I just saw Spectre for the first time!

24

Comments

  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    lotus wrote:
    Obviously not a bond film fan

    Not a fan of how the new films are being written.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    My wife " Doesn't do Cinema" either, as she falls asleep
    ( and doesn't like it when I leave her there ) ;)
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • broadshoulderbroadshoulder Acton, London, UKPosts: 1,363MI6 Agent
    My wife " Doesn't do Cinema" either, as she falls asleep
    ( and doesn't like it when I leave her there ) ;)

    :)) :)) :)) :))

    Time to bow out Stag.
    1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    I actually nodded off when Bond & Swann got on the train!
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    The following article presents an interesting perspective. Of course not everyone will agree with it but I subscribe to some of its main points.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109?page=3

    I just want Bond to work but sadly for me he isn't.
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,057Chief of Staff
    I do see where that article is coming from, and like you agree with some of its points- but am confident that this is just a phase in the series which it will recover from, and that we'll have stand-alone adventures back soon.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    SP answered questions that nobody was asking. QOS brought up the question of the Quantum organisation, but it didn't emphasise the question enough. And then SF forgot about it. They did a horrible job linking the films. The connections in SP to the previous films feel too much like an afterthought. The films don't work together well at all. That said, I think SP is the most enjoyable Bond film since LTK. The past 8 films have all had big problems.
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    Barbel wrote:
    I do see where that article is coming from, and like you agree with some of its points- but am confident that this is just a phase in the series which it will recover from, and that we'll have stand-alone adventures back soon.

    I do hope so. IMO all Craig needs is a really good story.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    stag wrote:
    Barbel wrote:
    I do see where that article is coming from, and like you agree with some of its points- but am confident that this is just a phase in the series which it will recover from, and that we'll have stand-alone adventures back soon.

    I do hope so. IMO all Craig needs is a really good story.
    Well they really haven't used much of Moonraker beyond the names...
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • DutchfingerDutchfinger Holland With LovePosts: 1,240MI6 Agent
    stag wrote:
    Frankly I wasn't expecting much so therefore wasn't all that disappointed. Being first & foremost a fan of the literary Bond (IFs Bond) I shall resign myself to reading & watching the vintage films - up to & including LTK.

    I think the problem some die hard literary Bond/ IFs Bond fans have is not fully being willing to accept that cinematic Bond in the end of the day is a entirely different character than what Fleming originally envisioned. Because the movies have gotten a life of their own. While, I do feel Ian Fleming character should always be cherished, and be viewed as the ultimate source of Bond. And I should also say I highly appreciate any small references in the movies back to Fleming. (Mentioning Bond's parents dying in a mountain climbing accident, him being an orphan, the "He disagreed with something that ate him" note in LTK, Bond and a girl being strapped behind a boat and rushed through the reef in FYEO etc etc..)

    But ultimately, even those vintage Bond movies from long ago eventually got a life of their own and went far far away from Fleming, it's not just the modern movies. You have to admit some classics like YOLT or TSWLM, have nothing to do with anything Fleming envisioned. But I consider them absolute fun masterpiece classics of cinematic Bond.

