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.
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.
This, basically. The Bond series has to be making its own traditions alongside the old ones otherwise it will always fail to be 'traditional Bond' and therefore not 'classic'.
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.
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.
This, basically. The Bond series has to be making its own traditions alongside the old ones otherwise it will always fail to be 'traditional Bond' and therefore not 'classic'.
l
That is for me really the point, what can be taken from SP of its own to form a new tradition? i also liked it more than Skyfall, and think Daniel looked great and managed the shift in tone really well. While no particular fan of EON they have proved after DAD (which was good box office remember ) that they are willing to take bold risks for the long term viability of the family business.i really don't want to look backwards, but the films themselves seem stuck with mining its own Mythos
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
That is for me really the point, what can be taken from SP of its own to form a new tradition?
It's tough; SF did great box office so of course EON are going to try to repeat the trick with SP because they assume that's what audiences want, particularly when QoS was deemed to be too far removed from Bond. I think CR brought in some new traditions; subversion of Bond tropes (i.e. shaken not stirred), darker/serious tone, a Bond girl that Bond can actually identify with, pretty much a lone ranger (doesn't have the extra support network of Q and Moneypenny). It's hard to marry the flippant tone of earlier Bond films with the 'grittiness' of the Craig era but EON are naturally going to go with whatever the public will go out to watch in large numbers.
That is for me really the point, what can be taken from SP of its own to form a new tradition?
It's tough; SF did great box office so of course EON are going to try to repeat the trick with SP because they assume that's what audiences want, particularly when QoS was deemed to be too far removed from Bond. I think CR brought in some new traditions; subversion of Bond tropes (i.e. shaken not stirred), darker/serious tone, a Bond girl that Bond can actually identify with, pretty much a lone ranger (doesn't have the extra support network of Q and Moneypenny). It's hard to marry the flippant tone of earlier Bond films with the 'grittiness' of the Craig era but EON are naturally going to go with whatever the public will go out to watch in large numbers.
I agree. In my opinion EON should stay away from the type of humour that we see in SP. (sofas, mice...).
CR, QOS and SF had a good balance of action, humour and romance.
That is for me really the point, what can be taken from SP of its own to form a new tradition?
It's tough; SF did great box office so of course EON are going to try to repeat the trick with SP because they assume that's what audiences want, particularly when QoS was deemed to be too far removed from Bond. I think CR brought in some new traditions; subversion of Bond tropes (i.e. shaken not stirred), darker/serious tone, a Bond girl that Bond can actually identify with, pretty much a lone ranger (doesn't have the extra support network of Q and Moneypenny). It's hard to marry the flippant tone of earlier Bond films with the 'grittiness' of the Craig era but EON are naturally going to go with whatever the public will go out to watch in large numbers.
I will honestly never understand the hype of Skyfall. Box office doesn't mean much because ticket prices and numbers are always increasing. I love the first third of Skyfall but the remaining 66% is just rubbish.
I will honestly never understand the hype of Skyfall. Box office doesn't mean much because ticket prices and numbers are always increasing. I love the first third of Skyfall but the remaining 66% is just rubbish.
I understand the hype; had it not been the 50th anniversary and the Olympics (feeling of patriotism and James Bond is a British cultural icon), Skyfall would not have been hailed as a great film. Silva is such an over-the-top camp villain that would be fine in an earlier Bond film but Skyfall wants us to take him seriously- and to take Bond's childhood issues seriously, even though we have the great Albert Finney playing a crazy gamekeeper. At least Spectre isn't so insistent on us taking the whole thing seriously. Q is reduced to a techy schoolboy and talked about as if he's the current generation of children raised on internet- those people are recent uni graduates. Moneypenny being an agent is just silly, as if being a secretary is not worthy enough.
Bond is treated as practically a dinosaur. One of the good things Spectre did was to fit Q, M and Moneypenny into new Bond so that they worked.
I will honestly never understand the hype of Skyfall. Box office doesn't mean much because ticket prices and numbers are always increasing. I love the first third of Skyfall but the remaining 66% is just rubbish.
