James Bond

It was a really strong film. Much more character centred, tempered with big stunt beats. One thing I wished for was more of an effective henchman, I feel Batista was a bit wasted. I know there's only so much you can do with a traditional heavy like that, but still...felt like he was a push-over in the end ultimately.

So they're deliberately playing up Bond being kind of a creep? Very interesting direction, and might actually serve to make him more sympathetic.

edited 27th Oct '15 4:41:11 PM by HamburgerTime

Craig has never been shy about showing that Bond is an awful person. The writers still haven't quite joined the 21st century, and by that I mean (AVOID READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, Swann kidnapped as per most Bond girls at the end. Granted it's more plausible than most, but it seems they still have to put in the hackneyed and cliched "save the girl" motivation to the end. Justified to some extent in that it's a test of character, but still, grates a bit when Swann herself is a terrific Bond girl.

I have the feeling parts of this film are going to become It Was His Sled, or perhaps All There Is To Know About The Crying Game, so best to see it early if you can.

By that I mean (FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY, DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM) Oberhauser actually being Blofeld after all, and Bond's foster brother at that. I mean, backstory for Blofeld, and his motivation being jealousy at his father liking James. That is going to be controversial, and in no way a twist, very soon.

Wow, that spoiler was underwhelming. And expected.

Fantastic film. Action films always suffer from plot holes - "How did he know to go there?" - but you have to assume that the lines on screen are shorthand for all the background work that would be boring to show; that's all Action Films, not just Bond. Its definately one of the best.

Never understood the love for Skyfall, I find much of the 2nd half just stupid - the escape, the perfectly timed crash, all the henchmen in perfect position etc. I also never understood the hate for Qo S - the plot is fairly straightforward, and in many ways is a basic Bond plot; the initial investigation gets sidetracked into something bigger.

My biggest issue I have is with the page on this wiki! - Personally I think there are too many entries under mythology gag. After 23 films it would be hard not to accidentally repeat something, and some of them are a little tenuous. They are more Bond Tropes than mythology gags; he is going to go to Istanbul, Paris, New York, not Scunthorpe.

The issue with QOS isn't so much the plot but the style. Relentless action from one seen to the next with very little inbetween, and camera work that looks like it was done by someone having an epileptic fit over and over and over again.

It's just badly done. The same film with a more measured approach would be a heck of a lot better.

Agree with the mythology gags, though I have added a few that I believed were direct references (that conversation with Moneypenny about her having a date for example is a direct paraphrase of the earlier conversation, that can't be cooincidence). I'm not convinced though that the title of the theme song is a reference to a throwaway gag from Goldeneye though, or that Bond being tortured (which has happened in many films) is any kind of a reference either.

I am so very puzzled that the writing team for Skyfall wrote this film. Everything progressive, innovative and nuanced I loved about Skyfall's script is missing here. Im actually dumbfounded by how different the two scripts are in their approach.

Regardless Sam Mendes' direction is still on top form, the same CGI issues in Skyfall are here too, but it doesn't negate how flawless the screen is elsewhere.

Regardless of a bafflingly disappointing script, I can enjoy the film for the direction alone. That said, I probably won't see it in cinema a second time.

I found Spectre to be aggressively... okay. Maybe because I'm tired of certain requrring elements in Graig Bonds, like how things are super-personal to him and how at one point he'll be ending up fending for himself without official help from the 00-section.

Also, SPECTRE should really hire better architcts for their bases; Bond shoots one exposed vent, which leads to everything exploding? Come on!

edited 4th Nov '15 5:29:40 AM by erforce

Please spoiler the organization's name. Not all of us have seen the movie.

The movie is called Spectre. I don't think it's a spoiler that SPECTRE would show up in it

Yeah, the film's pretty much spoilered by its title, I would say.

You guys just went and ruined a perfectly good Red Herring.

"'Spoiler tag the organization's name'? You mean it's not SPECTRE?"

, , and Sorry. Haven't seen the movie myself.

Thanks for spoiler-ing it anyways. You can un-spoiler if you want.

edited 4th Nov '15 6:13:00 AM by HallowHawk

Let's let it be so no-one gets confused.

Agreed. Thanks for understanding.

But now back to the topic!

I also found it odd how the CNC building seemingly had no security when the bad guys' spy program was supposed to start; nobody resembling the sort appears even when C dies and Vauxhall Cross offices across the river tumbles down.

