StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm kind of surprised we don't have a thread for this one.

Anyway, I'm putting it in Off-Topic because the Craig Bond films are at most borderline science fiction.

There's a lot I could say on this film, but rather than writing that all out right now, I'm just going to comment on a few things:

First, this is basically a James Bond 911 truther film, with Spectre carrying out terrorist attacks in collaboration with persons in the British government to cause the implementation of a global surveillance system.

Heck, wasn't their a line in Casino Royal linking its villain (associated with Quantum and thus, in turn, Spectre) to 911?

Secondly, there's the ending. At the end of the film, Bond decides to spare arch villain Oberhauser/Blofeld's life and instead depart with his new love interest Madeline Swann, in what seems to be a serious relationship. It also appears that Bond is leaving the spy game to be with her. This is, needless to say, highly uncharacteristic for a Bond film, even more so than Quantum of Solace was. And say what else you will about this film, its awesome. I love it when they shake up the status quo in a franchise. Its also rather reminiscent of the ending of Nolan's Batman trilogy (a clear influence on the Craig Bond films), which has Bruce retiring from his job as Batman to live with his love interest Selina Kyle.

Now, I don't doubt that in the next film (at least if Craig comes back and they don't recast/reboot it), they'll probably have Swann die so Bond returns to his old status quo. Which is a big reason I'd probably prefer it if Craig doesn't come back and they reboot. But as it stands currently, it appears as though Craig's films represent a completely separate continuity from all other Bond films.

Third... um, who the hell decided to put thinly-veiled tentacle porn in the opening credits? And the use of the octopus logo for Spectre, as well as the nature of its organization, seemed like a pretty blatant imitation of Hydra, as I noted in the Agents of Shield season three thread.

Thoughts?

Edited to add spoiler warning to the title and remove the spoiler tags, because for some reason they don't seem to be working.

I liked it, it was very much a good sequel to Casino Royale, too bad it took them two movies to get here. I see where you are getting the 9/11 thing but disagree. Movies with the 'inside guy' helping the bad guy but pose as the good guy are as old as movies themselves.

I loved how they rebooted some of the other Bond stuff, Specter itself, Blofield ect... If Casino Royale was the origin story of Bond then this was the origin of Blofield. The only thing that sort of annoyed me was the tripple stack of organizations. If they could have made this movie as the second movie with Craig, it would have made awesome sense instead of the Quantum-Specter thing.

Well, I personally adore Quantum of Solace- its my favourite Bond film, despite its weaknesses, because it went outside the box, broke the formula, and did it in a way that felt relatively subtle, real, and consistent.

The films since then have felt like they're trying to be old school Bond and new Bond at the same time, and its awkward.

But I do think the ending of Spectre makes a nice follow-up to Casino Royale. This is essentially Bond's second chance, and where he failed in Casino Royale, he finally succeeds. This is Craig Bond's moment of triumph, his redemption. Another reason why I'm inclined to think it would be best to start over with a new actor now rather than continue with Craig.

Thoughts?

More Tentacle credits1

*ahem* I thought it was entertaining, but had some rushed elements, but visually mexico, the entire scene was brilliant, including the helicopter fight, it was over the top and thrilling.

I liked the villain in this, it wasn't a joker clone like skyfall was, the guy who was psychotic and detached from caring it was nicely done, also liked his subtle escape in the desert with the jeeps in the background.

However that break out and destruction of that base in the desert was absurd, they have tons of guards, workers an entire infrastructure but it all comes undone within three mintues?!

Hinx was great to watch, you could feel the violence radiate from this guy without having to say so much a word. Modern bond villain classic to me.

Some of the writing was brilliant, including the 'At least we know what 'C' stands for...'

The Romulan Republic wrote: Heck, wasn't their a line in Casino Royal linking its villain (associated with Quantum and thus, in turn, Spectre) to 911?

IIRC it was because the villain of Casino Royal was a banker for people like terrorists. That was how he knew in advance. Though you are correct that it was odd.

Third... um, who the hell decided to put thinly-veiled tentacle porn in the opening credits? And the use of the octopus logo for Spectre, as well as the nature of its organization, seemed like a pretty blatant imitation of Hydra, as I noted in the Agents of Shield season three thread.

