SP is not a "by the numbers" bond film at all
Jarvio
EnglandPosts: 4,241MI6 Agent
I hear many people saying that SP is the most "by the numbers" bond film DC has done. To me, this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I think it might be the least by the numbers bond film, out of the entire series.
To me, a "by the numbers" bond film is basically:
- The feel of what I like to call an "episodic romp", which is basically how I feel about the first 15 bond films
- Minimum level of personal stuff
- Little character development for the supporting characters like Q, M, Moneypenny
- Bond just sent on missions, getting with the girl at the end
- Little focus on MI6 itself
So let's look at SP...
FULL of personal storylines - bond's parents references, the blofeld foster brother storyline. Bond going rogue. Big role for M, nineyes plot. Returning character commiting suicide and his daughter getting with bond. Bond retiring at the end. There is absolutely bugger all "by the numbers" about SP, a remark that I have never understood.
To me, none of the bond films have been "by the numbers" since LTK. Although LTK still felt episodic like the rest somehow.
The Brosnan era, on a whole, were almost by the numbers, although from this point onwards, M had a big role - her introduction in GE, the admiral in TND telling her she didn't have the balls for the job, her big role in TWINE - from the Brosnan era onwards there seems to have been big character development for M, when prior to this, it was bond only. Having said this though, the Brosnan era still maintained an "episodic romp" format to some extent. But the DC films did not, and magnified the character-driven stuff introduced in the Brosnan era by 10x, and from that point on, the bond films were now psychological, character-driven thrillers, rather than the episodic romp feel that bond had been since 1962.
So yeah, none of the DC bond films were "by the numbers" at all, and that includes SP, and I'd even go as far to say that SP is the least by the numbers bond film of them. Anyone agree?
To me, a "by the numbers" bond film is basically:
- The feel of what I like to call an "episodic romp", which is basically how I feel about the first 15 bond films
- Minimum level of personal stuff
- Little character development for the supporting characters like Q, M, Moneypenny
- Bond just sent on missions, getting with the girl at the end
- Little focus on MI6 itself
So let's look at SP...
FULL of personal storylines - bond's parents references, the blofeld foster brother storyline. Bond going rogue. Big role for M, nineyes plot. Returning character commiting suicide and his daughter getting with bond. Bond retiring at the end. There is absolutely bugger all "by the numbers" about SP, a remark that I have never understood.
To me, none of the bond films have been "by the numbers" since LTK. Although LTK still felt episodic like the rest somehow.
The Brosnan era, on a whole, were almost by the numbers, although from this point onwards, M had a big role - her introduction in GE, the admiral in TND telling her she didn't have the balls for the job, her big role in TWINE - from the Brosnan era onwards there seems to have been big character development for M, when prior to this, it was bond only. Having said this though, the Brosnan era still maintained an "episodic romp" format to some extent. But the DC films did not, and magnified the character-driven stuff introduced in the Brosnan era by 10x, and from that point on, the bond films were now psychological, character-driven thrillers, rather than the episodic romp feel that bond had been since 1962.
So yeah, none of the DC bond films were "by the numbers" at all, and that includes SP, and I'd even go as far to say that SP is the least by the numbers bond film of them. Anyone agree?
1 - LALD, 2 - AVTAK, 3 - LTK, 4 - OP, 5 - NTTD, 6 - FYEO, 7 - SF, 8 - DN, 9 - DAF, 10 - TSWLM, 11 - OHMSS, 12 - TMWTGG, 13 - GE, 14 - MR, 15 - TLD, 16 - YOLT, 17 - GF, 18 - DAD, 19 - TWINE, 20 - SP, 21 - TND, 22 - FRWL, 23 - TB, 24 - CR, 25 - QOS
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Comments
Everyone coming together in the final climax (not to mention everyone having risked their jobs for Bond), Q helping out Bond in the field (even though he hates travelling)...the list goes on.
That's why I love SPECTRE so much.
it may just be the return of elements like the gadget-ty car chase, the indestructible henchman, and the villains HQ
but as others have argued these elements are all underdeveloped, and the aspects you are pointing out are all more important to the completed film
LTK may seem episodic to you because it is the last film made that still involved the original generation of filmmakers
of the 4 Brosnans TND and DAD both recycled a lot of that epic swashbuckling stuff from the Gilbert films in particular, GE and tWiNE were more original
but all four of them involved unformulaic plottwists and personal angles which would have never have appeared in the original series of movies
Absolutely.
The Scooby Gang in SPECTRE is fantastic. I love every second of screen time of Q, MP and M, even Tanner
http://apbateman.com
I respectfully disagree, the nine-eyes plot and heavy MI6 focus is very prominent too.
Taking out the Blofeld brothers plot would certainly make it more standard, but you could say the same thing about the other 3 DC films in terms of taking out certain elements of them too. And even with that, nine-eyes remains.
I'm not sure what the most 'standard' Craig bond film is. Maybe QOS, but it is a very hard choice, because none of them are even close.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
I think CR is probably Dc's most standard film, lots of locations it's relatively faithful to the book, we have gadgets, dinner suits, a casino a train and an Aston Martin. OK the gunbarrel and bond theme aside.
The problem with Spectre is that you simply can't think about it too much or else you get annoyed with the amount of questions you end up with, it's only the score that makes most action scenes underwhelming. Given that Spectre was mendes vision if Bond he missed the mark on a few things. He should have stopped with sf inmho. For me there is still much to enjoy with Spectre and that's what I prefer to think about. The bad bits such as the brother thing, the Rome car chase ruined by the phonecall, bad use of locations, plot holes I ignore as best I can and concentrate on the bits I like such as Bonds interaction with Q and tanner, seeing bonds flat, that db10, hinx, train fight, the scenes in l'americain, the scene with Lucia set to Cum Dederit etc there's lots to love.
It's just the way it is and TBH, I don't mind it. All of the Bond films are excellent in some way and Craig's era is no exception.
SPECTRE is an excellent Bond movie and good enough to even stand on its own as a good movie.
There are some people here who stick to one or two aspects and leech off of those to b*tch and moan about the movie.
Then again, its their opinion and I'm not the boss of you, so...
IMHO, the one that comes closest to that description is
(and that isn't a criticism of it).
"Variety is the spice of life"* and keeps things a bit fresh and interesting. Imagine how boring it would be if we didn't have people b*tching and moaning about the films.
*(except if you're married and stuff. I think I covered all the bases.)
This one's different.
[Which vastly improved Spy, IMO. Damn...that poster is excellent (7 people, 6 girls and 7 is 007 in the middle). That tears it, I'm watching MR tonight.]
TP, I'm guessing you're the guy that commented "Different, Different, Different." :007)
All the difference in the world.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
That's what a friend of mine said to me when he first saw it, and it made him stop caring about what happened. It just made Blofeld seem a whole lot less menacing, and the stakes were lowered considerably when we find out the reason.
It wasn't SPECTRE's style after Quantum became defunct. Why would they have people who could betray them when they could take matters into their own hands?
Didn't Greene give chapter and verse on Quantum to Bond? Perhaps Quantum was 'rolled up'?
He did indeed, which doesn't explain Mr whites involvement with Spectre. Or Blofelds involvement in quantum And Blofeld recalling meeting madeleine Swann as a child? in any event the demise of Quantum was never explained, what did they do just change the corporate name and order some new rings and headed letter paper?
Yep. And not only was the revenge thing already done in SF, it was ten times better too. Silva actually had good reasoning, unlike Blofeld.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby