Give the people what they want!
Jimatay
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
OK, so the film scored highly with the critics, but is getting a very mixed reaction from the general public. I was wondering if Wilson and Broccoli solely will concentrate on critics reviews and box office success, or do they dig a little deeper and find out what the die hard Bond fans thought of the film?Are we merely discussing Spectre for the sake of ourselves, or does our opinions count for anything? In my opinion Spectre was so-so. But if the producers only take note of critics and box office, then I think we're in for a similar film next time.
Comments
From what I am reading a strong majority of people AND critics enjoy Spectre.
As for whom Micky and Babs are going for: Get people to buy cinema-tickets!
The Bond Franchise is a money-machine - which a budget of 300 million - nobody makes an "art-film" just for the critics
Critic's opinion only counts to them when their reviews bring more people to the Box Office. Simple!
And please check out my Spectre Review Thread!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
IMDb reviews, tweets, friends opinion.
Except an interesting villain (and masterplan). Good actor but very weak performance.
She has no desire to appeal to us die-hard Bond fans, in fact she hates us. As does her pet Daniel Craig.
Wow, did you use a time machine to come here?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I honestly don't think they can win...Spectre for me is the closest to traditional Bond I've seen so far, and yet it's STILL not right for some.
I think we glorify the "older" movies and hold them up against a backdrop of very rose tinted glass and are always looking backwards.
For some on here, I don't think you'll be happy till Connery is Bond, he's back in his 40's playing the role
I really enjoyed SPECTRE (didn't really like Skyfall) and I can't wait to see it again.
I think there are universal standards of beauty. The 60's Bond films were all just beautiful. They weren't trying to be, they just were. They had a beauty that was pure and wasn't an affectation.
Modern day leftism is all about glorifying uglyness and bringing transcendent beauty down to bog-standard average-ness. They won't be able to create another Bond film which "feels right" unless they get rid of these leftist hacks they keep hiring to write their scripts and act in their films, and focus on staying true to the original archetype of a character who is exclusively made for "warm-blooded heterosexuals" in Fleming's words i.e. white males who love their country and Queen, their military, and who think MI6 and the CIA are forces for good in the world.
I loved this film, I felt like I'd finally got James Bond back. It may not be the best James Bond film ever, but at least it definitely IS a James Bond film, which I haven't been able to say since Die Another Day (whether or not that was a good film is a different issue
The idea that this movie lacked a convincing villain with a master plan is one I find strange. Sure, Christoph Waltz didn't have a huge amount of screen time, but when he was on screen he was commanding and mysterious without descending (too much) into campness. His master plan was to set up a global intelligence network which the nations involved would think was working for them but was actually working for SPECTRE. Seems pretty dastardly to me!
JediM
Please mods, let him stay!
He's gorgeous! LMAO!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And someones escapes CraigNotBond.com?
The delusions on here are getting hysterical?
I agree - best laugh I've had today
I wonder if he actually believes the rubbish he spouts ?
Christ, what decade are you living in? Do you think people would approve if Bond started slapping Madeline around when she refuses to go with him in SPECTRE? No, of course not. Fleming wrote the books in a time when sexism and racism was ok. You simply can't adapt some of his books perfectly now. Could you imagine the uproar if they adapted LALD as the book was?
Have you met Barbara? She is definitely no Germain Greer and oozes sex appeal from every pore. Most of all she is acutely aware of the legacy her father left her and although, along with her step brother, has moved the Bond films forward whilst trying to retain their original magic. I believe with SPECTRE they have achieved this.
Having said that you did make me laugh so not all bad
www.justgiving.com/inMemoryOfLewisCollins
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
danielcraigsfaceonawingedgargoyle.com
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
10/10 Lexi -{ you have nailed it. :007)
Sheriff Pepper? Is that you, boy?
My guess is all the fans slating the film or giving it lower scores will be the first in the queue for Bond 25! And if Bond 25 is recast with a new actor as 007, all the moaners will be hyped up for it. But on a more serious side, as I say, you can't please everyone. It's impossible to please all fans due to the longevity and subtle shifts in tone of the franchise.