An Octopus logo dates back to the original films. It was a key clue in Thunderball in which Bond was able to identity several of their operatives because of this. Which of course begs the question of why operatives wore their organization's logo. It would be like a CIA officer wearing a CIA logo ring or having a CIA tattoo. Though for one that worked in an embassy, it wouldn't have been much more obvious than their normal existence.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Well, I personally adore Quantum of Solace- its my favourite Bond film, despite its weaknesses, because it went outside the box, broke the formula, and did it in a way that felt relatively subtle, real, and consistent.

I wouldn't say it was my favorite Bond film, that would likely be Goldeneye for me*, but I did enjoy it more than the critics apparently. I liked that it had a nice mix of modern action and classic Bond ideas. It was notable in being the only Craig film to feature a proper exploding lair. Unless Spectre does as well, haven't seen it yet.

* As a side note, Goldeneye did things that most forgot about when they were so busy prasing Craig as Bond. Goldeneye was the first of the movies to question whether he could be relevant in a post-Cold War world. Apparently it wasn't enough. Though I suspect this was because Die Another Day was so terrible overall and largely regressed to the old ideas.

I throughly enjoyed the movie. It was fun, every action scene was well thought out and the plot was classic stupid Bond held up by neat pieces of dialog. Listing the good parts is boring so I'll just add that unlike many other action movies, this was actually an easy movie to watch without getting vertigo or getting mixed up with forgetful characters.

Third... um, who the hell decided to put thinly-veiled tentacle porn in the opening credits? And the use of the octopus logo for Spectre, as well as the nature of its organization, seemed like a pretty blatant imitation of Hydra, as I noted in the Agents of Shield season three thread.

As others have noted, this is an old Bond piece and it's not like hydras are that rare in "symbols mythical all powerful organisations". I think the opening theme was pretty horrible though, crappy song.

The main downside was the utter letdown of the Bond girl. She could have beautifully upended the "Bond sleeps with every girl" but no, they had to ruin it with the sex scene right after a train sequence.

Except that wouldn't have fit with her role in the ending, which was to be Bond's second serious love interest, his second chance after Vesper, and the influence behind his actions in the ending. But I did like that she initially refused Bond, and that she was willing to challenge him on things that were important to her and could do so effectively.

The only one I can think of who never slept with Bond was Camille from Quantum of Solace. Like I said, that film went outside the box, and I love it for it.

Adamn Reynolds, I've never seen any of the old films with Spectre (my only pre-Craig Bond films are Goldfinger and Die Another Day), so I didn't know the Octopus logo was an old concept. Still not sure weather Marvel or Bond used it first though (Marvel comics do go back a ways). And Spectre's nature and MO in this film were very Hydra-like, I thought. To the point that it would fit perfectly well if it turned out that Bond was an alternate reality in the Marvel universe and new Spectre was their reality's version of Hydra. Not that I'm complaining, really. Films take inspiration from each other, and at this point I wouldn't say it was blatant enough to be a rip-off.

As to exploding lairs, well...


Spectre does it twice. I believe I read somewhere that this film actually got a Guiness World Record for largest explosion set off for a movie.

Korgeta wrote:Thoughts?

More Tentacle credits1

*ahem* I thought it was entertaining, but had some rushed elements, but visually mexico, the entire scene was brilliant, including the helicopter fight, it was over the top and thrilling.

I liked the villain in this, it wasn't a joker clone like skyfall was, the guy who was psychotic and detached from caring it was nicely done, also liked his subtle escape in the desert with the jeeps in the background.

Leaving aside the tentacle thing...

I'm of two minds about the villain. As he's written, he's kind of ridiculous. However, Christoph Waltz really knows how to act, so much can be forgiven, and the feeling of shear creepy menace from Spectre was very well done at times.

And the glimpse of the escape was a nice touch. If you weren't watching closely, you wouldn't even see it, but it foreshadows the final act quite nicely. Subtlety is a too-rare gift in Hollywood.

However that break out and destruction of that base in the desert was absurd, they have tons of guards, workers an entire infrastructure but it all comes undone within three mintues?!

I loved that sequence.

The way I see it, the guards were taken by surprise and faced Bond piecemeal rather than all at once. And its far from the most implausible thing Bond has done. Hell, its probably not the most implausible thing Craig's Bond has done. Really, I'm not sure its any more preposterous than him storming the hotel at the end of Quantum of Solace.

Hinx was great to watch, you could feel the violence radiate from this guy without having to say so much a word. Modern bond villain classic to me.

Oh yeah. The train fight was excellent, and Hinx is probably the best opponent, in physical terms at least, that I've ever seen for Bond.

Some of the writing was brilliant, including the 'At least we know what 'C' stands for...'

