Skyfall vs. SPECTRE/ Dark semi-realism vs. All Out Bond

chrisisall

IMO Mendes was attempting with SF to do something that has never worked well with me in Bond movies- a sense of harsh realism. To do that correctly, one must first have a serious sense of real world REALISM that most film-makers (and indeed most PEOPLE in general) do not possess. With SP he seemed to fall back on reliable (and welcomed by ME) Bond tropes & expectations...
In the end, I feel that SP was the greater success because a competent (but not incredibly innovative) film-maker (like Mendes) needs to follow pattern, not egotistically attempt to break it.

Thoughts?

Barbel

I'm wondering exactly how many of these decisions were made by Mendes as opppsed to Wilson/Broccoli. The fact that SP features more elements of the Bond formula was most likely a joint decision.

chrisisall

Barbel wrote:

The fact that SP features more elements of the Bond formula was most likely a joint decision.

As in, smoking weed? ?:)

Barbel

If you wanna spliff hairs....

MarcAngeDraco

For me, "successful Bond tropes" in my opinion are aspects of a Bond film that scream James Bond but hasn't been done before, because, there was no formula to speak of from DN-TB and OHMSS, which in my opinion are some of the best Bond films. There is also no formula or "successful Bond tropes" that Fleming knew of when he began writing the novels.

For the films in point, SF is much more successful in feeling like a Bond film because Mendes and the other creatives brought a sense of innovation that made the film feel fresh, yet vaguely familiar. It's no secret that I think that SF feels like an Ian Fleming novel. If one was to deconstruct a Fleming book - for arguments sake, let's pick YOLT - there is a sense of play and fun (inclusion of characters such as Trembling Leaf, banter between Bond and Tiger), bizarre (Shatterhand in the armour outfit, the mystery behind The Death Collector and The Garden of Death), danger (a goon attempting an assassination of Bond and Tiger, Bond at the Garden of Death), sex (Kissy Suzuki, Trembling Leaf, etc) and discourse into the political climate of London vs the rest of the world (decline of Britain's empire, as discussed by Tiger and Bond). However, these 'tropes' are very broad, and the details are not duplicated in other Bond novels - however, there is always sex, danger, bizarre, social commentary and humour in his other works. In SF, the social discourse into the relevance of MI6 is explored (in a different fashion to how it was in GE in the wake of a post Cold War world), there is danger in Silva's cyberterrorism threats and seeming techno-invincibility, not to mention in various action/suspense scenes, there is sex with Severine, and play with Eve, Q and even Silva, and bizarre in Silva's computer threats to M, Bardem's portrayal and Kimodo dragons. It's always the sense of play and bizarre that takes Bond out of the 'realism'. I agree with you in that I prefer my Bond films to be less serious and more fun, and I think we get a great balance in SF.

The other thing to mention is that, because of these broad tropes presented in the films from DN-TB, OHMSS and in Fleming's novels is that, with Bond, there are expectations, but in that, you can expect something you're not expecting. So when the Tennyson sequence popped up in SF, it felt so inspired because it just worked. It clicked, and was a perfect way to add the danger mixed with the social commentary. And this is actually something I quite liked in SP - my favourite scene in the film is Lucia arriving home from the funeral. Totally fitting for a Bond film, but something I absolutely wasn't expecting. There is danger, sex, a little bizarre with the choice of music and exploration into the life of a widow of someone who was part of a terrorist group - all of course, one who is in a Bond film.

Sure, SPECTRE delivered a Bond film that was more familiar overall in terms of the specifics - a gadget laden car, a parade sequence, a clinic on a mountain top, a villain lair in a desert, Blofeld's scar, etc - and this would have all been fine, but the writing wasn't up to scratch, and it didn't deliver overall as even a more formulaic Bond film. Of course, the social discourse into global surveillance was undermined by the need to abolish MI6, which was proven in SF that MI6 was indeed relevant, so it fell flat. And on that, I feel the global surveillance plot was much more 'realistic' than the cyberterrorism plot because it affects everyone from the greatest terrorist to the stay at home mum who uses eBay - Facebook and Google display ads that are relevant to you based on your searches. Which then begs the next notion - Blofeld is much more dangerous than this.

So overall, Mendes' efforts in SF are much better. His work as a director is great in SP as well, but the writing (how much say he had, I'm not sure) wasn't up to his level of expertise.

Forgive mistakes, I can't be bothered rereading that!

Higgins

Barbel wrote:

If you wanna spliff hairs....

yes, and in the case of SF, we've overpaid for sh*t

sniperUK

chrisisall wrote:

Barbel wrote:

The fact that SP features more elements of the Bond formula was most likely a joint decision.

