I'm gonna go all analytical here on Craig Bond writing & direction...
CR had a reasonably decent script based on Fleming gold, and a great director. The result was rather stunning.
QOS had a good (unfinished) story idea fleshed out on the fly by Craig & Forster as best they could. Forster himself is a fine director. The result was raw, imperfect, yet undeniably intense & riveting.
SF had noble intent, but recycled ideas from GE & TWINE as a vehicle to say goodbye to Judi as M. It was Mendes' first foray into action/espionage. The result was a satisfyingly emotional film despite its flaws.
SPECTRE was meticulously written by committee (& re-written after Sony leakage) as an homage to Bond of old, with attention to Craig's take on him. Director Mendes, by either mandate or self reflection, brought Bond back from the dead(ly serious) to make him the bada*s agent of absurd confrontation that we (mostly all) love. The result was a good & enormously entertaining balance between nonsense & gritty 'realism'.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. )
You really see SPECTRE as "meticulously written"? I thought we have had a near-consensus here, even with the biggest fans of the movie, that there were serious flaws in the script writing.
A Bond movie should always be long -- and longer than two hours. It's an event. It's not just one of the slam-bam actioners that crowd theaters and DVD racks. The problem isn't the length. The problem is the quality of storytelling. A great film keeps the audience enraptured for its length -- and then wanting more. For me, that's Lawrence of Arabia, The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, How the West was Won, and a lot more, including Bond films. But too many films today are just padded. The thinness of the scripts is supplanted by some ponderous visuals or long action sequences that eat up screen time but don't contribute as much to the momentum of the film.
So was this film the right length for you? Should QOS have been a longer film? I think you've answered the bulk of my question in regards to the visual padding.
Quantum of Solace absolutely should have been longer. The desire to work to an artificial length is one reason the editing is so choppy and difficult to follow.
Here's the thing: You write the story that needs to be told, not the story that conforms to a particular length. These days, because the writing and directing (and editing) are often poor, the concept of pacing escapes most filmmakers. They can't sustain a scene the way even some moderately talented writers and directors could in years past. They don't understand storytelling so much as script arcs and visuals. Watch enough older films (and by this, I mean 1970 and older), and you'll see the vast difference. But it always starts with the writing.
Here's a significant reason why: Bond scripts, like most action films, are now created around the action sequences. This is, in part, because the assumption is audiences have low literacy. Those take precedence, and the rest is the frame to get viewers there. But the better Bond films -- like the better Fleming stories -- are focused on the character moments. The dialogue, the confrontations, the mysteries, the one-ups. The action is the icing, not the cake. If you start with that premise, then more care is taken with the "quieter" moments that generally get lip service today.
The easiest way to tell if the writing is crappy is how much it relies on expository dialogue. Any time the movie has to have characters tell us things that could be shown to us dramatically, it's crap writing. And the Bond films of late have over-relied on expository dialogue. When a film pays lip service to the character moments and spends too much time on exposition, it's going to seem long and boring. But when a film develops all of its scenes fully and actually shows us drama, even if it's twice as long as a typical Bond film, it's going to be interesting.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
QoS should have been at least ten minutes longer, IMO.
No, good god no. It's only as high as it is because of how short it is. It's the shortest in the series, and yet it's one of the most boring films to sit through.
Don't get that at all---but then I've never been bored by any Bond film, let alone the one that blisters along at an hour and forty minutes and never stops to take a breath. But if you say so...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sorry, I meant 'meticulously' as in the clinical sense. Not the artistic sense. They assembled the pieces with precision. A little more artistry to it would have gone a long way IMO.
A Bond movie should always be long -- and longer than two hours. It's an event. It's not just one of the slam-bam actioners that crowd theaters and DVD racks. The problem isn't the length. The problem is the quality of storytelling. A great film keeps the audience enraptured for its length -- and then wanting more. For me, that's Lawrence of Arabia, The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, How the West was Won, and a lot more, including Bond films. But too many films today are just padded. The thinness of the scripts is supplanted by some ponderous visuals or long action sequences that eat up screen time but don't contribute as much to the momentum of the film.
So was this film the right length for you? Should QOS have been a longer film? I think you've answered the bulk of my question in regards to the visual padding.
Quantum of Solace absolutely should have been longer. The desire to work to an artificial length is one reason the editing is so choppy and difficult to follow.
Here's the thing: You write the story that needs to be told, not the story that conforms to a particular length. These days, because the writing and directing (and editing) are often poor, the concept of pacing escapes most filmmakers. They can't sustain a scene the way even some moderately talented writers and directors could in years past. They don't understand storytelling so much as script arcs and visuals. Watch enough older films (and by this, I mean 1970 and older), and you'll see the vast difference. But it always starts with the writing.
Here's a significant reason why: Bond scripts, like most action films, are now created around the action sequences. This is, in part, because the assumption is audiences have low literacy. Those take precedence, and the rest is the frame to get viewers there. But the better Bond films -- like the better Fleming stories -- are focused on the character moments. The dialogue, the confrontations, the mysteries, the one-ups. The action is the icing, not the cake. If you start with that premise, then more care is taken with the "quieter" moments that generally get lip service today.
The easiest way to tell if the writing is crappy is how much it relies on expository dialogue. Any time the movie has to have characters tell us things that could be shown to us dramatically, it's crap writing. And the Bond films of late have over-relied on expository dialogue. When a film pays lip service to the character moments and spends too much time on exposition, it's going to seem long and boring. But when a film develops all of its scenes fully and actually shows us drama, even if it's twice as long as a typical Bond film, it's going to be interesting.
I agree wholeheartedly Gassy Man. I've seen 90 minute films that feel like an eternity due to poor pacing, etc whilst I've seen 4 hour epics that go by extremely fast. I feel a Bond should be in excess of 2 hours. It just feels right.
I also like the less-is-more approach, especially the older I get. When younger I wanted wall-to-wall action but now prefer one or two good action sequences over half-a-dozen lesser ones. SKYFALL is interesting because if you analyse it there are few set-pieces in it, thus following the '60s template.
and other than the bond haters (quite why they are members here is beyond me??)
Your definition of Bond is Austin Powers with a slightly more serious tone. My definition of Bond is Casino Royale, the highest-rated Bond film amongst most ratings..... I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films, which are only appreciated by the 40-50yr old, union jack-waving, spy-wannabes who want to see Rolls Royce Phantoms appearing in the middle of the Algerian desert, to take Bond to the baddies lair, where he hands-over his gun, proceeds to be drilled in the head and then escape like Austin Powers. I think the phrase I am looking for is "fan boys"- you will just lap-up any Bond film which includes the traditional Bond elements, regardless of the whole film!
most seem to agree that there are some great scenes in this movie.
And thats the problem- there are some great scenes. Thats all people like you (Bond formula lovers) seem to appreciate, individual scenes. "Oh the opening scene was great", "this scene was great"- the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
The problem is you don't care about the film- you simply have a check list of things you require for it to be a Bond film and so long as you can tick those items off- its an amazing film. In contrast, I am merely watching the film as if it was any other. I was actually bored during the final third of this film and that rarely happens for me. The only other time I can remember this happening was the end of..... Skyfall!
After all said and done it's entertainment and I for one was suitably entertained.
Because all you want to see are a series of iconic James Bond moments- not a film. I want a decent film. There's a reason Casino Royale is rated so much better- because it got rid of all those cheesy 60s Bond elements.
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
My definition of Bond is Casino Royale, the highest-rated Bond film amongst most ratings
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
Let's look at the current IMDB ratings for the 4 films that you mentioned:
* CR - 8.0
* SF - 7.8
* SP - 7.1
* QoS - 6.7
Based on what you listed, you prefer Bond films with a rating from 6.7 to 8.0. So if you preferred QoS, objectively, there should be no reason for your to not like SP (and SF) which is rated higher than QoS
but appears as if you are being very subjective while asking others to be highly objective:
I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films, which are only appreciated by the 40-50yr old, union jack-waving, spy-wannabes who want to see Rolls Royce Phantoms appearing in the middle of the Algerian desert, to take Bond to the baddies lair, where he hands-over his gun, proceeds to be drilled in the head and then escape like Austin Powers. I think the phrase I am looking for is "fan boys"- you will just lap-up any Bond film which includes the traditional Bond elements, regardless of the whole film!
If you want to talk about numbers, the Bond films that you would love have been very few - FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR. That is 6 out of 24 films (25%) .... So with 75% of the Bond films being similar to SP, whose fault is it that you go in to watch SP expecting it to be like one of the 25% of films? And that too when it is being directed by Mendes who directed SF, which is a film you did not like despite its high IMDB ratings which you tend to go by
I agree that SP is not perfect. But more than the problems with the film, it appear that it is inability of many fans to not fully comprehend what Bond franchise is supposed to offer is the bigger problem
Next time, I would recommend that you do some research before walking in to a film
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films
Great! In fact, MI5 to an extent is closer to the cheesy Bond films that you do not like. And like the Bond films not every MI film has similar tone. For e.g. MI1 was different from MI2 which was different from MI3. MI4 and MI5 are similar.