The writing was a very mixed bag, but I do like that the background characters got to play more of a role in the action this time around. Seeing Q, Moneypenny, Tanner, and M join Bond for the final mission was quite nice. My only regret on that score was that they didn't really manage to fit Felix into the film (though Bond mentions him by name as the one he's sending Lucia to for protection).

Also, a nice subtle reference someone pointed out (I think I read it on TV Tropes, but I'm not sure).

During the climax, one of the bad guys pulls a gun on M, who reveals he's already removed the bullets. It parallels the very first scene of the Daniel Craig Bond films, in Casino Royale, when Bond did the same thing to an adversary.

For me, Spectre was a self indulgent waste of a film. While the individual components were good, it was like they wanted to remake Skyfall, but also use the new rights to SPECTRE/Blofeld.

Ultimately, it was like two films fused into one.

Its uneven. Their are individual scenes that are fantastic, others that are junk, and the whole thing fits together awkwardly. I quite liked the ending though.

Ace Pace wrote:The main downside was the utter letdown of the Bond girl. She could have beautifully upended the "Bond sleeps with every girl" but no, they had to ruin it with the sex scene right after a train sequence.

Didn't Quantum of Solace do that?

I'd say this was the worst of the Craig Bond films. Casino Royale was the best, followed by Skyfall, Quantum of Solace was bad, and this was more bad.

Since every good-vs-evil-story rises and falls with the quality of its villain, I have two questions:

1) Did Waltz perform a credible/good Blofeld (fitting for the arch-enemy of James Bond)?
2) Did he have a white cat?

Considering how often Craig-Bond got the people killed he was supposed to bring in alive (LeChiffre, the bomber he killed in the african ambassady, that guy in the hotel in Haiti in Quantum) ... on the other side he allowed Vesper's honey-trap to be arrested ... .

Waltz is fine. Could have been better, I suppose, but their was nothing bad about his performance. I have no idea how he compares to the classic Blofeld though. I do have some issues with how the character was written, but that's nothing to do with Waltz's acting.

He wasn't a physically imposing villain, really, but then I don't think he was supposed to be. And David Bautista as Hinx filled that role beautifully.

And yeah, he had the cat.

Actually, I'd say Spectre had the most intimidating villains of the Craig films (well, maybe Silva was up their as well).

Blofeld is a soft-spoken and highly intelligent sociopath who can spy on anyone in the world, is in bed with major governments, and has followers with almost mechanical loyalty and obedience.

Hinx is basically a cold, relentless, and almost indestructible killing machine who can actually out-fight Bond.

Both are well acted.

Just back from it and it was mediocre and uninteresting. I was sitting there being bored by a gadget laden chase. That's pretty much means you've failed as a James Bond movie to me.

Crazedwraith wrote:Just back from it and it was mediocre and uninteresting. I was sitting there being bored by a gadget laden chase. That's pretty much means you've failed as a James Bond movie to me.

Maybe that is because you have seen enough of them that it no longer surprises you. That is the fundamental problem with a long running series like this, it leads to the issue of elements feeling bland because they can't stray too far from what is expected.

Adam Reynolds wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Just back from it and it was mediocre and uninteresting. I was sitting there being bored by a gadget laden chase. That's pretty much means you've failed as a James Bond movie to me.

Maybe that is because you have seen enough of them that it no longer surprises you. That is the fundamental problem with a long running series like this, it leads to the issue of elements feeling bland because they can't stray too far from what is expected.

The problem here is less that the series is long running and more the presumption that it cannot deviate from the status quo. Their are few things more potentially damaging to a franchise than the fan insistence that nothing ever really change, and its part of why I love the reboot.

Guess what: my favourite Bond film is Quantum of Solace, at least in part because it deviated from the status quo. And while my response to Spectre is far more mixed, I love that the ending basically threw the Bond establishment out with gleeful abandon.

Edit: Of course, go too far and its no longer the same franchise. So the goal has to be to find what is absolutely key to the spirit of a work, hold onto that, and then, without contradicting what's already established, play as fast and loose with the rest as you can get away with.

Or to put it more briefly, part of the role of a sequel writer is to be a wrecking ball. Come in, smash everything but the foundations, and then build something new on them.

Adam Reynolds wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:Just back from it and it was mediocre and uninteresting. I was sitting there being bored by a gadget laden chase. That's pretty much means you've failed as a James Bond movie to me.