    The Craig movies to me actually brought back some nice Fleming elements too! If anything I feel they attempt to go a little bit deeper than the majority of the classic movies did. They go deeper into Bond's backstory regarding his ego, his first love Vesper, why he is the way that he is with women, his emotions, the blunt instrument aspect instead of being a super hero. It's all very Fleming, but in a "cinematic" modern Bond way. And it's actually explained why Moneypenny and Bond have the chemistry between them, and we are only left to assume something happened in Macau, but we're not shown... (Admittedly that last one is not something Fleming, but it does at least attempt to go deeper into a backstory between those two characters ) So I'm sometimes confused into reading people saying the modern movies just don't go so deep anymore. While they are honestly a lot more three dimensional in these ways than the older movies ever were.
    Better known as DutchBondFan on YouTube. My 007 movie reviews: Recapping 007
    YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I can agree with that, I'd say I'm a fairly traditional fan but love the Craig films. CR is
    one of my all time favourites. I didn't like QOS, too jumpy editing and I thought, as
    Alan Partridge might say " They were getting Bond wrong !" :))
    Although I listened to much smarter people than me, that Craig was very close in
    spirit ( if not discription ) to the Bond of the books.
    So I read the books again, and realised that the other members had been right and I
    was wrong ! ( I know that's had to believe ........ Me being wrong ? ) :D
    Craig ( IMHO) is playing Bond as Fleming wrote him, the Bond of the Books was not
    Roger Moore. He was a much darker character, with many flaws, and inner turmoil
    Who drank and smoked too much, and used women for his pleasure. To be honest
    Bond is a bit if a Bast*rd, he has to be to survive.
    All the producers have done is give him a contemporary twist, and as you point out
    expand his back story a little.
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    There are so many Bond films now I kind of feel blessed. A couple of awesome Bonds (for ME) every few years and I am a very happy fan! SP exceeded my expectations. That's all I wanted. MI: Rogue Nation exceeded my expectations as well, and I've seen it twice compared to seven times for SP.
    Dan was let loose in SP to BE Bond. For all the writing misgivings, all the plot criticism, I loved it because of DAN. Like I love LTK because of TIM. Or how I love DN because of SEAN.
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • LoeffelholzLoeffelholz The United States, With LovePosts: 8,988Quartermasters
    I've now seen SP six times; four in the cinema and now twice on Blu-ray. There is no denying its flaws, which are more than a couple, IMO. For me, it's a bit like Craig's OP---in that fans of Sir Roger really enjoy the good bits of OP, and manage to overlook its issues (which in OP's case are admittedly more fleeting than the broader structural and storytelling challenges of SP)...but I do enjoy the good parts of it so very much that it's still easily lifted over the pre-Craig Bonds of the decade prior to his donning the tux. I don't think Craig has ever turned in an inferior or 'lacking' performance as Bond, but this one is probably on a par with QoS as far as being in the lower tier of Craig offerings beneath CR and SF, due to issues unrelated to Craig's work.
    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
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,057Chief of Staff
    I think the problem some die hard literary Bond/ IFs Bond fans have is not fully being willing to accept that cinematic Bond in the end of the day is a entirely different character than what Fleming originally envisioned..

    I have to disagree with you there, DF: "entirely different"?

    Cinematic James Bond is a secret agent (007) for the UK government, who works for a boss known as M who has a secretary called Moneypenny and a right-hand man called Bill Tanner. He's frequently sent on missions abroad where he combats rich, powerful villains and encounters beautiful women with whom he has romantic attachments (some more serious than others, though the ladies he is inclined to marry tend to have short lifespans). Often he meets US agent Felix Leiter in the course of his missions, the two's interests being similar, and they become close friends.
    He has Scottish roots and his parents, Andrew and Monique Bond, died in a climbing accident while he was young and he was looked after by his aunt Charmain Bond spending some time in Kitzbuhel with a man called Hannes Oberhauser.
    His job often involves killing people (his weapon of choice is a Walther PPK which on M's orders was issued to him by Major Boothroyd to replace his beloved Beretta), indeed he is licenced to do so, and he broods on this often using alcohol to excess (he has a certain recipe for vodka martini which has become rather well known). He likes to gamble, and frequently does so both in the line of duty and for relaxation. He enjoys skiing and underwater swimming.
    etc etc

    As I said, this is cinematic Bond but every detail above is from Fleming and can be found in the movies. Certainly there are differences (many of which are either simplifications or updatings) but the similarities speak for themselves.
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    stag wrote:
    Frankly I wasn't expecting much so therefore wasn't all that disappointed. Being first & foremost a fan of the literary Bond (IFs Bond) I shall resign myself to reading & watching the vintage films - up to & including LTK.

    I think the problem some die hard literary Bond/ IFs Bond fans have is not fully being willing to accept that cinematic Bond in the end of the day is a entirely different character than what Fleming originally envisioned. Because the movies have gotten a life of their own. While, I do feel Ian Fleming character should always be cherished, and be viewed as the ultimate source of Bond. And I should also say I highly appreciate any small references in the movies back to Fleming. (Mentioning Bond's parents dying in a mountain climbing accident, him being an orphan, the "He disagreed with something that ate him" note in LTK, Bond and a girl being strapped behind a boat and rushed through the reef in FYEO etc etc..)

    But ultimately, even those vintage Bond movies from long ago eventually got a life of their own and went far far away from Fleming, it's not just the modern movies. You have to admit some classics like YOLT or TSWLM, have nothing to do with anything Fleming envisioned. But I consider them absolute fun masterpiece classics of cinematic Bond.