That post you wrote, am747, was legendary. -{
I would just like to say that I am not a forty-fifty year old who laps up any Bond film out of my 'fanboyism'.
And I'm not British, a pom who waves the union Jack. I'm actually little older then a kid, who was born in the 90's.
But I love all that stuff, I love the CORNY CHEESY crap films. Why? Cause that's what defines the Bond character. The Ethos of the 'FIlm James Bond Character' who is different to Fleming's creation. sure they cross-over, and in some of the best 007 films, the more he resembles the man from the books, the merrier, but this is not out of nolstagia, its out of recognising movies which are able to let their hair down and enjoy themselves.
And its not the elements, the 'scenes' but the whole feel of the film.
Things such as Characters, mood, plot, not scenes which just tick a box on a fanboy's list.
We are all have different opinions when it comes to Bond, that's the beauty of it, and they all have a motivation and a reaso be hind it. Even if it involves being abhorrently against the main ethos of the Bond Character, and 75% of the Bond films.
It is just how we express those views, oxf77, which is most important.
Because they
And I do love the more serious Bond films which do not follow the formula as closely.
“The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. "
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
and other than the bond haters (quite why they are members here is beyond me??)
Your definition of Bond is Austin Powers with a slightly more serious tone. My definition of Bond is Casino Royale, the highest-rated Bond film amongst most ratings..... I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films, which are only appreciated by the 40-50yr old, union jack-waving, spy-wannabes who want to see Rolls Royce Phantoms appearing in the middle of the Algerian desert, to take Bond to the baddies lair, where he hands-over his gun, proceeds to be drilled in the head and then escape like Austin Powers. I think the phrase I am looking for is "fan boys"- you will just lap-up any Bond film which includes the traditional Bond elements, regardless of the whole film!
most seem to agree that there are some great scenes in this movie.
And thats the problem- there are some great scenes. Thats all people like you (Bond formula lovers) seem to appreciate, individual scenes. "Oh the opening scene was great", "this scene was great"- the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
The problem is you don't care about the film- you simply have a check list of things you require for it to be a Bond film and so long as you can tick those items off- its an amazing film. In contrast, I am merely watching the film as if it was any other. I was actually bored during the final third of this film and that rarely happens for me. The only other time I can remember this happening was the end of..... Skyfall!
After all said and done it's entertainment and I for one was suitably entertained.
Because all you want to see are a series of iconic James Bond moments- not a film. I want a decent film. There's a reason Casino Royale is rated so much better- because it got rid of all those cheesy 60s Bond elements.
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
If it'd for me, I'd have you off this forum, you don't come across as a fan or even a nice person!
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
I enjoyed MI5 but actually suprised you liked it due to:
1) Simon Pegg is cheesier then any character in the DC Bond films in my opinion
2) If we are talking about realism then the MI5 leading lady pulls off some crazy action moves
and other than the bond haters (quite why they are members here is beyond me??)
Your definition of Bond is Austin Powers with a slightly more serious tone. My definition of Bond is Casino Royale, the highest-rated Bond film amongst most ratings..... I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films, which are only appreciated by the 40-50yr old, union jack-waving, spy-wannabes who want to see Rolls Royce Phantoms appearing in the middle of the Algerian desert, to take Bond to the baddies lair, where he hands-over his gun, proceeds to be drilled in the head and then escape like Austin Powers. I think the phrase I am looking for is "fan boys"- you will just lap-up any Bond film which includes the traditional Bond elements, regardless of the whole film!
most seem to agree that there are some great scenes in this movie.
And thats the problem- there are some great scenes. Thats all people like you (Bond formula lovers) seem to appreciate, individual scenes. "Oh the opening scene was great", "this scene was great"- the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
The problem is you don't care about the film- you simply have a check list of things you require for it to be a Bond film and so long as you can tick those items off- its an amazing film. In contrast, I am merely watching the film as if it was any other. I was actually bored during the final third of this film and that rarely happens for me. The only other time I can remember this happening was the end of..... Skyfall!
After all said and done it's entertainment and I for one was suitably entertained.
Because all you want to see are a series of iconic James Bond moments- not a film. I want a decent film. There's a reason Casino Royale is rated so much better- because it got rid of all those cheesy 60s Bond elements.
