63 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

I have nothing against the 80s Bond era and will always praise the predecessor for what Bond is today  However, 6 years is a long time between era's and I think Brosnan and the GoldenEye team had a lot of pressure riding on them to secure the continuation of the series.

I would say Goldeneye, Casino Royale and Skyfall are the most important Bond films in recent memory. Skyfall because it got the Craig era back on track after the divisive QoS.

 
Would agree with you there. Maybe we should have Martin Campbell back...

 
Agree! But I worry that, at this stage in his career, it would only give Campbell a chance to ruin his excellent Bond record...

I have every bit of faith Campbell would be capable of making another solid Bond film, especially if the ingredients were all there. Meaning a quality cast and script that suit the times, just like GE and CR did. When it comes to Bond, he seems to know his stuff. GE and CR speak for themselves.

[tdalton]

We need a fresh face for the next one.  New blood in the director's chair, new blood in the writing room, and new blood donning the tux.  The creative team has made so much of the Craig era about looking into the past (be it homages, Bond's childhood, etc.) that the only viable way forward is to finally look towards the future and creating something new that we haven't seen before with Bond.  Campbell can't accomplish that.

[Surrie]

We need a fresh face for the next one.  New blood in the director's chair, new blood in the writing room, and new blood donning the tux.  The creative team has made so much of the Craig era about looking into the past (be it homages, Bond's childhood, etc.) that the only viable way forward is to finally look towards the future and creating something new that we haven't seen before with Bond.  Campbell can't accomplish that.

 

Why can't he? Especially if it will be with fresh blood. It was fresh blood with GE and the same with CR...

[tdalton]

For my money, GE doesn't count because Campbell himself was also new.  The only people returning, in terms of main contributors, were Cubby and Desmond Llewelyn.  

 

No matter how Campbell were to come into the process in terms of his mentality, his approach is going to be, at least in some way, informed by his two previous Bond films.  The Bond franchise is in absolute desperate need of something unique, something new, something forward-looking.  The next Bond film needs a young, up-and-coming director who will inject some much needed energy into the franchise while also coming at things with as clean a slate as humanly possible.  Now, more than ever, the Bond franchise needs to take some risks.  They've spent far too much time focused on the past, an odd thing considering we're in a rebooted franchise now, and now it's time to start looking forward towards something new, not backwards to where the franchise has been and what it's done over the past 50+ years.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree and I disagree.

 

I, too, hope for fresh blood, a different approach that really signposts a new era for Bond.  On the other hand the Bond films will always capitalize on their rich and extremely popular history, and the mass audience will always want to get those elements.  Maybe that´s exactly right because the Bond films have become a distinct genre by themselves, and while one can bend their rules breaking them would alienate the masses who in turn are essential for the films´ survival.

 

So, don´t get you hopes up too high - nostalgia will remain a big factor.  Because most expect it.

[tdalton]

I don't doubt that the nostalgia factor will continue.  The current EON regime seems lost without it.  But, they're going to put the future of the franchise in jeopardy by continuing on with it indefinitely.  Eventually there will be no more iconic moments for them to draw from to make the new call-backs and homages, and they'll either be continuing to homage Goldfinger or they'll be doing homages to homages of original iconic moments. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree - iconic moments have to be created again, otherwise it will be a reference to a reference to a reference of a truly iconic moment.

 

However, is it still possible to create iconic moments for a Bond film?  Can iconic moments only be created by something that is new and still in need of an iconic moment?

 

I also would maintain that the "need for nostalgia" is not EON´s fault or anyone´s.  It is simply something that the mass audience expects and likes - because it will reference something in their lives and get passed on to the next generation.

 

I believe this is not only something that happens in Bond films but every single franchise that lasts for more than a decade.

[Surrie]

I agree with SAF. I think EON (whether present or future team) will always be looking to please the masses, because as you rightly said so they've been detrimental to the franchises success so far. 

 

Although, I would like to see a fresh writing team and a new director, I'm not sure just how far EON will push this in terms of starting with a blank slate. A new writing team might be on the cards but I think they would want to keep some familiarity. If so, then I'd want that familiarity to be in the form of Campbell. 