As in, smoking weed? ?:)

That would explain most of it

Golrush007

I'm very much in agreement with MarcAnge on this topic. There is not much I could add to what he said.

superado

I think Mendes made a lot of excesses with SF, just as Tamahori did with DAD with the rhythmic freeze frames, but with Mendes' attempted avant garde shots like the Shanghai fight scene against the neon and the entrance scene into the Macao casino. Apart from those, I'm okay with most of the rest since SF was just going along with bold experimentation that started with CR (and peaked with QoS, which I liked!) With that said, SP going back to formula was much needed just to keep things fresh in light of all this avant garde that's been happening with the series for about a decade, if that makes sense.

Number24

chrisisall wrote:

IMO Mendes was attempting with SF to do something that has never worked well with me in Bond movies- a sense of harsh realism. To do that correctly, one must first have a serious sense of real world REALISM that most film-makers (and indeed most PEOPLE in general) do not possess. With SP he seemed to fall back on reliable (and welcomed by ME) Bond tropes & expectations...
In the end, I feel that SP was the greater success because a competent (but not incredibly innovative) film-maker (like Mendes) needs to follow pattern, not egotistically attempt to break it.

Thoughts?

I really don't know what you mean by 'harsh realism' in SP. Can you explain?

walther p99

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

For me, "successful Bond tropes" in my opinion are aspects of a Bond film that scream James Bond but hasn't been done before, because, there was no formula to speak of from DN-TB and OHMSS, which in my opinion are some of the best Bond films. There is also no formula or "successful Bond tropes" that Fleming knew of when he began writing the novels.

For the films in point, SF is much more successful in feeling like a Bond film because Mendes and the other creatives brought a sense of innovation that made the film feel fresh, yet vaguely familiar. It's no secret that I think that SF feels like an Ian Fleming novel. If one was to deconstruct a Fleming book - for arguments sake, let's pick YOLT - there is a sense of play and fun (inclusion of characters such as Trembling Leaf, banter between Bond and Tiger), bizarre (Shatterhand in the armour outfit, the mystery behind The Death Collector and The Garden of Death), danger (a goon attempting an assassination of Bond and Tiger, Bond at the Garden of Death), sex (Kissy Suzuki, Trembling Leaf, etc) and discourse into the political climate of London vs the rest of the world (decline of Britain's empire, as discussed by Tiger and Bond). However, these 'tropes' are very broad, and the details are not duplicated in other Bond novels - however, there is always sex, danger, bizarre, social commentary and humour in his other works. In SF, the social discourse into the relevance of MI6 is explored (in a different fashion to how it was in GE in the wake of a post Cold War world), there is danger in Silva's cyberterrorism threats and seeming techno-invincibility, not to mention in various action/suspense scenes, there is sex with Severine, and play with Eve, Q and even Silva, and bizarre in Silva's computer threats to M, Bardem's portrayal and Kimodo dragons. It's always the sense of play and bizarre that takes Bond out of the 'realism'. I agree with you in that I prefer my Bond films to be less serious and more fun, and I think we get a great balance in SF.

The other thing to mention is that, because of these broad tropes presented in the films from DN-TB, OHMSS and in Fleming's novels is that, with Bond, there are expectations, but in that, you can expect something you're not expecting. So when the Tennyson sequence popped up in SF, it felt so inspired because it just worked. It clicked, and was a perfect way to add the danger mixed with the social commentary. And this is actually something I quite liked in SP - my favourite scene in the film is Lucia arriving home from the funeral. Totally fitting for a Bond film, but something I absolutely wasn't expecting. There is danger, sex, a little bizarre with the choice of music and exploration into the life of a widow of someone who was part of a terrorist group - all of course, one who is in a Bond film.

Sure, SPECTRE delivered a Bond film that was more familiar overall in terms of the specifics - a gadget laden car, a parade sequence, a clinic on a mountain top, a villain lair in a desert, Blofeld's scar, etc - and this would have all been fine, but the writing wasn't up to scratch, and it didn't deliver overall as even a more formulaic Bond film. Of course, the social discourse into global surveillance was undermined by the need to abolish MI6, which was proven in SF that MI6 was indeed relevant, so it fell flat. And on that, I feel the global surveillance plot was much more 'realistic' than the cyberterrorism plot because it affects everyone from the greatest terrorist to the stay at home mum who uses eBay - Facebook and Google display ads that are relevant to you based on your searches. Which then begs the next notion - Blofeld is much more dangerous than this.

So overall, Mendes' efforts in SF are much better. His work as a director is great in SP as well, but the writing (how much say he had, I'm not sure) wasn't up to his level of expertise.