Quite right! What's often overlooked is just how many people are pleased by the James Bond film series, in its many and varied iterations over the years...which is what makes it such a remarkable phenomenon.
If Craig is, in fact, departing the franchise---and it's already been secretly decided---we should hear about it as soon as SPECTRE's run in the cinemas is over. The more time that elapses after SP's theatrical run is over, with no word from Eon about an actor change, the more likely Craig will be doing another one, IMO.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I suppose you could argue the first six Bond films were the definitive Bond films because the tone was fairly consistent. Diamonds Are Forever skewered the tone with more obvious humour. Blofeld in drag was kinda the point when the franchise changed tone and it's never fully returned to the original six films tone, perhaps? And, of course, Roger Moore's approach to the role suited the more jokey approach established in DAF. And then Dalton's films went a bit more serious. Once Moore and Dalton came along the original Sean Connery tone of Bond was altered but that isn't a bad thing. A franchise as long as Bond has to evolve but the potential downside of such success is you can't appeal to all fans.
I'm confused by all the press on Craig's disinterest-- I thought Craig is contracted to do five. While I've heard the various hearsay about him not wanting to another one, I've not heard anything about him wanting out of his contract. How easy would that be to do given the current popularity? I suspect it's mostly publicity to get a gullible public to the theater . . .
which appears to be working. I just read an article that Spectre's opening in Europe was record-breaking. I suspect something similar here in the States.
Why is anyone crapping on Barbara Broccoli? She's the one who had the sense to cast a manly Connery-esque actor as Bond instead of a boyish, mannequin-esque movie star. Kudos to that. She's brought the series closer to be in line with its greatness than anyone since her father and Harry Saltzman (together, as the Bonds were never quite as good when Saltzman left, in my opinion).
Finally, I think even hardcore fans of the 1960s Bonds would love to see more recent versions eclipse them. I know I would. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, nor conceding that as good as the current ones are, they aren't that good, if that's a person's opinion. Set the bar high or else you get Sandler and Witherspoon movies.
I'd love to see Bond films on the level of the 60s Bond films, but I don't think we've had anything close since the 80s.
I feel because of this I felt Spectre was great and without giving much away I really liked how they linked it to those Bond films of the 1960's. If there was one thing I would say I'm a bit fed up of the repetitive 'MI6 is outdated, the 00 section is stuck in the dark ages' kinda storylines with Bond having to 'find his feet again' with every mission. I thought all of that had been sorted at the end of Skyfall? I hope Daniel Craig stays to do at least one more, it feels with every film he's just getting started!
It was a fantastic film though and I'll be seeing it again soon.
I've been of the opinion that Craig IS coming back, but was reacting to Asp9mm saying that he has industry contacts and that rumor has it that Craig has quietly already backed out. Impossible to know if that's real, or if chains are merely being pulled, LOL.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Which films are you thinking of? Octopussy? View to A Kill?
Sorry, but I think that some people find it difficult to ever believe that the originals can be equalled or eclipsed. Personally I think that the DC era has delivered that most consistently high standard since the first four films.
So are you saying that Eon should be more interested in obsessive fans posting on message boards than whether the film makes a profit at the box office? Really?
The Bond films of the sixties did not try to please just the fans of the Fleming books. They often changed plots and characters. And Connery himself was not initially popular with Ian Fleming. If EON had not adapted and changed things, the films wouldn't have lasted for over fifty years. We may not like every aspect of every film, but it seems very bizarre to attack Eon for making a film that is both a critical and commercial success.
That's a very good point. Us fans on AJB are too introspective when we watch the film and, yes, maybe we don't see the film in the same way that it was intended by Babs and Mike. So, if Bond 25 features Swann getting offed by Blofeld then we shouldn't bump gums about how it's too much like OHMSS, because there's probably millions of people out there who haven't seen that film.
As for DC leaving or not, I think he should do one more, just to establish the Spectre thread otherwise, by bringing in another actor there is the possibility of a reboot being required again. I don't know what you think but I just don't feel that general audiences will be as accepting of a new actor being slotted into such an iconic role without a change in direction.
But I could be wrong...