172 replies to this topic

[Vauxhall]

Hmm. I get the feeling that some of it was better before the changes, and the changes themselves were rather minor tweaking.

It's a massive improvement from where it was in spring/summer 2014. At that stage, it was on course to be a disaster. There's also very little I'm disappointed they cut from the draft scripts. My feeling is they tightened it up a lot - but know others may disagree.

[Harmsway]

Hmm. I get the feeling that some of it was better before the changes, and the changes themselves were rather minor tweaking.

I've read the draft the notes were written about (the October P&W rewrite), and if they put it up on screen folks would have rioted in the theater. The third act was disastrous.

It's true that some folks here miss some of the stuff from the revised December draft, but that draft was written later in the process and was written in response to the studio notes.

[Shrublands]

 

Hmm. I get the feeling that some of it was better before the changes, and the changes themselves were rather minor tweaking.

It's a massive improvement from where it was in spring/summer 2014. At that stage, it was on course to be a disaster. There's also very little I'm disappointed they cut from the draft scripts. My feeling is they tightened it up a lot - but know others may disagree.

 

 

They have removed all of what was just plain silly, the finished film is more streamline and better for it.

 

One example was when M demanded that the smart blood stuff be deleted incase the bad guys used it to track Bond. (still there)

But then, in the very next scene, he sends a telegram directly to Bond in Morocco, explicitly mentioning the 00 section and signing it M.

Stuff like that, and it was a pointless bit of repetitive exposition anyway.

 

The script was littered with that sort of thing and it's best gone.

[Vauxhall]

Agreed. Another example - Mr White trying to conceal Madeleine's location, and then having it written in his wallet.

[Shrublands]

Agreed. Another example - Mr White trying to conceal Madeleine's location, and then having it written in his wallet.

 

Yes, another good example.

Also, if he wanted Bond to protect her so much, why not just tell him where to find her?

[RMc2]

Hmm.  I get the feeling that some of it was better before the changes, and the changes themselves were rather minor tweaking.

 

I got that impression too. I was sad to find myself agreeing with a lot of the execs' notes!

[Shrublands]

I also prefer Bond inviting Moneypenny to his flat. It implies that he has made up his mind to bring her in on this and not something he does on the spur of the moment.

It read as if she had shown up there with this file, at night, for no particular reason. Why not just give it to him the the next day at work? She wasn't to know it's importance.

 

Now it seems so much more reasoned and sensible.

[Hockey Mask]

I guess most of you didn't get the memo that you weren't allowed to see SP more than once until we in the US got to see it a first time.

[SecretAgentFan]

I also prefer Bond inviting Moneypenny to his flat. It implies that he has made up his mind to bring her in on this and not something he does on the spur of the moment.

It read as if she had shown up there with this file, at night, for no particular reason. Why not just give it to him the the next day at work? She wasn't to know it's importance.

 

Now it seems so much more reasoned and sensible.

 

True.  A lot of the streamlining and cutting of lines/scenes has worked to the benefit of the film.  However I would have preferred...

 

Spoiler

Bond dealing with C instead of M. 

[Vauxhall]

Interesting you say that SAF. Bond being involved in that was one of mine and Shrublands' biggest problems with the script. Made more sense as M, given their professional rivalry, in my opinion.

[Harmsway]

The scene kinda/sorta worked as a callback to CR, but it didn't make sense with Bond's arc.

Did any of the chilling Oberhauser/Mr. White backstory make it in? That was the one bit that I loved in the October draft.

[Agent 76]

I still have to see SPECTRE (it doesn't open here till november 5th), but your first impressions are an interesting and intriguing read Vauxhall.

 

I too read some of the leaked material (not all of it of course), but I know I'll be pleasantly surprised with the movie. At least it seems the general opinion is that it's a solid Bond movie, not the best and not the worst.

 

cheers

[Irrigator]

After glancing through some very positive reviews by critics I admire, I was ready to fall head-over-heels. But unfortunately Spectre ended up being a big let down. Not as bad as Quantum fortunately, but nowhere near the league of CR and SF imho.

 

After a thrilling PTS and an amazing title sequence (to a subpar Bond song) I quickly sensed that something was wrong. The politics at the home office didn't interest me in the slightest and really distracted from Bond's mission. A lot of characters didn't make a lasting impression (especially Lucia and Hinx) and the action sequences didn't excite me. The Oberhauser backstory felt contrived as well as the role Spectre played in the last three Bond films. Waltz was menacing, but not as memorable as Bardem. And personally I didn't buy the Swan/Bond relationship, making the ending hard to swallow.