Maybe that is because you have seen enough of them that it no longer surprises you. That is the fundamental problem with a long running series like this, it leads to the issue of elements feeling bland because they can't stray too far from what is expected.

That's not it at all. It was just a really piss poor excuse of a car chase. Boring shots of supercars handly perfectly across empty Rome streets. Interspersed with Bond making a phone call. Half the gadgets didn't work or were play for laughs. And the controls are obviously and crudely mounted and labelled on the inside of the super-spy-car. Really subtle there.

The playing for laughs thing really rankles. They did the same thing in Skyfall. Given him shitty gadgets that look lower tech than the old ones than make a crack about exploding pens or something from the better of the past movies.

The Romulan Republic wrote:who the hell decided to put thinly-veiled tentacle porn in the opening credits?

I would like to preface my explanation by stating that I am a massive fan of the works of H. P. Lovecraft and therefore my be a bit biased or see what I want to see.

The film is influenced by Lovecraft. It's not just the intro sequence. The first line of text we are presented in the film before we are shown Mexico on the day of the dead is 'The dead are alive.' This mirrors an iconic quote from Lovecraft straight from The Call of Cthulhu which reads 'In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.' Cthulhu in that story is apparently 'dead' and yet he moves after he is woken up (which leads many to believe that he and various other Lovecraftian horrors are both alive and dead at the same time or that life and death are irrelevant to them).

The main villain Blofeld is arguably as close to a Lovecraftian horror one can get while still being human. He has always been there from the beginning of Bond's life, he's always despised him and in his own words 'You interfered in my world and I destroyed yours.' 'The architect of all your pain.' Blofeld is also completely unfeeling towards any of humanity it seems, he is an extremely powerful individual and he is as close to omniscient as possible due to his information network.

The fact that literally all of Bond's problems stem back to Blofeld is very significant. You see, according to Lovecraft, the more you know about your world the less sane/disturbed you will be. Over the course of the past four films we have seen Bond become colder and colder and develop more and more of a death-wish. Finally when he has actually gotten to the route of all of his problems, suffering and perhaps mental issues he has a choice: 1. shoot him and continue to race down the rabbit hole that is your current life or 2. leave him and your old life behind and be happy.

As a fan of both Bond and Lovecraft I could not not see this and apparently I'm not the only one. https://samkriss.wordpress.com/2015/11/ ... e-octopus/

libertyjim wrote:
You see, according to Lovecraft, the more you know about your world the less sane/disturbed you will be.

Despite the influence and popularity of his ideas, this key point leads me to say fuck Lovecraft. The idea that more knowledge leads to less sanity is absurd and destructive. One only needs to look at the sense of genuine awe you see with virtually all modern scientists to realize that this is an idea with absolutely no basis in reality.

This is also the fundamental problem I have with with the Lovecraftian RPG Trail of Cthulhu(even if the Gumshoe system itself is interesting). The appeal of mystery fiction in general is the idea that there is an answer to seemingly unknowable questions. The idea that insanity is the inevitable result completely defeats the point of a mystery.

This movie was a waste of Waltz' talent as an actor. Utterly forgettable incarnation of Blofeld mainly due to the script. It also felt as if the main plot was too much muddled by sideshows and had too many unrealistic turns that would require Blofeld to be an utter idiot.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Secondly, there's the ending. At the end of the film, Bond decides to spare arch villain Oberhauser/Blofeld's life and instead depart with his new love interest Madeline Swann, in what seems to be a serious relationship. It also appears that Bond is leaving the spy game to be with her.

I am not so sure. The scene could easily be interpreted by him going to a vacation with his girl, which is one of the usual endings for a bond movie.

libertyjim wrote:*snip*

That story is neither new or particularly lovecraftian. Heck, it is as ancient as you come.

Thanas wrote:This movie was a waste of Waltz' talent as an actor. Utterly forgettable incarnation of Blofeld mainly due to the script. It also felt as if the main plot was too much muddled by sideshows and had too many unrealistic turns that would require Blofeld to be an utter idiot.

Was it just me or did it have the same flaw in this respect as Into Darkness with Kahn? Down to the reveal that should have had no effect in universe. Just like new Kirk, it was a name that should have had no significance to Bond but yet was still treated as if it did. The only significance was to the audience.

Meh, the trek movie had even more problems than just Kahn. At least Spectre is well-directed and had interesting locations.

Thanas wrote:Meh, the trek movie had even more problems than just Kahn. At least Spectre is well-directed and had interesting locations.

True. But I specifically meant in terms of the reveal that made no sense in universe.