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
I do have a problem with casting someone as 'hater' if they dislike something and ' fanboy' if they like it. I kept away from AJB during the production of SP as I had real fears that Mendes would continue with the whole mawkish childhood schtick and was bored by the idea of another 'Bond goes rouge' instalment. Those concerns felt very unwelcome and I said at the time that I did not want to 'stink up the place' so I kept away. In the end I liked SP more than I feared I would, but am acutely aware of its many shortfalls. We do have to be careful not to stifle debate by falling into clumsy stereotypes. For example I believe that I am a Bond fan ,but in truth only really like less than 10 of the films and even those I have bits I dislike ( I love TB but the whole underwater battle is like watching paint dry and the end is a real anti climax) for the record I am in my 50's but really do not want the films to endlessly recycle their own Mythos. One of my major concerns with SP ( it was another contributor that made the following excellent point) is that it offers nothing new to the tradition, no future films will reference it in my view. In summary we are a complex bunch, and Bond is more nuanced than is often believed. Hell there is even room for those who are Moore fans, a position that I find inexplicable. This is not a call for more of a Kumbaya love in, but a desire for a sane discussion without name calling or lazy categories. I'll get my coat.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think everybody has a valid point and agree Zaphod that SPECTRE adds nothing new to the series however DCs tenure as Bond has been criticized by many as being far too serious. SPECTRE to me is simply a well needed fast paced and fun Bond movie to give the DC era a bit of freshness (Despite on paper the plot indicating a more darker movie)
I really enjoyed it (in fact loved it) but yeah it could of been crafted into something really special in my opinion with more thought and care.
Well with all posts of late I decided to write down some thoughts on what could have been improved with SPECTRE after mulitple viewings.
PS - I loved the film by the way but it does of course have well known flaws
PTS - enjoyed it immensely - however helicopter fight maybe a tad too long on repeated viewings, would perhaps have had a cut scene into the Sciarra hotel room meeting with a little more detail instead of watching it all through Bond!!
London - loved the interaction with M and Q, especially the DB10 being reassigned to 009 and Bond nicking the car.
Rome - Belluci was fantastic and I loved the scene back at her house. Once again Mendes underused a Bond woman. I think she maybe could have "showed" Bond where the meeting was to be held and somehow been involved in the car chase as a passenger. Ditching the DB10 was pretty unnecessary for me and the chase could have been better despite looking stunning in places.
Austria - enjoyed the Mr White scene, one of the highlights. The Klinik was great and gave a bit of a OHMSS vibe but maybe played too small a part. *Crazy minor gripe as a clothing collector - When Swan is kidnapped I find it odd he puts on Sunglasses for a few seconds!! The plane scenes was good but I must admit Bond leaving Hinx on the bonnet unchecked bugs me and is a huge flaw. Any other scenario would have been better - buried in snow or something.
Morocco. Found Tangier as a location crazily underused. We see Bond walking up some steps and then its back to pinewood in a hotel room. The secret room raises so many questions! What if the room was fully booked? Rennovated?? How did Mr White enter the secret room? Did he replaster it afterwards?? A little bit of explaining here would have been good e.g he actually owns the hotel. In fact did it even need to be a hotel - could it not have been Mr Whites apartment?
Train scene - enjoyed immensely - all of it! However another 5 mins of dialogue at the evening meal to develop Bond and Swanns friendship / romance would have been so much better!!! Hinx arrived too soon!! The fight scene was superb.
The rolls royce across the desert did not bother me (you do actually see a track road when it pans out to the base) however Bond walking into the lions den has raised eyebrows although he has done it several times. Maybe an assault / capture scenario i.e Goldfinger might have worked better but imagine the film would be even longer!
The meteor room - this conversation would have been better over a luxurious dinner in the style of Dr No / Scaramanga
The interrogation scene bugged me a little on first viewing - simply the chair and needle thing was too high tech for my liking. Escaping the lair was also far too lazily done and a walk in the park for Bond who had just been tortured!!
London - Bond being kidnapped was very simple and far too easy. It was totally unnecessary.
Le Chiffe / Silva / Vesper / M posters. Nice touch in the trailers but think it was a bit too much in the final film. We already knew it was all linked I think that was enough.
Mi6 HQ - the set felt a little fake to me for some reason. Maybe im being harsh here. From the moment he enters the building the finale feels very rushed - this was my initial gripe with the entire film if im honest.
A lots been said about the boat chase and taking down the helicopter. This didnt bother me too much if im honest.
Overall minor details however Waltz not as menacing as I hoped. I thought he would become iconic and the ultimate Blofeld rather then careless.