 

After three Bond films that were very personal and dark, I was hoping for a much lighter and more traditional Bond film. You could argue that it was indeed a lighter film, but the ending was again way too personal for me. And with 'that' ending, we can probably expect a OHMSS/CR style death in the next one, making it even harder to return to a more traditional Bond narrative.

 

Still not everything was bad. The cinematography was lush and gorgeous, the main cast was great, there were some genuine laughs (the 009 joke killed me) and the helicopter stunt is the most memorable stunt of the Craig era so far. Here's hoping Craig will be back for a fifth one and that they will manage to make one last great Bond film. He deserves it.

Edited by Irrigator, 31 October 2015 - 12:42 AM.

[Vauxhall]

Your view chimes with much of what my friend thought tonight - apart from he was convinced the helicopter stunt was fake and could not be persuaded otherwise.

As for me, most of my opinions stay the same - although I found the helicopter fight slightly oddly cut and scored. The big difference though: Waltz made a far bigger impression. The attention to detail of his performance is superb. Shrublands noticed this before, but I love him absent-mindedly picking cat hair off his jacket. Also, great little flourishes - firstly when showing Bond his observatory, and secondly when he sets the timers at MI6.

My reading of his final look on the bridge is a bit of two things - more jealousy and pain at Bond's happy ending compared to his ill-fate, meshed with a determination Bond will never be happy if he has anything to do with it.

[Vauxhall]

Something else I spotted: when Oberhauser's compound blows up, two black vehicles are faintly seen driving off away from the flames.

[SecretAgentFan]

I really have to see the film again (and, probably, again and again...  )

 

After my initial lukewarm reaction my thoughts keep returning to the film - proving to me that I am ready now to separate my unrealistic and very personal expectations from what actually is there.  Because many scenes did stick in my mind as absolutely brilliant.

[Guy Haines]

After glancing through some very positive reviews by critics I admire, I was ready to fall head-over-heels. But unfortunately Spectre ended up being a big let down. Not as bad as Quantum fortunately, but nowhere near the league of CR and SF imho.
 
After a thrilling PTS and an amazing title sequence (to a subpar Bond song) I quickly sensed that something was wrong. The politics at the home office didn't interest me in the slightest and really distracted from Bond's mission. A lot of characters didn't make a lasting impression (especially Lucia and Hinx) and the action sequences didn't excite me. The Oberhauser backstory felt contrived as well as the role Spectre played in the last three Bond films. Waltz was menacing, but not as memorable as Bardem. And personally I didn't buy the Swan/Bond relationship, making the ending hard to swallow.
 
After three Bond films that were very personal and dark, I was hoping for a much lighter and more traditional Bond film. You could argue that it was indeed a lighter film, but the ending was again way too personal for me. And with 'that' ending, we can probably expect a OHMSS/CR style death in the next one, making it even harder to return to a more traditional Bond narrative.
 
Still not everything was bad. The cinematography was lush and gorgeous, the main cast was great, there were some genuine laughs (the 009 joke killed me) and the helicopter stunt is the most memorable stunt of the Craig era so far. Here's hoping Craig will be back for a fifth one and that they will manage to make one last great Bond film. He deserves it.

What made me chuckle about the DB10 was

Spoiler

I could identify with it! Not that my car has machine guns out the back or flame throwers, but Craigs reaction when things started going wrong - just as grumpy and testy as I would be when stuck in traffic. The old geezer in the blue Fiat was a bit of a sop to the mid 70s Bonds, but the only one and unlike the drunks and double taking pigeon types wasn't dwelt on.

Something else I spotted: when Oberhauser's compound blows up, two black vehicles are faintly seen driving off away from the flames.

Can't say as I blame them, in the circumstances! ;-)

Your view chimes with much of what my friend thought tonight - apart from he was convinced the helicopter stunt was fake and could not be persuaded otherwise.
As for me, most of my opinions stay the same - although I found the helicopter fight slightly oddly cut and scored. The big difference though: Waltz made a far bigger impression. The attention to detail of his performance is superb. Shrublands noticed this before, but I love him absent-mindedly picking cat hair off his jacket. Also, great little flourishes - firstly when showing Bond his observatory, and secondly when he sets the timers at MI6.
My reading of his final look on the bridge is a bit of two things - more jealousy and pain at Bond's happy ending compared to his ill-fate, meshed with a determination Bond will never be happy if he has anything to do with it.