 

With GE he had a big task (as did the rest of the team) with resurrecting the franchise with a new actor. They were working in a territory Bond hadn't been in before (Post Cold War) and IMO pulled it off brilliantly. Then with CR he made a solid film, perhaps the only Bond film that stands out from the rest of the franchise - whilst still paying homage to the icons, but putting a fresh spin on it. Of course, a lot of this was down to the script writers too... "Shaken or stirred"... "Do I look like I give a damn?". 

Edited by Surrie, 05 May 2016 - 08:26 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I suspect that Campbell is mainly a terrific craftsman - he can bring in a huge production on budget.  He also knows a lot about what makes a Bond film work.

 

However, in both cases, GE and CR, he had the benefit of already great material.  I doubt that his involvement in the scripts made those really better.  EON had a firm grip on them anyway.  And again, I don´t know whether at his age he wants to live through the immense stress of a Bond production again.

 

Bringing in a fresh writing voice will definitely help - after so many scripts every writer will sooner or later get bored with a franchise.  Yet, one cannot accuse EON of not trying that.  They always brought in someone else, already in the Maibum years.  But it seems to be essential to have people around who already know what a Bond film needs.  Otherwise you will lose time bringing a writer up to speed and on the same page.

 

I therefore expect P & W to return, at least for breaking the story and doing a first draft.  Logan seems to have distanced himself (or have been thrown out).  In the end, it will all depend on the director.  He/She will bring his/her go-to-guy along.

 

I would not mind Susanne Bier to direct BOND 25, by the way.  Her work on "The Night Manager" was excellent.  

 

Having already directed Tom Hiddleston would not hurt either...

[Surrie]

I'd welcome the team who worked on 11.22.63. Especially the cinematographers Adam Suschitzky and David Katznelson. 

[DaveBond21]

 

 

During that time my own passion for the series had ended.  I thought that LTK really was the last Bond film - and that the whole thing was a thing of the past.

 

 

 

Back in 1992, I assumed that the last Bond film had been made and we would never see another.

 

I was so glad when Goldeneye was announced.

[Willowhugger]

So I've now seen SPECTRE four times all the way through, and rewatched several sequences of it a few times, and I think I finally have a fully-tuned opinion.

 

Short Version:

 

SPECTRE isn't awful.

 

I disagree.

 

http://unitedfederat...015-review.html

 

The very likely last James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig ends not with a bang but a whimper. It's not as bad as Die Another Day but, really, that's a tremendously low bar to set in a series which has twenty-four movies. However, the excellent acting and stunts don't disguise this is a medicore script designed to tie around the return of an organization which has already had its appearance spoiled by the title.

 

    The premise is James Bond assassinates a member of the Quantum organization (revealed to be a branch of Spectre) in Mexico City. This causes the destruction of half-a-city block and gets Bond suspended but doesn't stop him from investigating the parties responsible. Meanwhile, MI6 is getting merged with MI5 and part of this event will include a massive new networked information database spearheaded by C (Andrew Scott). Tracking down the mysterious Mister White (Jesper Christensen), he is put on the trail of Hans Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz).

 

    Spectre centers around the revelation the filmmakers must think is terribly clever and that is Hans Oberhauser is Blofeld. Which is about as much of a surprise as the main villain of Star Trek: Into Darkness being Khan. Unfortunately, the movie fully enters hack territory by revealing Hans/Blofeld is actually James' foster brother and all three previous movies were secretly plots by him to ruin James' life.

 

    O-kay.

 

    The problems with this are manifold but boil down to the fact it presumes a family connection is more interesting than a professional one. Batman doesn't need the Joker to be the one who killed his parents nor does he need to be Bruce Wayne's long-lost brother. It also reduces Blofeld from, in the words of Ratigan, "The World's Greatest Criminal Mind" to an obsessively jealous man-child who is infinitely less interesting as an antagonist. The fact this is a twist in Austin Powers in Goldmember doesn't help matters.