Finally managed to see the movie yesterday, and I have these questions:

1. Would the opening sequence be another Mythology Gag to On Her Majestys Secret Service, given the opening had clips like Vesper's death and Silva's interrogation? Likewise with Hinx' death being based on Tee Hee's death in Live And Let Die?

2. Would the female SPECTRE member in Rome be a nod to Lotte Lenya, who was Rosa Klebb?

Finally seen it. Got... mixed feelings. It's not bad, but it's not great either. I just feel like I should like this more? Maybe I feel the cliché reveals on Blofeld kinda dragged the movie down? Like, I don't know, the movie felt just... adequate? I wasn't bored, but I didn't love it.

edited 6th Nov '15 2:22:29 PM by CobraPrime

Just saw it. I'm basically of the opinion that it was good, but not as good as Skyfall or even Casino Royale. I don't really mind the exploration of Bond's past much since it doesn't drive the narrative as a whole as much as it does tie this film to the previous ones, and since it's obviously a film that wants to study Bond's character a bit more I'm fine with it. I still feel like we're treading old ground here, though. Something tells me if they went a little farther with the "twist", and the exploration of Bond's character this could've been a lot better or a lot worse. (Btw I liked the little bits that lampshade the Craig series' lack of gadgets, such as certain things not working and the whole bit with the watch, which I won't get into due to spoilers.)

It kind of feels like a sendoff for Craig in a way, but maybe I'm only saying that because he said he was pretty much done with the character. That being said, isn't he on a contract for one more, or is that the director?

This whole time I've been thinking about what the inevitable next incarnation will be like. I watched a documentary about Bond once where somebody pointed out that the series does take a lot of things from the spy movies of their time, which is why the Craig films are compared to the Bourne franchise. So where does Bond go from here? I feel like it's gonna get a lot more lighthearted the next time around, like recent spy/action films like "Kingsman: The Secret Service", "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation", and "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." (If it matters I'm kind of hoping Michael Fassbender becomes the next Bond.)

Anyway, sorry if I ranted.

Kingsman's supposed to be getting a sequel. If it's out in the same year as the next Bond movie, I know which one I'm getting hold of, whether to buy or rent or whatever. And it won't be Bond if Craig is still in the role.

I gave him a chance with Skyfall and it was vile. His character was vile. The treatment of Severine was vile - it ruined the whole fucking film. Bardem's character was brilliantly vile but still vile. Judie Dench's character was vile - I could understand exactly why Silva wanted her dead, and he got exactly what he wanted.

But it was vile.

Maybe another actor in the role, with perhaps another production team running the franchise, can fix that.

I doubt it.

You know what I'd like to see? A positively-portrayed LGBT Bond character. I don't think we've had any LGBT characters in decades, and most of the ones that do exist were basically treated as freaks for it. And I know this was totally in line with Fleming's view of gay people but the man's fifty years dead and it's not the '60s anymore. And I realize Bond will never be perfectly PC (and that that's probably intentional) but this is one area where I'd like to see some movement on. Even a random gay MI 6 agent would be fine.

And if I may be controversial for a second here? I could totally buy Bond himself being revealed as bisexual. I know this would cause some people's heads to explode, but hey, that'd probably just result in more tickets being sold.

ON the Bond being gay, or at least Bi, I don't see it as controversial at all, what with the hints Craig's Bond dropped towards Silva. It's probably not commercially viable for the franchise, though him raping disposable sex workers and standing by and watching at least one of them get shot dead, only ten seconds later to shoot her captors and capture her murderer, seems to be perfectly fine with vast swathes of the fanbase.

edited 7th Nov '15 5:16:07 PM by TamH70

I'm all up for the movies returning to the larger-than-life storylines.

Slightly off topic, but the latest Bond novel did have a character who was gay, and wasn't treated negatively for it. It only took almost forty books to get there.

In fairness it wasn't practically possible for him to intervene beforehand because the guns were pointed at his own head, and the guard was only let down after Selverine was shot. Doesn't excuse his manipulation of her beforehand of course.

Agreed though that Bond's hint to Silva could be used to make the character bisexual. He's enough of a hedonist and playboy to jump into bed with an attractive guy, clearly.

I'm still hoping for Chiwetel Ejiofor or Idris Elba for the next Bond, but Craig is contracted for Bond 25. I suspect he was venting frustration at the troubled production in his interview comments, and I wholly expect him to be in the next film.

edited 8th Nov '15 4:09:37 AM by EruditeEsotericist

Isn't the series going through a studio shift? I remember somewhere that Bond 25 would be at a different studio.