Absolutely agree about Christoph Waltz - we had to wait a while after his initial introduction in the film but when he was back he made a great impression. Less flamboyant than Javier Bardem's Silva but definitely a standout. Just a pity he wasn't on a little bit longer;

Spoiler

maybe giving a "justification' for his past crimes, like the speech Blofeld gives in the novel You Only Live Twice. However, if he's back for Bond 25 we may get that speech then?

[RMc2]

 

After glancing through some very positive reviews by critics I admire, I was ready to fall head-over-heels. But unfortunately Spectre ended up being a big let down. Not as bad as Quantum fortunately, but nowhere near the league of CR and SF imho.
 
After a thrilling PTS and an amazing title sequence (to a subpar Bond song) I quickly sensed that something was wrong. The politics at the home office didn't interest me in the slightest and really distracted from Bond's mission. A lot of characters didn't make a lasting impression (especially Lucia and Hinx) and the action sequences didn't excite me. The Oberhauser backstory felt contrived as well as the role Spectre played in the last three Bond films. Waltz was menacing, but not as memorable as Bardem. And personally I didn't buy the Swan/Bond relationship, making the ending hard to swallow.
 
After three Bond films that were very personal and dark, I was hoping for a much lighter and more traditional Bond film. You could argue that it was indeed a lighter film, but the ending was again way too personal for me. And with 'that' ending, we can probably expect a OHMSS/CR style death in the next one, making it even harder to return to a more traditional Bond narrative.
 
Still not everything was bad. The cinematography was lush and gorgeous, the main cast was great, there were some genuine laughs (the 009 joke killed me) and the helicopter stunt is the most memorable stunt of the Craig era so far. Here's hoping Craig will be back for a fifth one and that they will manage to make one last great Bond film. He deserves it.

What made me chuckle about the DB10 was

Spoiler

I could identify with it! Not that my car has machine guns out the back or flame throwers, but Craigs reaction when things started going wrong - just as grumpy and testy as I would be when stuck in traffic. The old geezer in the blue Fiat was a bit of a sop to the mid 70s Bonds, but the only one and unlike the drunks and double taking pigeon types wasn't dwelt on.

Something else I spotted: when Oberhauser's compound blows up, two black vehicles are faintly seen driving off away from the flames.

Can't say as I blame them, in the circumstances! ;-)

Your view chimes with much of what my friend thought tonight - apart from he was convinced the helicopter stunt was fake and could not be persuaded otherwise.
As for me, most of my opinions stay the same - although I found the helicopter fight slightly oddly cut and scored. The big difference though: Waltz made a far bigger impression. The attention to detail of his performance is superb. Shrublands noticed this before, but I love him absent-mindedly picking cat hair off his jacket. Also, great little flourishes - firstly when showing Bond his observatory, and secondly when he sets the timers at MI6.
My reading of his final look on the bridge is a bit of two things - more jealousy and pain at Bond's happy ending compared to his ill-fate, meshed with a determination Bond will never be happy if he has anything to do with it.

Absolutely agree about Christoph Waltz - we had to wait a while after his initial introduction in the film but when he was back he made a great impression. Less flamboyant than Javier Bardem's Silva but definitely a standout. Just a pity he wasn't on a little bit longer;

Spoiler

maybe giving a "justification' for his past crimes, like the speech Blofeld gives in the novel You Only Live Twice. However, if he's back for Bond 25 we may get that speech then?

 

 

I'm with Irrigator on this one. Waltz's performance was fantastic - as was every performance in the film, no faults there - but his character was severely underused.

 

I must watch it again, but every time I begin to think he was better used than I remember, or someone says they liked his character a lot, the hope that Bond 25 will expand on things keeps coming up. And to me, that's the biggest problem: should we really give a film a free pass if it's unable to stand on its own feet? Most people don't with QoS, so should we with SP?

[Guy Haines]

After glancing through some very positive reviews by critics I admire, I was ready to fall head-over-heels. But unfortunately Spectre ended up being a big let down. Not as bad as Quantum fortunately, but nowhere near the league of CR and SF imho.
 
After a thrilling PTS and an amazing title sequence (to a subpar Bond song) I quickly sensed that something was wrong. The politics at the home office didn't interest me in the slightest and really distracted from Bond's mission. A lot of characters didn't make a lasting impression (especially Lucia and Hinx) and the action sequences didn't excite me. The Oberhauser backstory felt contrived as well as the role Spectre played in the last three Bond films. Waltz was menacing, but not as memorable as Bardem. And personally I didn't buy the Swan/Bond relationship, making the ending hard to swallow.
 
