|
And More posted:
Because terrorist bombings are how they were spurring the 9 nations to consolidate their intelligence that Blofeld was funding and leeching info from. They were meeting in that room to hand over a bomb that was going to be planted at a stadium and it got hit as Bond was exchanging fire with the goons. The bomb and its target were mentioned in the conversation that Bond was using his laser to listen to, and later with M Bond states that blowing the bomb up there was better than its original target.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
bullet3 posted:Wow this movie really, really sucks. If not for Die Another Day, this would probably be the worst bond movie since before Goldeneye. I'm quoting this because i feel the same way. If any of you liked Waltz as Blofeld i would like to know why? I think he is a fine actor but in this film i never feel he is a menacing, genius, supervillain. His dialogue is flat and his portrayal doesn't really fit a Bond villain at all. Also where is the cool nickname for Bautista? Trainfight was good but it wasn't clever like most bond fights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
chilihead posted:I'm quoting this because i feel the same way. If any of you liked Waltz as Blofeld i would like to know why? I think he is a fine actor but in this film i never feel he is a menacing, genius, supervillain. His dialogue is flat and his portrayal doesn't really fit a Bond villain at all. Also where is the cool nickname for Bautista? Trainfight was good but it wasn't clever like most bond fights. The Batista fight was very clearly meant to be very similar to the train fight in From Russia With Love which was also a brutal, knock down, drag out battle with a superior foe. Also it's one of the best scenes in Bond movie history. Also I legit LOVED the portrayal of Blofeld. He was some rear end in a top hat who Bond knew who obsessed over him and attempted to destroy soley because he had the audacity to be attached to his father, a dude who helped him deal with his parents deaths. Blofeld's a pathetic jackass and that's why the ending works. Bond realizes that killing him has no purpose. Bond has someone who understands him and will care and love him for who he is. Blofeld has absolutely nothing. His organization is in shambles, his plan is destroyed, his life's purpose to destroy Bond is laid to nothing and he's left broken and alone with no one to care for him. Bond has the ultimate victory in all his films over him. Bond's journey was from a broken man mourning his lost love, to a soulless killer who couldn't give a poo poo about anyone and finally to someone who can let someone in again and move on from being a weapon. I apologize if my points are stupid, I'm not usually one for looking at deeper meanings in films so if I'm way off please correct me, but the entire film's theme seems to be one of Bond learning to move on and be more than a 00 agent. Blofeld is that relic of what was keeping him back and what was tormenting him. I feel like films tend to turn these villains who have these long, intricate schemes over small slights into masters of villainy and evil geniuses. This film turns and says "Nah, this guy's a tremendous loon who's obsessed over a moronic grudge" The more I think about it the more I totally adore this movie and, despite crowbarring Blofeld in a bit, it works absolutely perfectly as the endcap to Craig's tenure. OldTennisCourt fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Just got back from this. It could have used some tightening up, but overall a good Bond film. Although, the obviousness of the location subtitles reminded me of the OSS 117 films. Do we really need "LONDON" over a shot of Big Ben? And yeah, the opening song kind of sucks. I liked how it had more of a sense of humor since that's kind of been absent for the last few films. The whole "What should we do now?" cutting to Bond and Snow making out was great. And on one level the callbacks could be considered derivative, but some were clever. Still, I'm buying this on Blu-Ray if just to study the lighting. This rivals Skyfall for best looking Bond film. (Not that I don't enjoy seeing Christoph Waltz as a villain, he's really getting typecast at this point) Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Christoph Waltz and Andrew Scott desperately need to break their typecasting and play a different kind of role. Both actors totally phoned it in and from the moment you met them you knew exactly what kind of character they were going to be. Spectre was okay. Casino Royale still reigns supreme in every way but I actually liked Spectre more than Skyfall because the drama between Silva and M never felt real so the plot didn't grab me like I think it wanted to. Meanwhile, Spectre's biggest problem is that once you stop to think about things, nothing felt like it mattered and basically once they leave the train everything starts to fall apart. Everything before that was generally good with some small hiccups here and there but basically from the moment Bond and Swann respond to killing a guy by loving (I know it's a Bond film but still....) the characters and story just stopped being coherent. Blofeld was such a goddamn disappointment, the literal Austin Powers twist was hilarious, and retroactively making him responsible for everything that happened in the previous three films required much better writing and a much better performance than we got. If