Absolutely Zaphod, keep your coat on the hanger. Diverse opinions, make you think,
hopefully can change views and lead to some great debates. Hence why that talented
member started a "Devil's Advocate " thread
I find your posts entertaining, informative and funny, I can't ask for more after all
there are no right or wrong opinions ( apart from mine)
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
and other than the bond haters (quite why they are members here is beyond me??)
Your definition of Bond is Austin Powers with a slightly more serious tone. My definition of Bond is Casino Royale, the highest-rated Bond film amongst most ratings..... I don't hate Bond, I hate crap cheesy Bond Films, which are only appreciated by the 40-50yr old, union jack-waving, spy-wannabes who want to see Rolls Royce Phantoms appearing in the middle of the Algerian desert, to take Bond to the baddies lair, where he hands-over his gun, proceeds to be drilled in the head and then escape like Austin Powers. I think the phrase I am looking for is "fan boys"- you will just lap-up any Bond film which includes the traditional Bond elements, regardless of the whole film!
Its quite a thing being told what my own definition of a bond film is, what I Want from bond film etc etc! Your suppositions are wholly inaccurate and I take offence to being essentially labelled a stereotype! I am a bond fan but as with everyone an individual with opinions.
I've posted on other threads my thoughts on spectres many faults and also my dislike for a lot of what Mendes has done with bond.
I've also posted my support for Qos which is one of my favourite films and It was Casino Royale which reignited my bond fandom.
I have never ranked the bond films as I find it impossible to do due to the sheer timescale of all the movie's and the diversity and differences between them ( just like the members here!)
I don't see how me enjoying what I think are some great scenes can be a problem? But then I don't get most of what you've said, you can keep your imbd ratings, as a qos fan they mean nothing to me.
Now wheres my union jack and MI6 application form gone????!
most seem to agree that there are some great scenes in this movie.
And thats the problem- there are some great scenes. Thats all people like you (Bond formula lovers) seem to appreciate, individual scenes. "Oh the opening scene was great", "this scene was great"- the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
The problem is you don't care about the film- you simply have a check list of things you require for it to be a Bond film and so long as you can tick those items off- its an amazing film. In contrast, I am merely watching the film as if it was any other. I was actually bored during the final third of this film and that rarely happens for me. The only other time I can remember this happening was the end of..... Skyfall!
After all said and done it's entertainment and I for one was suitably entertained.
Because all you want to see are a series of iconic James Bond moments- not a film. I want a decent film. There's a reason Casino Royale is rated so much better- because it got rid of all those cheesy 60s Bond elements.
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
It's quite a thing being told my own definition of a bond film!
Its just a shame how incorrect you are.
I'm not quite sure how me enjoying what I think are some great scenes be a problem? In fact I've already posted on this thread and others my dislike of some of what Mendes has done with bond and also my opinions on Spectres faults.
As someone who's bond fandom was reignited with Casino Royale I have a preference for the rebooted bond. I really rate qos amongst my favourite films, and I find it impossible to rank the bond films due to the sheer length of the timescale of the franchise and therefore the diversity and differences between the films. (a bit like the members and fans on here)
I enjoyed Spectre! Does that make me a 40-50 year old union jack waving spy wannabe yada yada etc etc.
No it makes me a James bond fan, Daniel Craig fan who enjoyed Spectre for what it was.
Like you I also really enjoyed rogue nation, and I think Tom Cruise does a great job but you can't seriously talk Tom Cruise without a metal image of a giant edam! Or Simon Pegg for that matter
And as a qos fan you can keep your imdb ratings.
Now wheres my union jack and MI6 application form.
Chriscoop (36 years and 2months)
I find it impossible to rank the bond films due to the sheer length of the timescale of the franchise and therefore the diversity and differences between the films. (a bit like the members and fans on here)
I have to say here how MUCH I liked the ending of SPECTRE. It was riveting to me. Maybe in subsequent viewings it will lose its freshness, but it played out so not how I expected that I absolutely loved it!
Okay, that last bullet was the lucky one through the vent & now the copter will explode in a blaze of glory in front of Big Ben. No?
Okay, so it crashed on the bridge, this is where Bond kills the bastid. No?
Okay, he's gonna show that he's evolved but now Blowfeld will pull the gun from out of nowhere thing & MAKE Bond kill him! No?
Okay, well at least Bond can 'arrest' him now with a funny put down. No??
Wait, he's tossing the PPK?!?!?!?!?!
WAIT!!! He gets the girl AND the DB5?!?!?!?!?!?!
I have to say here how MUCH I liked the ending of SPECTRE. It was riveting to me. Maybe in subsequent viewings it will lose its freshness, but it played out so not how I expected that I absolutely loved it!