After three Bond films that were very personal and dark, I was hoping for a much lighter and more traditional Bond film. You could argue that it was indeed a lighter film, but the ending was again way too personal for me. And with 'that' ending, we can probably expect a OHMSS/CR style death in the next one, making it even harder to return to a more traditional Bond narrative.
 
Still not everything was bad. The cinematography was lush and gorgeous, the main cast was great, there were some genuine laughs (the 009 joke killed me) and the helicopter stunt is the most memorable stunt of the Craig era so far. Here's hoping Craig will be back for a fifth one and that they will manage to make one last great Bond film. He deserves it.

What made me chuckle about the DB10 was

Spoiler

I could identify with it! Not that my car has machine guns out the back or flame throwers, but Craigs reaction when things started going wrong - just as grumpy and testy as I would be when stuck in traffic. The old geezer in the blue Fiat was a bit of a sop to the mid 70s Bonds, but the only one and unlike the drunks and double taking pigeon types wasn't dwelt on.

Something else I spotted: when Oberhauser's compound blows up, two black vehicles are faintly seen driving off away from the flames.

Can't say as I blame them, in the circumstances! ;-)

Your view chimes with much of what my friend thought tonight - apart from he was convinced the helicopter stunt was fake and could not be persuaded otherwise.
As for me, most of my opinions stay the same - although I found the helicopter fight slightly oddly cut and scored. The big difference though: Waltz made a far bigger impression. The attention to detail of his performance is superb. Shrublands noticed this before, but I love him absent-mindedly picking cat hair off his jacket. Also, great little flourishes - firstly when showing Bond his observatory, and secondly when he sets the timers at MI6.
My reading of his final look on the bridge is a bit of two things - more jealousy and pain at Bond's happy ending compared to his ill-fate, meshed with a determination Bond will never be happy if he has anything to do with it.

Absolutely agree about Christoph Waltz - we had to wait a while after his initial introduction in the film but when he was back he made a great impression. Less flamboyant than Javier Bardem's Silva but definitely a standout. Just a pity he wasn't on a little bit longer;

Spoiler

maybe giving a "justification' for his past crimes, like the speech Blofeld gives in the novel You Only Live Twice. However, if he's back for Bond 25 we may get that speech then?

 
I'm with Irrigator on this one. Waltz's performance was fantastic - as was every performance in the film, no faults there - but his character was severely underused.
 
I must watch it again, but every time I begin to think he was better used than I remember, or someone says they liked his character a lot, the hope that Bond 25 will expand on things keeps coming up. And to me, that's the biggest problem: should we really give a film a free pass if it's unable to stand on its own feet? Most people don't with QoS, so should we with SP?

Makes you wonder if;

Spoiler

instead of the big finale in London the whole business in Blofeld's crater base couldn't have been expanded. The Nine Eyes stuff linked to it - maybe Bond could have got a message out to M about C and we could have cross cut between 007 battling Blofeld in his desert base and M stopping C from activitating Nine Eyes. (Which if you think about it is redundant the moment Blofeld's base blows up - where is Denbigh going to relay the info. to, unless there's a backup receiver?)

We wouldn't have had the symbolism of 007 confronting his nemesis amid the "ruin" of his life, nor making a choice whether to kill Blofeld or not -unless he made that choice in the ruin of Blofeld's base - but we might have had more time for Waltz to expand on the character in his home patch.

[SecretAgentFan]

Interesting idea, Guy Haines.  I think that would actually have worked out very well - but as you say: the symbolism of the London finale is probably what was wanted by Mendes.  And I do appreciate that it is there.

[Vauxhall]

Third, and potentially final, cinema viewing tonight. 

 

Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux get better each time I see their performances, particularly Seydoux who is able to move effortlessly from the hardened daughter of an assassin to a vulnerable young woman grieving for her father. I'm surprised how much I'm blown away by her. She is already moving well towards my list of the best female performances in the series - I honestly think she's that good.

 

The Bond/Madeleine apparent farewell outside the safehouse is still a big disappointment though. The dialogue is clunky and predictable - which doesn't happen very often in the film - and I still think the tone doesn't seem right that they're both willing to part so easily. A shame, but doesn't ruin it too much really.

[Guy Haines]

Third, and potentially final, cinema viewing tonight.

Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux get better each time I see their performances, particularly Seydoux who is able to move effortlessly from the hardened daughter of an assassin to a vulnerable young woman grieving for her father. I'm surprised how much I'm blown away by her. She is already moving well towards my list of the best female performances in the series - I honestly think she's that good.

The Bond/Madeleine apparent farewell outside the safehouse is still a big disappointment though. The dialogue is clunky and predictable - which doesn't happen very often in the film - and I still think the tone doesn't seem right that they're both willing to part so easily. A shame, but doesn't ruin it too much really.

Third, and potentially final, cinema viewing tonight.

Christoph Waltz and Lea Seydoux get better each time I see their performances, particularly Seydoux who is able to move effortlessly from the hardened daughter of an assassin to a vulnerable young woman grieving for her father. I'm surprised how much I'm blown away by her. She is already moving well towards my list of the best female performances in the series - I honestly think she's that good.

The Bond/Madeleine apparent farewell outside the safehouse is still a big disappointment though. The dialogue is clunky and predictable - which doesn't happen very often in the film - and I still think the tone doesn't seem right that they're both willing to part so easily. A shame, but doesn't ruin it too much really.

Spoiler

Clunky it may be but I suppose the scene informs the end - does Bond kill his nemesis and in Madeleine's eyes - and his own? - become no better than him? Or rise above it and leave the villain to the authorities - and leave his life of state sponsored assassin behind? We know the choice he made, but one feels that, one way or another, the fork in the road for Bond will soon lead to a U turn.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well said and to the point.

 

Regarding the Bond/Madeleine scene:  since time is of the essence, I even thought it was not just credible but typical of Bond to be as tight-lipped in that moment.

[Simon]

Yeah - I thought too it was completely in keeping with the Craig character / portrayal.

[RMc2]

Craig's performance in that moment seemed perfectly in character to me, too. The problem was Madeleine - I like that she had a change of heart, but why so last minute, after travelling all the way to London, and to the safehouse, and so soon after falling for Bond?

 

Oh yeah, to become a damsel in distress.

 

Poorly handled character arc.

[Guy Haines]

In fairness I think Madeleine was having doubts before London.

Spoiler

She and Bond get off the train in Morocco and she declares its too late to turn back but aboard the Silver Wraith she suddenly becomes vulnerable - "James, I'm scared" followed by clutching Bond's hand. Then there's the whole torture business. By the end of this - having spent only a few days in the company of a man she barely knew and all that followed, and with the memories of her own father's "sick life" flooding back - no wonder she harboured doubts. It's just a pity she didn't express them sooner - but as mentioned above, we would have been without the climactic "damsel in distress" scenes in the ruin of Bond's old HQ

[JohnnyWalker]

The simplest way for me to explain my enjoyment of the film is to say that it made me feel elated for the rest of the day.

[Vauxhall]

Yeah - I thought too it was completely in keeping with the Craig character / portrayal.

I think it probably was - but the subsequent throwing the gun away to be with her seemed like it didn't.

[Guy Haines]

Well said and to the point.
 
Regarding the Bond/Madeleine scene:  since time is of the essence, I even thought it was not just credible but typical of Bond to be as tight-lipped in that moment.

Exactly. Bond hadn't got time to argue;

Spoiler

when we're told that "Nine Eyes" is only hours if not minutes away from being activated. At that stage Bond is motivated by duty. But both this scene, and the end scene on the bridge, were ones where you can read into words, actions and expressions what has gone before in Morocco. Bond doesn't want to lose this woman - maybe he thinks, after the "false start" with Vesper he's finally met his match. But he can tell that Madeleine doesn't want him to carry on with the same "sick life" as her father. He has a choice to make, and does so.

[Guy Haines]

Listening to Radio 4 this morning the main item of news is the "Investigatory Powers Bill" going through the UK Parliament - the biggest overhaul of government spying and surveillance powers in years.

Spoiler

Sound vaguely familiar? Taken with recent reports about proposals to overhaul MI5 and Mi6 and it reads like "life imitating art" ;-). Incidentally, this new law covers use of surveillance by local authorities, of which yours truly is now a member.

I've been watching the Bond films for decades, and SPECTRE's schemes - theft of atom bombs, hijacking spacecraft, biological warfare, space laser beams and so on. Never could I have imagined that ESB's latest dastardly plot would involve something I and my colleagues get complaints about locally! ;-)

"Shared services" in government is the current fashion for reasons of cost, but I think sharing them with SPECTRE is going a bit too far! ;-)