Blofeld had been the hyper-competent genius he needed to be to make the revelation that he was behind everything all along seem legitimate then maybe it would have worked but, as it is, he hosed up constantly, his organization had basically no presence other than the one meeting of the Legion of Doom, and his schemes were terrible even for a Bond villain (THE Bond villain) so the idea that he was secretly masterminding everything was just laughable. Speaking of which, what was the point of the torture scene with its long drawn out exposition of how it was going to destroy James' brain functions (e.g. balance, face memory, and ultimately sight) if he got drilled twice and faced no repercussions for it? The sight of the drill spinning got the audience reaction I think the creators were hoping for in my showing, so if Swann had used the watch four minutes earlier we could have cut down on some of the bloat and not opened questions about how the machine did absolutely nothing to impair James. The fact that Swann waited until James got penetrated before actually reacting to it properly was also kind of weird. I mean, this is the guy she loves (lol) and she wasn't tied down so she waited until he got drilled a bit before realizing that oh poo poo that's actually bad for him. I'm also concerned about how the heavily serialized nature of Craig's films might have ramifications for the series and especially the next Bond. Craig's films take him from his initiation as a 00 agent to his ostensible retirement with Swann at the end of Spectre. As someone said earlier in the thread, it's difficult to go back to the old Bond formula for the next film if Craig comes back by either ignoring what happened in Spectre or killing Swann to bring things back to the status quo. But whenever we get a new Bond, they have a decision to make: they either maintain a serialized format where each film is basically a direct sequel to the previous one and they try to do like a Doctor Who thing where we now see the full career of each Bond, which will be difficult to do without feeling like they're retreading old ground, or they don't, which would probably be for the best but it also represents a step down in terms of ambition. Making characters like Blofeld so intimately intertwined with Bond's backstory also presents a problem when we get a new Bond. Do we scrap Waltz as Blofeld too? Blofeld changed actors all the time in the old films so it's not a new phenomenon but they have to scrap the origin story as well unless they do the worst thing possible and try to maintain Craig's storyline with a new Bond, which would be dumb. In It For The Tank fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Nov 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
At this point the only clean solution is to just say "This is it, Spectre is the last Bond film there ever will be" and that surely won't be happening. If I could propose a radical solution, one that would probably doom the franchise, you could do another hard reboot with the next actor, and bring the setting back to the Cold War. You wouldn't have to do a new origin story, you could just establish that Bond is a 00 agent doing his thing, as if you were picking up the franchise directly where Moore left it. Or even where Connery left it, if you want to go that far back. But yeah, I can't imagine the franchise surviving as a period piece. It could be fun as a James Bond TV series, though, like Sherlock, but inverted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
DStecks posted:At this point the only clean solution is to just say "This is it, Spectre is the last Bond film there ever will be" and that surely won't be happening. They rebooted in one already and this reminds of the original plan of On her Majesties Secret Service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
I initially thought this movie was  , but I like it more when I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:That's exactly why I said not to make this your first Bond movie To be perfectly honest, my interest in seeing any other Bond film remains at the same point as I did walking into this one. Aside from the one with Eva Green, because Eva Green is impossibly attractive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
That one is actually one of, if not the best Bond movie. So it's a good place to start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
The brain drill is a tremendously dark joke; it's a recreation of the laser scene from Goldfinger, where Bond was threatened with castration, but instead of cutting off his ability to have sex it's cutting off his ability to have healthy relationships with women. And it happens. And Bond doesn't change at all. Ba-dum tish!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:That one is actually one of, if not the best Bond movie. So it's a good place to start. It (Casino Royale) is also probably the best place to start narratively, since it's the first film in the current/modern continuity and is the first real adaptation of the character's origin story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
You could arguable watch The Brosnan Bonds after Casino Royale & Quantum and then go to Skyfall. The only thing is you'd have to jump past the 'Brosnan meets M' scene in Goldeneye and then fast forward through any interaction between Bond & Moneypenny until Skyfall. I guess this would be the Phantom Bond edit [Craig/Brosnan years].
