is also the unseen mission M gives to Bond in the last scene of Skyfall.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



#26 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 09 December 2015 - 10:41 PM

 

 

 

 

Enjoyed reading your review very much, tdalton - agreed with may of your points and this one in particular:

 

Logan and company break one of the first rules of writing, which is "show, not tell".  They constantly tell us about terrorist attacks that SPECTRE is committing around the globe, but we never see them, apart from a shot of a building on fire on a television somewhere.

 

Yes, the amount of exposition was annoying. ESB telling Bond he's caused all his pain, Mr. White telling Bond that ESB is "everywhere" etc... I mean, how difficult would it have been to show ESB watching a city burn from his yacht, or sitting in the same restaurant while Yousef presents that necklace to another woman, etc... yes, I know flashbacks aren't ideal but I'd have taken that over what we got. With so many writers and other creatives involved, exposition shouldn't even be an option.

 

All of that was probably my biggest gripe with the film.  Add to that the fact that resolving it probably eliminates the need for the second biggest gripe to exist, which is Bond going rogue again. 

 

The first several scenes of the film should have directly dealt with the acts of terrorism that Blofeld was committing against the prospective Nine Eyes nations.  Bond is on hand to stop Sciarra and his plot in Mexico City.  That should have been an official mission authorized by M.  We could have then gotten another action sequence after the titles where we see another agent, perhaps 009, engaged with the enemy in one of the nations mentioned in the film that Blofeld has targeted.  009 fails to foil the terrorist attack and gets himself killed, necessitating M to send Bond there to investigate. 

 

 

Agreed. It's like the producers think the fans want to see Bond going rogue. How ironic that we actually want the opposite. The interesting thing about Bond is that he does take on the missions given to him, but doesn't follow orders exactly - he likes to do things his own way, without "going rogue". 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

I also found it rather humorous that the one mission that Craig's Bond has taken on that has actually been assigned to him in a manner similar to what one would expect to see (M, behind a desk, giving Bond the mission) comes in SPECTRE, from a deceased character via a DVD.  Then we finally get a proper scene in M's office and it's a repeat of the scene in Casino Royale when Bond breaks into M's apartment, right down to the newspaper toss.

 

 

True - although there is also the unseen mission M gives to Bond in the last scene of Skyfall.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

That's true.  Although I'm sure we're expected to assume that Bond tossed the dossier in the bin on his way out and went rogue with the assignment.  ;)



#27 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 10 December 2015 - 12:30 AM

Ha ha, that is true.

 

I was trying to think of any other missions Bond has had that we don't hear or see much about. I could only really think of the PTS of Moonraker - he had just finished an "African job". 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



#28 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 17 April 2016 - 12:28 AM

After countless tries to view Spectre on Blu-ray, all of which ended up with shutting the film off at various points before the Rome sequence was even over, I finally made it through a viewing of Spectre, and it's only appropriate to offer a new review as my previous review is now completely pointless, although I'm sure it was always viewed that way anyway.  

 

With a fresh viewing of Spectre now behind me, I think that I can state fairly definitively that:

 

Spectre is the worst film in the James Bond franchise.

 

Yes, it's worse than Die Another Day.  Worse than The Man With the Golden Gun and The World Is Not Enough.  Worse than them all.  Now, where to begin?  Craig is probably where we should begin.  He sleepwalks through the film, plain and simple.  Many of those that apologize for Spectre will simply say that it's just because he's such a brilliant actor that he's nailed the effortless, Connery-esque coolness that the character demands, bringing it into his own.  Nonsense.  There's nothing cool about Bond in Spectre.  He's the dullest we've seen him in some time, probably having to go back to the early, pre-TSWLM Roger Moore films in order to find a duller incarnation.  Gone is the cool 007 of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, the one who would order a vodka martini without giving a damn about whether it's shaken or stirred.  In his place, we've got a Bond who has Q order him a health shake and then vulgarly tells the bartender to flush it down the toilet instead of him digesting it into a similar receptacle of his own biological accord.

 

Most responsible for this trainwreck of a film are the writers.  My goodness, this is the flimsiest story any Bond writer has ever devised.  Heck, Bond isn't even at the heart of the story.  The main story of Spectre is about C getting nine countries to vote yes to a spy program.  You'd think it would be about the introduction of SPECTRE and the showdown between Bond and Dr. Evil, but the Hans Landa wannabe isn't given enough screen time to even justify his name appearing first in the credits.  I mean, seriously, in a 2.5 hour film, I only appeared in three less scenes than the main villain.  Now, one could probably make a solid film out of trying to get nine countries to vote "Yes", but that's not to be found in Spectre.  Instead of showing us how C plans to accomplish this, which would be through the terrorist attacks leveled at the various countries that vote "No", we're instead shown distant footage of those key plot points on television screens during the family soap opera that is unfolding in places like Rome, Austria, and a crater in the middle of nowhere.  This is just poor storytelling.  Major plot points that could both serve to bolster SPECTRE and give Bloferhauser some true menace are instead relegated to shots of CNN stock footage while Bond and his former playmate wax poetic about brothers knowing how to push each other's buttons.

 

But, there surely is a saving grace to the film?  Is it the locations?  You'd think that, but Sam Mendes appears to have accidentally dropped the film into a vat of mustard while piecing it together.  So, no, it's not that.  Yes, there is one saving grace to the film: Lea Seydoux.  Despite being given one of the flimsiest characters in the franchise's last thirty years to work with, she manages to not only make the character interesting, going far beyond what the savant writing team managed to put down on paper and making Dr. Madeleine Swann the only interesting character in Spectre.  The love story between her and Bond is, on paper, laughably rushed, but she manages to sell it because she's a gifted actress and, more importantly, actually seems to be trying.

 

The rest of it is just a forgettable mess of promising-sounding ingredients mixed together in a very unappetizing stew.  Dave Bausista as the henchman?  Sounds awesome, but isn't.  After a promising introduction, his big act of villainy from there is to tailgate our hero while he tries to make a phonecall.  Ralph Fiennes as M is good, but his presence there simply serves to point out that he would probably make for a more interesting Bond in the midst of this dreary slog of a film.

 

No, when it's all said and done, Spectre is a bad film.  Its troubled production is well-known at this point, but even if we didn't know every detail, we'd know it had a troubled-production, because that is written all over its every frame.  What possessed me to like Spectre upon a first viewing, I'll never know (edit: well, actually, I think I may have figured that out, but it's not something I'll get into here).  Whatever it was that I saw in the theater that December afternoon, it's gone.  It doesn't exist, and it obviously never did.  A rose-tinted viewing experience if there ever was one.  


Edited by tdalton, 17 April 2016 - 02:33 PM.


#29 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 April 2016 - 04:55 AM

Even the "worst" Bond film on my Top 25 ("Never say never again") has scenes that I tremendously enjoy - so I always would have to add that every Bond film still towers over so many other films I like.

 

Is it the same for you?  Or would you rate the Bond films in general lower than other films you love?



#30 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 18 April 2016 - 05:06 AM

Even the "worst" Bond film on my Top 25 ("Never say never again") has scenes that I tremendously enjoy - so I always would have to add that every Bond film still towers over so many other films I like.

 

Is it the same for you?  Or would you rate the Bond films in general lower than other films you love?

 

I'd be interested to know how much time he spends on forums where he really does love the movies!

 

B)