 

    I don't mind the wielding of arcs and was of the mind Quantum should be a branch of Spectre since Quantum of Solace. The treatment in the book, however, diminishes Skyfall and villains like Raoul Silva as well as Mister White. It even diminishes Bond's relationship with Vesper Lynd as it makes her a target of his foster brother's revenge rather than someone who already had her own interesting plotline. Monica and Craig have amazing on-screen chemistry which is...well, utterly wasted.

 

    The movie also wants to be topical about surveillance but it doesn't really have anything to contribute on the subject. We shouldn't watch everyone and everything with government satellites because otherwise an international criminal organization will hijack the system to their nefarious ends somehow manages to be less realistic than Hydra taking over SHIELD's drone system in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

 

    Christoph Waltz is probably the best actor you could have gotten for playing Blofeld but, ultimately, the character he's playing is closer to Javier Bardem's Silva than Donald Pleasance or Telly Savalas' Blofeld. He seems to be sleepwalking through the wall as well, keeping the quiet menace from his Inglorious Basterd's role but lacking any of the humanizing or quirky touches which made him so terrifying. The best moment in the movie is when he talks about Spectre's business at an Illuminati-esque boardroom, all the while knowing James is present just to screw with him.

 

    Craig, himself, gives a Journeyman's performance rather than a masterwork but he doesn't embarrass himself either. He's been pretty vocal about his boredom with the constant ups and downs of his Bond career but is too professional on-screen to show it. The best moments in the movie are with Monica Belluci and its with her Craig shows the most onscreen chemistry. It's a pity she's not the primary love-interest as the two of them could have probably done an excellent movie together. Oldest Bond girl or not, Monica Belluci is Monica Belluci and sizzles on the screen even with a bit part.

 

    Lea Seydoux's Madelaine, unfortunately, has the classic Bond girl role of simply being there to look pretty and give someone for Bond to emote on. She's absolutely gorgeous, don't get me wrong, but I don't buy any sort of emotional connection between her and Bond whatsoever. I also found any real chemistry between them blunted by the fact James is sleeping with the daughter of the man who murdered the (1st) love of his life. Madelaine's origins vaguely resemble those of Tracy Bond but the story doesn't give her the room to grow Diana Rigg had. As a character, she reminds me of From Russia With Love's Tatiana more than Vesper or Tracy, a case rather than a romance.

 

    Which is a pity.

 

    The cinematography is gorgeous, the stunts are well-done, and the locations are beautiful but this is Bond at its most paint-by-the-numbers since, well, Die Another Day. It's not as incredibly stupid as that film, thank God, but it's aggressively generic. Only the fact the actors are extremely competent at their job keeps this from being a complete wash. Still, I feel bad for Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw as the movie struggles to create something for them to do lest they waste two very good actors.

 

    In conclusion, Spectre is probably the poorest offering of Daniel Craig's time as Bond. As much as people harp on Quantum of Solace, with good reason, both Bond girls were well-developed and there were some genuinely affecting emotional moments. This is just dross and ties up loose ends which barely needed tying up to begin with.

 

6/10

Edited by Willowhugger, 13 May 2016 - 02:57 AM.

[tdalton]

I agree with pretty much everything you say about the film, Willowhugger, although I'd go further to say that Spectre is on Die Another Day's level, and is actually below it.  I'd also have to disagree on the cinematography, which I found to be terrible, but that's a rather minor nitpick when there are so many other, more costly mistakes in the film, many of which you point out in your review.  Well done.

[Willowhugger]

I agree with pretty much everything you say about the film, Willowhugger, although I'd go further to say that Spectre is on Die Another Day's level, and is actually below it.  I'd also have to disagree on the cinematography, which I found to be terrible, but that's a rather minor nitpick when there are so many other, more costly mistakes in the film, many of which you point out in your review.  Well done.

 

Thanks.

 

I used to think Tomorrow Never Dies was the worst then I rewatched it and, accepting it's a comedy, it became better. Die Another Day remains terrible. Spectre? It's disturbing I'm okay with the movie right up until he visits Spectre-Base. It's sad the movie only really became awful when it's main villain was introduced. I can't remember when that happened in a Bond film.