Okay, that last bullet was the lucky one through the vent & now the copter will explode in a blaze of glory in front of Big Ben. No?
Okay, so it crashed on the bridge, this is where Bond kills the bastid. No?
Okay, he's gonna show that he's evolved but now Blowfeld will pull the gun from out of nowhere thing & MAKE Bond kill him! No?
Okay, well at least Bond can 'arrest' him now with a funny put down. No??
Wait, he's tossing the PPK?!?!?!?!?!
WAIT!!! He gets the girl AND the DB5?!?!?!?!?!?!
Glorious. :007)
I thought it refreshing and a surprise that he got to walk off into the sunset with the girl (who was alive yet)
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Totally agree, a very surprising end, and both closes DC's tenure and leaves it open at the same time. I wouldn't have launched my ppk tho! bond doesn't half get through those ppk's!
Totally agree, a very surprising end, and both closes DC's tenure and leaves it open at the same time. I wouldn't have launched my ppk tho! bond doesn't half get through those ppk's!
I think he bulk buys
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I think Mendes intended SF to be like GF, a movie that is almost completely insane but in which you get so wrapped up in the spectacle you don't notice that a lot of stuff isn't making sense.
Unfortunately, nobody's ever been able to reproduce the magic of GF, including Mendes.
I think Mendes intended SF to be like GF, a movie that is almost completely insane but in which you get so wrapped up in the spectacle you don't notice that a lot of stuff isn't making sense.
Unfortunately, nobody's ever been able to reproduce the magic of GF, including Mendes.
Comments
a lot with QOS.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
You really see SPECTRE as "meticulously written"? I thought we have had a near-consensus here, even with the biggest fans of the movie, that there were serious flaws in the script writing.
Here's the thing: You write the story that needs to be told, not the story that conforms to a particular length. These days, because the writing and directing (and editing) are often poor, the concept of pacing escapes most filmmakers. They can't sustain a scene the way even some moderately talented writers and directors could in years past. They don't understand storytelling so much as script arcs and visuals. Watch enough older films (and by this, I mean 1970 and older), and you'll see the vast difference. But it always starts with the writing.
Here's a significant reason why: Bond scripts, like most action films, are now created around the action sequences. This is, in part, because the assumption is audiences have low literacy. Those take precedence, and the rest is the frame to get viewers there. But the better Bond films -- like the better Fleming stories -- are focused on the character moments. The dialogue, the confrontations, the mysteries, the one-ups. The action is the icing, not the cake. If you start with that premise, then more care is taken with the "quieter" moments that generally get lip service today.
The easiest way to tell if the writing is crappy is how much it relies on expository dialogue. Any time the movie has to have characters tell us things that could be shown to us dramatically, it's crap writing. And the Bond films of late have over-relied on expository dialogue. When a film pays lip service to the character moments and spends too much time on exposition, it's going to seem long and boring. But when a film develops all of its scenes fully and actually shows us drama, even if it's twice as long as a typical Bond film, it's going to be interesting.
Don't get that at all---but then I've never been bored by any Bond film, let alone the one that blisters along at an hour and forty minutes and never stops to take a breath. But if you say so...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree wholeheartedly Gassy Man. I've seen 90 minute films that feel like an eternity due to poor pacing, etc whilst I've seen 4 hour epics that go by extremely fast. I feel a Bond should be in excess of 2 hours. It just feels right.
I also like the less-is-more approach, especially the older I get. When younger I wanted wall-to-wall action but now prefer one or two good action sequences over half-a-dozen lesser ones. SKYFALL is interesting because if you analyse it there are few set-pieces in it, thus following the '60s template.
And thats the problem- there are some great scenes. Thats all people like you (Bond formula lovers) seem to appreciate, individual scenes. "Oh the opening scene was great", "this scene was great"- the overall film was absolutely crap. Its now on 7.1 on IMDB. This film, ignoring all the other Bond films before it, was nothing special. It was an average film.
The problem is you don't care about the film- you simply have a check list of things you require for it to be a Bond film and so long as you can tick those items off- its an amazing film. In contrast, I am merely watching the film as if it was any other. I was actually bored during the final third of this film and that rarely happens for me. The only other time I can remember this happening was the end of..... Skyfall!
Because all you want to see are a series of iconic James Bond moments- not a film. I want a decent film. There's a reason Casino Royale is rated so much better- because it got rid of all those cheesy 60s Bond elements.
I can watch CR and QoS again and again. I cannot watch more than 30 mins of SF and I will probably only watch an hour of SP.