Forgive mistakes, I can't be bothered rereading that!

well put! -{

Gassy Man

I'm not sure about harsh realism. All of the Bond films are melodramatic adventures, some more comic and some more serious in tone than others. But they're not The Spy Who Came in From the Cold.

Skyfall worked because it pandered to audience needs -- sentimentality over logic primarily. If the audience feels something strongly and doesn't really have to think too much about it, it's simple enough to digest. And it helped that the movie is a retread of The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. People love to see the same thing only different.

Spectre, which is at least as well made as Skyfall, lacked the sentimental crutch and invoked many more Bond tropes. That's not what a mass audience wants. They want Dead Poets Society, a movie so stupid about the teaching profession that it caves in under its own vapidity. (The teacher inspires their individuality and rebellion by telling them exactly what to do.) The Pride of Miss Jean Brodie, which is the same movie but without the sap and with the ending it deserves, will always be less popular, even though it stays truer to its themes and internal logic.

zaphod99

Number24 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

IMO Mendes was attempting with SF to do something that has never worked well with me in Bond movies- a sense of harsh realism. To do that correctly, one must first have a serious sense of real world REALISM that most film-makers (and indeed most PEOPLE in general) do not possess. With SP he seemed to fall back on reliable (and welcomed by ME) Bond tropes & expectations...
In the end, I feel that SP was the greater success because a competent (but not incredibly innovative) film-maker (like Mendes) needs to follow pattern, not egotistically attempt to break it.

Thoughts?

I really don't know what you mean by 'harsh realism' in SP. Can you explain?

Yes I don't get it either. For me it was detached from any contact with realism, even by the standards of a Bond film. It was for me 'Bond by numbers' and had nothing of its own to contribute except weak pastiche of its own tropes.

chrisisall

Number24 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

IMO Mendes was attempting with SF to do something that has never worked well with me in Bond movies- a sense of harsh realism. To do that correctly, one must first have a serious sense of real world REALISM that most film-makers (and indeed most PEOPLE in general) do not possess. With SP he seemed to fall back on reliable (and welcomed by ME) Bond tropes & expectations...
In the end, I feel that SP was the greater success because a competent (but not incredibly innovative) film-maker (like Mendes) needs to follow pattern, not egotistically attempt to break it.

Thoughts?

I really don't know what you mean by 'harsh realism' in SP. Can you explain?

Please re-read- I said harsh realism in SF, not SP.
I also said it was an attempt. The actual workings of the plot were thin at best. And the message that you trust the very people that shot you & put you through the ringer once back simply because they are on your side is kind of pitiful. That the actors & director made this lazy writing seem to work is a testament to their skill and hard work. You can't make fantastical stuff like Bond with a realistic approach or the two end up sort of canceling each other (for ME, at least). SP let go of that approach, and just let it play out. Both SF & SP have pretty thin stories actually, but SP was aware of it & even had a bit of fun with it.

eric7064

I agree with MarcangeDraco. I think it's important for every Bond film to have a Bond "feel" to it. Something I think personally the Dalton films lost (Not bad movies).

I prefer a more realistic Bond movie if that's what you call it. SF and CR are two of my favorites. But also very much enjoy the old classic 60's Bond. And by no means is it easy to blend the two, but I do prefer SF to SP.

walther p99

As said by Marc SF definitely felt more like Ian Fleming novel then SP even if SP had more Fleming material. SF's "dark semi-realism" owes a lot to Christopher Nolan as Mendes said the Dark Knight influenced SF heavily. But beyond that SF just had a darker more tragic story that was new and mostly original and had never been seen in a Bond movie before. Whereas SP just played it straight and offered nothing really original or new to the franchise. As one of the main complaints against it is that its "by the numbers". There's so many Bond films that you really need to make yours stand out from the bunch and be different and original while maintaining the Bond feel, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Also SF had a lot of symbolism and subtext to it which was lacking in SP.

MarcAngeDraco

Gassy Man wrote:

Skyfall worked because it pandered to audience needs -- sentimentality over logic primarily. If the audience feels something strongly and doesn't really have to think too much about it, it's simple enough to digest. And it helped that the movie is a retread of The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. People love to see the same thing only different.

Spectre, which is at least as well made as Skyfall, lacked the sentimental crutch and invoked many more Bond tropes. That's not what a mass audience wants. They want Dead Poets Society, a movie so stupid about the teaching profession that it caves in under its own vapidity. (The teacher inspires their individuality and rebellion by telling them exactly what to do.) The Pride of Miss Jean Brodie, which is the same movie but without the sap and with the ending it deserves, will always be less popular, even though it stays truer to its themes and internal logic.