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
Just saw the movie today. When it was revealed that Bond and Blofeld are brothers, the first thing that came to mind was, they copied that plot line from Austin Power in Goldmember
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
symphoniccacophony posted:Just saw the movie today. When it was revealed that Bond and Blofeld are brothers, the first thing that came to mind was, they copied that plot line from Austin Power in Goldmember A lot of Spectre feels like an Austin Powers movie played totally straight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Immortan posted:I initially thought this movie was I'm basically more or less satisfied with the movie up until the end of the Morocco sequence, because that's totally the point at which the earlier Bond films would have ended (he blows up the villain's base and has the girl right next to him) but everything after that feels tacked on. I think my main issue with Waltz is that you expect him to be the definitive Blofeld but there are too many callbacks to the old versions for it to happen. The cat was done tastefully however.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:A lot of Spectre feels like an Austin Powers movie played totally straight. So a James Bond movie, then? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
So what was achieved at the end? Spectre's still around, their leader will be incarcerated for a few minutes (I think they could probably pull enough strings to get him off. They operate almost the entire global human trafficking and pharmaceutical industries), they 'eradicated' a computer program but the vote still passed so it's not like the issue's resolved in any way. I mean I liked the film but literally nothing happened except Bond managed to break the will of a strong woman and turn her into a new fuckjar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:They operate almost the entire global human trafficking Oh gently caress, I forgot about that. That was a bit dark for a Bond movie to deal with, even in passing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
This movie was really, really bad. The first shot is the best in the whole film and it all goes down from there. The most memorable dialogue was between Bond and a mouse . The action scenes were mediocre at best and the bad guys were comically stale. Everything was heavy handed, all leading to an ending that makes Bond look like an chump and a wuss. By the end of the film, nothing has changed. This franchise needs to be put out to pasture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Jesus Rocket posted:The first shot is the best in the whole film and it all goes down from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:When I realised they were going for a cool long take my interest was piqued, but they did absolutely nothing with it. They could have filmed it like any other scene and nothing would have been gained or lost. It was also one of the simplest shots in the whole film in terms of poo poo that needed to be done by the actors. I agree that they didn't do anything with it. It just looked nice visually. It was simple in terms of what needed to be done by the star actors, but it was impressive in terms of what all the extras had to do. Relating it the end of the movie: Why is Bond okay with killing the room full of guys at the start (or at many other points in the movie) but backs away from killing the sociopath responsible for massive human trafficking, killing his own and essentially Bond's father as well as everyone else Bond has cared about? Oh yeah, it's because of some lame foreshadowing line someone else said and because he wanted to go kiss his new girlfriend, whom I'm sure he cares about as much as the women at the start of the film who was completely forgotten about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
I really enjoyed Casino Royale and even Skyfall (I particularly liked the theory that M may have lived through that one). This movie tickled me a bit with the opening text "The Dead are Alive". The opening sequence was strong, but after that it makes no sense at all. It's really bad, and I would be genuinely more satisfied with the franchise having ended at Skyfall and this movie never existing. Watching this movie made me feel like it was made by combining a lot of disparate "we should put that in" moments, and what got left out was rather essential plot and character development connecting those things and telling us why we should care. Some of those things are forgivable if campy James Bond action sequences (A boat vs a helicopter! A plane vs a car!). But some make no sense at all: a contradictory consequence-free torture scene, a similarly irrelevant "You're off the case!" dialog that affects nothing, the fortress of doom exploding with a single gunshot. Some of the holes and contrivances are a bit much even for James Bond - I was genuinely unsure if the film was telling us Dr Evil was secretly on his side or just giving a long villain's exposition. When Bond attends the board meeting of the legion of doom, was he supposed to escape? Perhaps worse is there's an awful lot of characters just stating what we're supposed to think about the emotions involved rather than showing it in any meaningful - or even plausible - way. Dr Evil telling us that this was the only woman bond could love, the girl telling us that's just the way you are James, and so on. I couldn't understand anyone's motivations for anything. It felt like a whole lot of Action Scene -> "and then this happens".