I understand the hype; had it not been the 50th anniversary and the Olympics (feeling of patriotism and James Bond is a British cultural icon), Skyfall would not have been hailed as a great film. Silva is such an over-the-top camp villain that would be fine in an earlier Bond film but Skyfall wants us to take him seriously- and to take Bond's childhood issues seriously, even though we have the great Albert Finney playing a crazy gamekeeper. At least Spectre isn't so insistent on us taking the whole thing seriously. Q is reduced to a techy schoolboy and talked about as if he's the current generation of children raised on internet- those people are recent uni graduates. Moneypenny being an agent is just silly, as if being a secretary is not worthy enough.
Bond is treated as practically a dinosaur. One of the good things Spectre did was to fit Q, M and Moneypenny into new Bond so that they worked.
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.
Funny how the new Star Wars is getting rave reviews from the critics for strictly adhering to the Stars Wars formula and practically being a tribute to the original films. Yet, Spectre was criticized for doing the same thing.
(I haven't seen the new SW yet…)
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
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.
Funny how the new Star Wars is getting rave reviews from the critics for strictly adhering to the Stars Wars formula and practically being a tribute to the original films. Yet, Spectre was criticized for doing the same thing.
(I haven't seen the new SW yet…)
That's my main complaint with the new SW film, actually. With Bond, I like when it sticks to the formula, but I expected something different from SW.
Comments
This, basically. The Bond series has to be making its own traditions alongside the old ones otherwise it will always fail to be 'traditional Bond' and therefore not 'classic'.
That is for me really the point, what can be taken from SP of its own to form a new tradition? i also liked it more than Skyfall, and think Daniel looked great and managed the shift in tone really well. While no particular fan of EON they have proved after DAD (which was good box office remember ) that they are willing to take bold risks for the long term viability of the family business.i really don't want to look backwards, but the films themselves seem stuck with mining its own Mythos
It's tough; SF did great box office so of course EON are going to try to repeat the trick with SP because they assume that's what audiences want, particularly when QoS was deemed to be too far removed from Bond. I think CR brought in some new traditions; subversion of Bond tropes (i.e. shaken not stirred), darker/serious tone, a Bond girl that Bond can actually identify with, pretty much a lone ranger (doesn't have the extra support network of Q and Moneypenny). It's hard to marry the flippant tone of earlier Bond films with the 'grittiness' of the Craig era but EON are naturally going to go with whatever the public will go out to watch in large numbers.
I agree. In my opinion EON should stay away from the type of humour that we see in SP. (sofas, mice...).
CR, QOS and SF had a good balance of action, humour and romance.
I will honestly never understand the hype of Skyfall. Box office doesn't mean much because ticket prices and numbers are always increasing. I love the first third of Skyfall but the remaining 66% is just rubbish.
I understand the hype; had it not been the 50th anniversary and the Olympics (feeling of patriotism and James Bond is a British cultural icon), Skyfall would not have been hailed as a great film. Silva is such an over-the-top camp villain that would be fine in an earlier Bond film but Skyfall wants us to take him seriously- and to take Bond's childhood issues seriously, even though we have the great Albert Finney playing a crazy gamekeeper. At least Spectre isn't so insistent on us taking the whole thing seriously. Q is reduced to a techy schoolboy and talked about as if he's the current generation of children raised on internet- those people are recent uni graduates. Moneypenny being an agent is just silly, as if being a secretary is not worthy enough.
Bond is treated as practically a dinosaur. One of the good things Spectre did was to fit Q, M and Moneypenny into new Bond so that they worked.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Funny how the new Star Wars is getting rave reviews from the critics for strictly adhering to the Stars Wars formula and practically being a tribute to the original films. Yet, Spectre was criticized for doing the same thing.
(I haven't seen the new SW yet…)
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
That's my main complaint with the new SW film, actually. With Bond, I like when it sticks to the formula, but I expected something different from SW.