I disagree with a lot of this. SF isn't illogical or sentimental - it's a well written film. SPECTRE isn't as well made as SF, and it's not the inclusion of more Bond 'tropes' that made it a lesser film. It's the fact that the film - at its core - isn't written well. The dots don't connect seamlessly, a half hearted, pointless 'twist' that doesn't go anywhere (which actually feels more sentimental than anything in SF in a daft attempt to make the stakes higher/personal/etc.), and a love story that develops like a bad driver trying to parallel park.

I know lots of people who aren't Bond fans as such, who wanted a return to a more classic Bond film because they weren't enjoying Craig's... But if the film isn't well written, then it doesn't matter whether it's a vacuous experiment or a traditional Bond film - people won't buy into it.

SilentSpy

I wonder about the use of "realism" when talking about a Bond film. I do hate it when people call them "male fantasy" movies. And I'm going to use the word "fantasy" because I can't think of another right now. But Bond movies always had a bit of fantasy or not normal day to day life about them. I think that's why I liked them growing up. Before the Dalton and Craig movies, people thought the most realistic movie was From Russia with Love.

To me, it's all about the mix. Leave out that fantasy element all for some kind of realism and you have a standard action movie. With of course some Bond like scenes thrown in.

chrisisall

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

SF isn't illogical or sentimental - it's a well written film.

Thanks for the funny.

Matt S

SilentSpy wrote:

I wonder about the use of "realism" when talking about a Bond film. I do hate it when people call them "male fantasy" movies. And I'm going to use the word "fantasy" because I can't think of another right now. But Bond movies always had a bit of fantasy or not normal day to day life about them. I think that's why I liked them growing up. Before the Dalton and Craig movies, people thought the most realistic movie was From Russia with Love.

To me, it's all about the mix. Leave out that fantasy element all for some kind of realism and you have a standard action movie. With of course some Bond like scenes thrown in.

I don't find any of Craig's films to be that realistic, for many different reasons. FRWL is still far more realistic than anything Craig has made and I would appreciate a return to that realism.

Gassy Man

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Skyfall worked because it pandered to audience needs -- sentimentality over logic primarily. If the audience feels something strongly and doesn't really have to think too much about it, it's simple enough to digest. And it helped that the movie is a retread of The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs. People love to see the same thing only different.

Spectre, which is at least as well made as Skyfall, lacked the sentimental crutch and invoked many more Bond tropes. That's not what a mass audience wants. They want Dead Poets Society, a movie so stupid about the teaching profession that it caves in under its own vapidity. (The teacher inspires their individuality and rebellion by telling them exactly what to do.) The Pride of Miss Jean Brodie, which is the same movie but without the sap and with the ending it deserves, will always be less popular, even though it stays truer to its themes and internal logic.

I disagree with a lot of this. SF isn't illogical or sentimental - it's a well written film. SPECTRE isn't as well made as SF, and it's not the inclusion of more Bond 'tropes' that made it a lesser film. It's the fact that the film - at its core - isn't written well. The dots don't connect seamlessly, a half hearted, pointless 'twist' that doesn't go anywhere (which actually feels more sentimental than anything in SF in a daft attempt to make the stakes higher/personal/etc.), and a love story that develops like a bad driver trying to parallel park.

I know lots of people who aren't Bond fans as such, who wanted a return to a more classic Bond film because they weren't enjoying Craig's... But if the film isn't well written, then it doesn't matter whether it's a vacuous experiment or a traditional Bond film - people won't buy into it.

That's fine. I still find it the Dead Poet's Society of Bond films, but it's entertaining.

Number24

chrisisall wrote:

Number24 wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

IMO Mendes was attempting with SF to do something that has never worked well with me in Bond movies- a sense of harsh realism. To do that correctly, one must first have a serious sense of real world REALISM that most film-makers (and indeed most PEOPLE in general) do not possess. With SP he seemed to fall back on reliable (and welcomed by ME) Bond tropes & expectations...
In the end, I feel that SP was the greater success because a competent (but not incredibly innovative) film-maker (like Mendes) needs to follow pattern, not egotistically attempt to break it.

Thoughts?

I really don't know what you mean by 'harsh realism' in SP. Can you explain?

Please re-read- I said harsh realism in SF, not SP.
I also said it was an attempt. The actual workings of the plot were thin at best. And the message that you trust the very people that shot you & put you through the ringer once back simply because they are on your side is kind of pitiful. That the actors & director made this lazy writing seem to work is a testament to their skill and hard work. You can't make fantastical stuff like Bond with a realistic approach or the two end up sort of canceling each other (for ME, at least). SP let go of that approach, and just let it play out. Both SF & SP have pretty thin stories actually, but SP was aware of it & even had a bit of fun with it.

Sorry, that was a typo. But the question is the same: what on earth do you mean by harsh realism in SF?