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:a contradictory consequence-free torture scene Holy gently caress I forgot all about this. The fact that it's so horrible and so completely and utterly forgotten is absolutely unforgivable writing. At the time I thought the ending of the film would hinge on what was done in that scene and it's literally not mentioned again. Why was Bond's plan to wait at a train station until Spectre invited him to their headquarters, and why did Spectre simultaneously want to bring him there and kill him en route? It's like they wanted the classic 'treat the hero like a guest while he's actually a prisoner' scene but couldn't think of a way to work it into the story, so they just had it happen for no reason at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I'm still trying to figure out how Bond was supposed to lose his memory by getting drilled in the neck. I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty sure that machine was off it's mark Oh, and the movie blew a magnificent chance for Ralph Fiennes to say "oval office". Just absolutely blew it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
If I remember the torture scene he says when it hits it correctly he will loose the memory buy its just pain until he does so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:Oh, and the movie blew a magnificent chance for Ralph Fiennes to say "oval office". Just absolutely blew it. Or just not say anything, keeping it implied.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:Or just not say anything, keeping it implied. This. My packed screening burst with laughter at that line, which died immediately when he corrected it for the kids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
I got the impression that's what it stood for right from the beginning, with Bond insisting on calling him C even though it wasn't a designated codename.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
I think it's rather absurd to start calling for the end of the franchise after this, even if you absolutely hated it. Skyfall was great and well received, it isn't like there's some streak of a half dozen awful films they're riding. Bond has been a hit and miss franchise for fifty years. We're due for Martin Campbell to come reboot the franchise with a new actor and style, again. Plucky Brit posted:Or just not say anything, keeping it implied. I think even after saying careless the joke is still implied, but yeah it would've been a lot more effective to just leave it hanging.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
If you seriously think this is somehow worse than Die Another Day you're out of your mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:If you seriously think this is somehow worse than Die Another Day you're out of your mind. Oh yeah, it's a bit crap next to Casino Royale and Skyfall, which makes it better than like 12 other Bond films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I got the impression that's what it stood for right from the beginning, with Bond insisting on calling him C even though it wasn't a designated codename. C is actually the designation of the real life head of mi6. Would love for them to do a reboot set in the the 70s/80s. Spectre is going to make a shitload of money no matter how good it is so there's definitely going to be more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
I've been saying for awhile that they should do the next Bond run as a period piece set back in the 60s. Modern tech just ruins these kind of spy stories, they have to keep coming up with ways to have Bond on the run, because otherwise his job would be stupidly easy. I doubt they'll do it though, as that would be a big commitment, if you do a 60s Bond, you're now committing like the next 3 movies after that to be period pieces as well, and that's not cheap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I'm still trying to figure out how Bond was supposed to lose his memory by getting drilled in the neck. I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty sure that machine was off it's mark
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:I've been saying for awhile that they should do the next Bond run as a period piece set back in the 60s. Modern tech just ruins these kind of spy stories, they have to keep coming up with ways to have Bond on the run, because otherwise his job would be stupidly easy. Modern tech only ruins a spy story if you're a poo poo writer/director. The Bourne series manged it perfectly well, so did Skyfall and Casino. Taking Bond back to the 60's would be a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
They'd need to do a loving amazing job not to turn it into an unintentionally camp comedy. They do not have the creative resources or talent to do that and never will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:I've been saying for awhile that they should do the next Bond run as a period piece set back in the 60s. Modern tech just ruins these kind of spy stories, they have to keep coming up with ways to have Bond on the run, because otherwise his job would be stupidly easy. The Bond series has been doing fine for 45 years not being set in the 60s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Like I'm really really trying to think of a way you could do a Bond set in the 60's now and not have it devolve into comedy and it's impossible. I'm honestly baffled by people decrying this movie as the death of the series or it needs some insane shake up like that to fix it. If View to a Kill, Moonraker or Die Another Day didn't kill the franchise, I really really doubt a movie that's not even as bad as QOS is going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
It's not the death of the series, but they need to never do a out of their rear end recon to the series ever again. It doesn't fit here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2015 22:59
|
|