    The Craig movies to me actually brought back some nice Fleming elements too! If anything I feel they attempt to go a little bit deeper than the majority of the classic movies did. They go deeper into Bond's backstory regarding his ego, his first love Vesper, why he is the way that he is with women, his emotions, the blunt instrument aspect instead of being a super hero. It's all very Fleming, but in a "cinematic" modern Bond way. And it's actually explained why Moneypenny and Bond have the chemistry between them, and we are only left to assume something happened in Macau, but we're not shown... (Admittedly that last one is not something Fleming, but it does at least attempt to go deeper into a backstory between those two characters ) So I'm sometimes confused into reading people saying the modern movies just don't go so deep anymore. While they are honestly a lot more three dimensional in these ways than the older movies ever were.

    I completely disagree. It has nothing to do with an unwilligness to accept the cinematic Bond at all & to suggest otherwise is frankly so wide of the mark as to be unworthy of further comment. I made it quite clear why I hold my point of view & that I want James Bond to have better material to work with.
  • Lady RoseLady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent
    stag wrote:
    BTW someone mentioned why it took me five months to watch Spectre. I pointed this out elsewhere. The fact is I don't do Cinemas. I bought the DVD upon it's release.

    Unless there is a seismic shift away from what has become the pattern for the films It will be the last new Bond film I will watch.

    I'm with you stag.

    I only saw Spectre when it was released on DVD and now I've seen it 3 times. That's why I haven't popped into the Spectre thread until now.

    I just don't enjoy the cinema anymore. There is such a short time now between cinema and DVD release that I can wait.
  • zaphod99zaphod99 Posts: 1,415MI6 Agent
    I've now seen SP six times; four in the cinema and now twice on Blu-ray. There is no denying its flaws, which are more than a couple, IMO. For me, it's a bit like Craig's OP---in that fans of Sir Roger really enjoy the good bits of OP, and manage to overlook its issues (which in OP's case are admittedly more fleeting than the broader structural and storytelling challenges of SP)...but I do enjoy the good parts of it so very much that it's still easily lifted over the pre-Craig Bonds of the decade prior to his donning the tux. I don't think Craig has ever turned in an inferior or 'lacking' performance as Bond, but this one is probably on a par with QoS as far as being in the lower tier of Craig offerings beneath CR and SF, due to issues unrelated to Craig's work.

    I have my 'issues' with Daniel as Bond, but agree that he is not the problem with Spectre. I think it asks a lot of us to overlook some of its worst flaws. For me it's a very sloppy overly long offering with some good elements, but disappointing overall. Not terrible, just disappointing.
    Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
  • lotuslotus englandPosts: 292MI6 Agent
    Spectre is a perfect bond film and Dan is a perfect bond
  • HowardBHowardB USAPosts: 2,737MI6 Agent
    edited March 2016
    I've seen SPECTRE twice, both times in a proper theater. To be perfectly honest, it's a different experience seeing a Bond film (or that type of film) in a proper theater. I like SPECTRE, my only problem with it is that the film tries too hard to be all things to all Bond fans...sort of a Bond's greatest hits roled into one Bond film. In some ways, the parts work better than the whole. Fortunately there are lots of good parts. Here's my snarky comment (anyone who has not seen SPECTRE in a theater, please do not take this personally I can't resist :))For those "Bond Fans" who are physically able, sit your butt down in a proper theater and see the film, then we'll talk> Sorry, couldn't help myself -{ :x .
  • chrisisallchrisisall Western Mass, USAPosts: 9,061MI6 Agent
    The ONE thing I appreciate MOST in SPECTRE is that Dan is so realistically HUMAN in it. No Daredevil acrobatics, no impossibly low-level 'chute openings, no 200-foot falls after being SHOT.... :))
    Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool.
    #1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    HowardB wrote:
    I've seen SPECTRE twice, both times in a proper theater. To be perfectly honest, it's a different experience seeing a Bond film (or that type of film) in a proper theater. I like SPECTRE, my only problem with it is that the film tries too hard to be all things to all Bond fans...sort of a Bond's greatest hits roled into one Bond film. In some ways, the parts work better than the whole. Fortunately there are lots of good parts. Here's my snarky comment (anyone who has not seen SPECTRE in a theater, please do not take this personally I can't resist :))For those "Bond Fans" who are physically able, sit your butt down in a proper theater and see the film, then we'll talk> Sorry, couldn't help myself -{ :x .

    "Bond fans"?