On a side note I have just finished watching MI:5 and I can honestly say I enjoy it more than SP. The car-chase scenes in it are vastly superior to SP. The lead actress is absolutely brilliant, the support cast are interesting and the film isn't based on silly crap like privatising state surveillance! The locations are good and the film doesn't pretend to be something its not.
Let's look at the current IMDB ratings for the 4 films that you mentioned:
* CR - 8.0
* SF - 7.8
* SP - 7.1
* QoS - 6.7
Based on what you listed, you prefer Bond films with a rating from 6.7 to 8.0. So if you preferred QoS, objectively, there should be no reason for your to not like SP (and SF) which is rated higher than QoS
but appears as if you are being very subjective while asking others to be highly objective:
If you want to talk about numbers, the Bond films that you would love have been very few - FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK and CR. That is 6 out of 24 films (25%) .... So with 75% of the Bond films being similar to SP, whose fault is it that you go in to watch SP expecting it to be like one of the 25% of films? And that too when it is being directed by Mendes who directed SF, which is a film you did not like despite its high IMDB ratings which you tend to go by
I agree that SP is not perfect. But more than the problems with the film, it appear that it is inability of many fans to not fully comprehend what Bond franchise is supposed to offer is the bigger problem
Next time, I would recommend that you do some research before walking in to a film
Great! In fact, MI5 to an extent is closer to the cheesy Bond films that you do not like. And like the Bond films not every MI film has similar tone. For e.g. MI1 was different from MI2 which was different from MI3. MI4 and MI5 are similar.
I would just like to say that I am not a forty-fifty year old who laps up any Bond film out of my 'fanboyism'.
And I'm not British, a pom who waves the union Jack. I'm actually little older then a kid, who was born in the 90's.
But I love all that stuff, I love the CORNY CHEESY crap films. Why? Cause that's what defines the Bond character. The Ethos of the 'FIlm James Bond Character' who is different to Fleming's creation. sure they cross-over, and in some of the best 007 films, the more he resembles the man from the books, the merrier, but this is not out of nolstagia, its out of recognising movies which are able to let their hair down and enjoy themselves.
And its not the elements, the 'scenes' but the whole feel of the film.
Things such as Characters, mood, plot, not scenes which just tick a box on a fanboy's list.
We are all have different opinions when it comes to Bond, that's the beauty of it, and they all have a motivation and a reaso be hind it. Even if it involves being abhorrently against the main ethos of the Bond Character, and 75% of the Bond films.
It is just how we express those views, oxf77, which is most important.
Because they
And I do love the more serious Bond films which do not follow the formula as closely.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
If it'd for me, I'd have you off this forum, you don't come across as a fan or even a nice person!
1) Simon Pegg is cheesier then any character in the DC Bond films in my opinion
2) If we are talking about realism then the MI5 leading lady pulls off some crazy action moves
I do have a problem with casting someone as 'hater' if they dislike something and ' fanboy' if they like it. I kept away from AJB during the production of SP as I had real fears that Mendes would continue with the whole mawkish childhood schtick and was bored by the idea of another 'Bond goes rouge' instalment. Those concerns felt very unwelcome and I said at the time that I did not want to 'stink up the place' so I kept away. In the end I liked SP more than I feared I would, but am acutely aware of its many shortfalls. We do have to be careful not to stifle debate by falling into clumsy stereotypes. For example I believe that I am a Bond fan ,but in truth only really like less than 10 of the films and even those I have bits I dislike ( I love TB but the whole underwater battle is like watching paint dry and the end is a real anti climax) for the record I am in my 50's but really do not want the films to endlessly recycle their own Mythos. One of my major concerns with SP ( it was another contributor that made the following excellent point) is that it offers nothing new to the tradition, no future films will reference it in my view. In summary we are a complex bunch, and Bond is more nuanced than is often believed. Hell there is even room for those who are Moore fans, a position that I find inexplicable. This is not a call for more of a Kumbaya love in, but a desire for a sane discussion without name calling or lazy categories. I'll get my coat.
I really enjoyed it (in fact loved it) but yeah it could of been crafted into something really special in my opinion with more thought and care.
PS - I loved the film by the way but it does of course have well known flaws
PTS - enjoyed it immensely - however helicopter fight maybe a tad too long on repeated viewings, would perhaps have had a cut scene into the Sciarra hotel room meeting with a little more detail instead of watching it all through Bond!!
London - loved the interaction with M and Q, especially the DB10 being reassigned to 009 and Bond nicking the car.
Rome - Belluci was fantastic and I loved the scene back at her house. Once again Mendes underused a Bond woman. I think she maybe could have "showed" Bond where the meeting was to be held and somehow been involved in the car chase as a passenger. Ditching the DB10 was pretty unnecessary for me and the chase could have been better despite looking stunning in places.
Austria - enjoyed the Mr White scene, one of the highlights. The Klinik was great and gave a bit of a OHMSS vibe but maybe played too small a part. *Crazy minor gripe as a clothing collector - When Swan is kidnapped I find it odd he puts on Sunglasses for a few seconds!! The plane scenes was good but I must admit Bond leaving Hinx on the bonnet unchecked bugs me and is a huge flaw. Any other scenario would have been better - buried in snow or something.
Morocco. Found Tangier as a location crazily underused. We see Bond walking up some steps and then its back to pinewood in a hotel room. The secret room raises so many questions! What if the room was fully booked? Rennovated?? How did Mr White enter the secret room? Did he replaster it afterwards?? A little bit of explaining here would have been good e.g he actually owns the hotel. In fact did it even need to be a hotel - could it not have been Mr Whites apartment?
Train scene - enjoyed immensely - all of it! However another 5 mins of dialogue at the evening meal to develop Bond and Swanns friendship / romance would have been so much better!!! Hinx arrived too soon!! The fight scene was superb.
The rolls royce across the desert did not bother me (you do actually see a track road when it pans out to the base) however Bond walking into the lions den has raised eyebrows although he has done it several times. Maybe an assault / capture scenario i.e Goldfinger might have worked better but imagine the film would be even longer!
The meteor room - this conversation would have been better over a luxurious dinner in the style of Dr No / Scaramanga
The interrogation scene bugged me a little on first viewing - simply the chair and needle thing was too high tech for my liking. Escaping the lair was also far too lazily done and a walk in the park for Bond who had just been tortured!!
London - Bond being kidnapped was very simple and far too easy. It was totally unnecessary.
Le Chiffe / Silva / Vesper / M posters. Nice touch in the trailers but think it was a bit too much in the final film. We already knew it was all linked I think that was enough.
Mi6 HQ - the set felt a little fake to me for some reason. Maybe im being harsh here. From the moment he enters the building the finale feels very rushed - this was my initial gripe with the entire film if im honest.
A lots been said about the boat chase and taking down the helicopter. This didnt bother me too much if im honest.
Overall minor details however Waltz not as menacing as I hoped. I thought he would become iconic and the ultimate Blofeld rather then careless.
hopefully can change views and lead to some great debates. Hence why that talented
member started a "Devil's Advocate " thread
I find your posts entertaining, informative and funny, I can't ask for more
there are no right or wrong opinions ( apart from mine)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Its just a shame how incorrect you are.
I'm not quite sure how me enjoying what I think are some great scenes be a problem? In fact I've already posted on this thread and others my dislike of some of what Mendes has done with bond and also my opinions on Spectres faults.
As someone who's bond fandom was reignited with Casino Royale I have a preference for the rebooted bond. I really rate qos amongst my favourite films, and I find it impossible to rank the bond films due to the sheer length of the timescale of the franchise and therefore the diversity and differences between the films. (a bit like the members and fans on here)
I enjoyed Spectre! Does that make me a 40-50 year old union jack waving spy wannabe yada yada etc etc.
No it makes me a James bond fan, Daniel Craig fan who enjoyed Spectre for what it was.
Like you I also really enjoyed rogue nation, and I think Tom Cruise does a great job but you can't seriously talk Tom Cruise without a metal image of a giant edam! Or Simon Pegg for that matter
And as a qos fan you can keep your imdb ratings.
Now wheres my union jack and MI6 application form.
Chriscoop (36 years and 2months)
{[] {[] {[] {[] {[] {[] {[] {[]
Okay, that last bullet was the lucky one through the vent & now the copter will explode in a blaze of glory in front of Big Ben. No?
Okay, so it crashed on the bridge, this is where Bond kills the bastid. No?
Okay, he's gonna show that he's evolved but now Blowfeld will pull the gun from out of nowhere thing & MAKE Bond kill him! No?
Okay, well at least Bond can 'arrest' him now with a funny put down. No??
Wait, he's tossing the PPK?!?!?!?!?!
WAIT!!! He gets the girl AND the DB5?!?!?!?!?!?!
Glorious. :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I thought it refreshing and a surprise that he got to walk off into the sunset with the girl (who was alive yet)
I think he bulk buys
Unfortunately, nobody's ever been able to reproduce the magic of GF, including Mendes.
I think your acronyms are off?
Thanks.