Edited by Willowhugger, 14 May 2016 - 02:29 AM.

[sharpshooter]

It's sad the movie only really became awful when it's main villain was introduced. I can't remember when that happened in a Bond film.

Waltz wasn't as good as hoped, it pains me to say. If we have a new Bond for the next film, it makes me wonder if they'll bring back SPECTRE and Waltz. They don't have to. Blofeld was arrested, Hinx was killed and Craig drove off into the sunset. I'm thinking it'd be better for Bond #7 (and I'm hoping it's Tom Hiddleston) to just have a clean narrative break while retaining the same MI6 crew. Just a throwaway line like "good to see you, 007. You're back fully rested, I assume?" And then carry on. 

[SecretAgentFan]

If a new actor takes over I would hope that Blofeld/Spectre would be given a rest. 

[sharpshooter]

If a new actor takes over I would hope that Blofeld/Spectre would be given a rest. 

I think so. They can always reappear at some point later. 

[univex]

Yes, funny how I was so into the whole spectre and blofeld thing, and now I just want to see it gone and start afresh. Hopefully with Fiennes saying to Hiddleston that sentence, sharp.

[Single-O-Seven]

Yes, funny how I was so into the whole spectre and blofeld thing, and now I just want to see it gone and start afresh. Hopefully with Fiennes saying to Hiddleston that sentence, sharp.

I'm kind of mixed. I would have liked it handled differently but I don't think it's too late to straighten it out a bit. I wish the organization hadn't been brought down before we got to know it but that's essentially what happened in Fleming's books, with Blofeld essentially doing things ad hoc after Thunderball while trying to hide himself. That thread could still work. And the step-brotherhood can largely be swept aside, over and done with. What reasons put you off most and, if it does continue in the next film, how do you want to see Spectre and Blofeld handled?

[sharpshooter]

if it does continue in the next film, how do you want to see Spectre and Blofeld handled?

If Craig is back, I'd like SPECTRE back in some fashion. If Craig is out, I'd move on, as previously stated. It's funny how history can turn out like that, isn't it? The different directions we can head down. 

 

I'd perhaps have Irma Bunt or some other heavyweight assuming management duties while Blofeld is incarcerated. That way we have something new for the audience to chew on. Ultimately, perhaps Blofeld is busted out of jail and manages to escape with another identity to Japan. And then the large chunks of Fleming's 'You Only Live Twice' come into play. Fighting Blofeld to the death, Bond losing his memory - free of his cursed life, and Madeleine not dying but believing her love has been killed. Allowing a blank slate for Bond #7. 

[Single-O-Seven]

If Blofeld returns, I'd rather his behind-the-scenes mechanations and influence/intimidation see him released from prison rather than have him break out in some fashion. Let it be cemented that he still has power/control while incarcerated. Plus his simple release due to the failure of a weak/afraid justice system would be a greater slap to Bond/MI6, and give a greater undertone to Bond wanting justice.

And I agree that Craig, and the others, should return for any Spectre follow-up of that sort to work effectively.

[sharpshooter]

If Blofeld returns, I'd rather his behind-the-scenes mechanations and influence/intimidation see him released from prison rather than have him break out in some fashion. Let it be cemented that he still has power/control while incarcerated. Plus his simple release due to the failure of a weak/afraid justice system would be a greater slap to Bond/MI6, and give a greater undertone to Bond wanting justice.

Good points. I'm thinking Bond let Blofeld live in a show of support for democracy and the legal system. For that same system to be exploited would be an ironic twist. For Bond to ultimately regret his humane decision, and to finally take matters into his own hands. As he originally intended at the desert lair. 

[Surrie]

 

if it does continue in the next film, how do you want to see Spectre and Blofeld handled?

If Craig is back, I'd like SPECTRE back in some fashion. If Craig is out, I'd move on, as previously stated. It's funny how history can turn out like that, isn't it? The different directions we can head down. 

 

I'd perhaps have Irma Bunt or some other heavyweight assuming management duties while Blofeld is incarcerated. That way we have something new for the audience to chew on. Ultimately, perhaps Blofeld is busted out of jail and manages to escape with another identity to Japan. And then the large chunks of Fleming's 'You Only Live Twice' come into play. Fighting Blofeld to the death, Bond losing his memory - free of his cursed life, and Madeleine not dying but believing her love has been killed. Allowing a blank slate for Bond #7. 

 

 

If Craig does return, then I think this is the way forward. For him to return and carryout just a stand alone mission would be slightly pointless. This story arc could be explored in further detail, and Bunt would be a great addition. 

[SecretAgentFan]

Agreed.  Irma Bunt 2.0 would be the way to go.

[sharpshooter]

if it does continue in the next film, how do you want to see Spectre and Blofeld handled?

If Craig is back, I'd like SPECTRE back in some fashion. If Craig is out, I'd move on, as previously stated. It's funny how history can turn out like that, isn't it? The different directions we can head down. 
 
I'd perhaps have Irma Bunt or some other heavyweight assuming management duties while Blofeld is incarcerated. That way we have something new for the audience to chew on. Ultimately, perhaps Blofeld is busted out of jail and manages to escape with another identity to Japan. And then the large chunks of Fleming's 'You Only Live Twice' come into play. Fighting Blofeld to the death, Bond losing his memory - free of his cursed life, and Madeleine not dying but believing her love has been killed. Allowing a blank slate for Bond #7.

 
If Craig does return, then I think this is the way forward. For him to return and carryout just a stand alone mission would be slightly pointless. This story arc could be explored in further detail, and Bunt would be a great addition.

Yep. And the ending of SPECTRE could absolutely serve as Craig Bond's swan song. Riding off into the sunset with a lover, smiling and at peace. But ultimately, the long term end for Bond wouldn't be a happy one in my mind. Bond is a man living in the moment. He has women, but they come and go. He doesn't really have friends, but acquaintances. He can project a confident aura in any room he enters, but he remains a loner. If Bond wasn't killed in action, I'd foresee him becoming similar to Bruce Wayne in the Batman Beyond cartoon. Living alone, having no children or wife and carrying painful memories of yesteryear. Ending Bond 25 with Craig Bond 'reset to zero', without the burden of what he has done since CR, would be a temporary respite from that eventuality, and a chance to start again. Bond not recognising who Madeleine is, like Blofeld originally intended, would also be a sad element.

[rubixcub]

Question: in reference to the original rumor of a two-part story arc that was drifting around during pre-production, does anyone else think that SP may have, in fact, been a two-part story / two separate scripts cannibalized into one?  Is there any other info out there about the genesis of same?  It'd make sense, given how long SP was and how much they tried to pack into it.

 

Dave

[Surrie]

Maybe they still have a story-arc to play out which is why they want Craig back so much??

[SecretAgentFan]

The rumour about the two-part story, if I remember correctly, came at the early stage of Logan handing in a treatment.

 

So that might only have been true of Logan´s ideas.  But the actual script that became SPECTRE was so different from that treatment, I don´t think they ever seriously considered making two films back to back.  And since they were aware that the time between two Bond films now is at least three years, the two-parter idea did not make sense anyway.

[Dustin]

Maybe they still have a story-arc to play out which is why they want Craig back so much??

I think they primarily want Craig back because he's a proven quality player and part of the 'family'. Eon have a tradition of going long ways with their people; from what we've seen in recent years they are still sticking with it.

But I doubt that's anything to do with 'story' as such. They will play this by ear and probably only decide on a direction once there is a definite chance the other half of the boat can start rowing again. Today it might look like a good idea to pick up past events again; in six months that may have changed. And it's just as likely the past isn't mentioned again for a decade, as was the case between DAF and FYEO.

Impossible to say right now.

[SecretAgentFan]

Also, since SPECTRE stated that Blofeld was the mastermind of all previous Craig-era villainous schemes, one might definitely conclude that it´s time to give Spectre a rest.

 

High time for another bad guy.