    I for one will not be overwhelmed by the noise & big screen. They would do nothing to detract from what is a poorly written film. That said I intend to watch Spectre again just to make sure my initial opinion was right.
  • Lady RoseLady Rose London,UKPosts: 2,667MI6 Agent
    HowardB wrote:
    Here's my snarky comment (anyone who has not seen SPECTRE in a theater, please do not take this personally I can't resist :))For those "Bond Fans" who are physically able, sit your butt down in a proper theater and see the film, then we'll talk> Sorry, couldn't help myself -{ :x .

    The thing is, I know Bond is better in a cinema than at home but cinema is a tedious experience these days. I shall hand my Bond head in shame. :))
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    Lady Rose wrote:
    HowardB wrote:
    Here's my snarky comment (anyone who has not seen SPECTRE in a theater, please do not take this personally I can't resist :))For those "Bond Fans" who are physically able, sit your butt down in a proper theater and see the film, then we'll talk> Sorry, couldn't help myself -{ :x .

    The thing is, I know Bond is better in a cinema than at home.

    Very true however you can't paper over the cracks with noise & spectacle. What should have been a great film isn't. That's my opinion.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I love watching Bond on the big screen. Getting immediate feedback from an audience of
    Non Bond fans, the laughs, the gasps, the applause. :) ( That's just me taking my seat ) ;)
    I think it's the difference from watching your team play at a stadium, as opposed to watching it
    at home on TV.
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    I love watching Bond on the big screen. Getting immediate feedback from an audience of
    Non Bond fans, the laughs, the gasps, the applause. :) ( That's just me taking my seat ) ;)
    I think it's the difference from watching your team play at a stadium, as opposed to watching it
    at home on TV.

    Yes I can fully appreciate that. Howver IMHO a film should be able to stand on it's own two feet regardless of venue. GF, Dr No, FRWL etc etc aren't devalued when shown on TV.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I watch them whenever their on Telly ( FYEO yesterday) I feel it's my duty as a fan, but I too
    Don't go to the cinema too often these days, simply because there are so many easier options.
    Although I do make the exception for Bond, I have to see it in its natural habitat :)
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • broadshoulderbroadshoulder Acton, London, UKPosts: 1,363MI6 Agent
    edited March 2016
    stag wrote:
    I love watching Bond on the big screen. Getting immediate feedback from an audience of
    Non Bond fans, the laughs, the gasps, the applause. :) ( That's just me taking my seat ) ;)
    I think it's the difference from watching your team play at a stadium, as opposed to watching it
    at home on TV.

    Yes I can fully appreciate that. Howver IMHO a film should be able to stand on it's own two feet regardless of venue. GF, Dr No, FRWL etc etc aren't devalued when shown on TV.

    Those films are **** fifty years old...and they come from the novels
    1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    stag wrote:
    I love watching Bond on the big screen. Getting immediate feedback from an audience of
    Non Bond fans, the laughs, the gasps, the applause. :) ( That's just me taking my seat ) ;)
    I think it's the difference from watching your team play at a stadium, as opposed to watching it
    at home on TV.

    Yes I can fully appreciate that. Howver IMHO a film should be able to stand on it's own two feet regardless of venue. GF, Dr No, FRWL etc etc aren't devalued when shown on TV.

    Those films are **** fifty years old...and they come from the novels

    And?
  • zaphod99zaphod99 Posts: 1,415MI6 Agent
    lotus wrote:
    Spectre is a perfect bond film and Dan is a perfect bond

    Glad that's settled then, debate over. I'm sure there are some thorny Geopolitical issues that could do with your Rapier like input to settle once and for all. :007)
    Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    HowardB wrote:
    I've seen SPECTRE twice, both times in a proper theater. To be perfectly honest, it's a different experience seeing a Bond film (or that type of film) in a proper theater. I like SPECTRE, my only problem with it is that the film tries too hard to be all things to all Bond fans...sort of a Bond's greatest hits roled into one Bond film. In some ways, the parts work better than the whole. Fortunately there are lots of good parts. Here's my snarky comment (anyone who has not seen SPECTRE in a theater, please do not take this personally I can't resist :))For those "Bond Fans" who are physically able, sit your butt down in a proper theater and see the film, then we'll talk> Sorry, couldn't help myself -{ :x .

    By proper theatre, do you mean a place with a stage? :D
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
Sign In or Register to comment.