SPECTRE Review Thread

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by jpthomas27

The current Bond is not incomplete, he is James Bond in the making. It is Bond before he was "BOND".

I'm still unclear as to why most of the fan base thinks that this is a "different" Bond. Why can't everyone grasp the concept that Craig's Bond is the same Bond, but very early in the timeline. Fans are used to seeing a very put together suave, dapper, sophisticated bond, this is where he started.

James Bond was not always that man! Danielle Craig's Bond is who James Bond was before he became the man that has been portrayed in the series since it's inception. These are the events in his life that turned him in to the character we all have come to know. And that character, if you pay attention is very flawed as a person.

Among the things people describe the "real" James Bond as (suave, sophisticated etc...) the classic James Bond character is also emotionally closed off, avoids commitment and personal conflict, is distant and detached from reality. He is self centered and self absorbed to say the least. The closest thing he has to a relationship is Moneypenny...

If you put Daniel Craig's Bond into context with who James Bond becomes then the transformation of the man himself makes sense.

It's not the story of Two Bond's, it's the story of how the events of a man's life changed him forever and why he always seems to be chasing personal ghosts in his life.

I can't tell if you're a believer in that completely retarded Bond timeline theory but I certainly hope not.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by singhcr

The main reason why it looked so good was because of Roger Deakins, not the camera. Digital movies (with the Alexa or Sony F65 at least) can look good, but I've yet to see something that wouldn't look as good if not better on film.

The stuff shot in London looked very digital video (specifically the Judi Dench stuff). I think the cameras had no problem weren't the visually flashy scenes (the stuff in China, the stuff at the Lake at night), but the more static basically lit stuff. The stuff in that lizard pit looked preaty bad too.

[klauswhereareyou]

I would say that the biggest problem with many of the Bond films post Connery was the lack of a good villian, so I say bring on Blofeld! The only reason they got rid of him was all that legal mess involving the conception of Thunderball.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

I would say that the biggest problem with many of the Bond films post Connery was the lack of a good villian, so I say bring on Blofeld! The only reason they got rid of him was all that legal mess involving the conception of Thunderball.

Nonsense. The list of Bond films post Connery without good villains is much shorter than the list with good villains.

Also, in the Connery era, Goldfinger (unaffiliated with SPECTRE) was a better baddie than Blofeld anyway.

[klauswhereareyou]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Nonsense. The list of Bond films post Connery without good villains is much shorter than the list with good villains.

Also, in the Connery era, Goldfinger (unaffiliated with SPECTRE) was a better baddie than Blofeld anyway.

Agree to disagree. There's only been a handful of good villians since Diamonds are Forever (Scaramanga, Jaws, and 006 off the top of my head).

[Kryptonic]

I never really cared for Goldfinger as a villain. Iconic? Sure. But as threatening as Scaramanga or Jaws? Not a chance. I preferred Largo and Red Grant in the Terence Young films.

[EvaDK]

Originally Posted by jpthomas27

The current Bond is not incomplete, he is James Bond in the making. It is Bond before he was "BOND".

I'm still unclear as to why most of the fan base thinks that this is a "different" Bond. Why can't everyone grasp the concept that Craig's Bond is the same Bond, but very early in the timeline. Fans are used to seeing a very put together suave, dapper, sophisticated bond, this is where he started.
...

If you put Daniel Craig's Bond into context with who James Bond becomes then the transformation of the man himself makes sense.

Most of the pre-Daniel Craig films were based on scripts that only very vaguely resembled Ian Fleming's books and characters. Fleming never wrote (to my knowledge) stories, where Bond was essentially reduced to the antics that Roger Moore could channel in the more silly films of the franchise.

Craig's portrayal is probably the closest thing we've got to the original character since the first Connery films and arguably Timothy Dalton's films.

With that in mind, I have no issues with separating the older films from Craig's run. I could never ever imagine Craig's 007 'turning into' Moore's or Brosnan's 007 down the road.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Agree to disagree. There's only been a handful of good villians since Diamonds are Forever (Scaramanga, Jaws, and 006 off the top of my head).

Yeah, we're definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one because man do I disagree with you there.

I don't even understand what makes Blofeld so great in the first place. He just sits on his ass and orders his stooges around, sometimes killing them for incompetence. When Bond finally gets close enough to Blofeld, he's easily able to overpower him. All Blofeld can do is point a gun at him and monologue while stroking his pussycat.

He didn't even pull the trigger on the gun that killed Bond's wife!

At least the Joker actively got his hands dirty while fighting Batman.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I never really cared for Goldfinger as a villain. Iconic? Sure. But as threatening as Scaramanga or Jaws? Not a chance. I preferred Largo and Red Grant in the Terence Fisher films.

I don't think a good Bond villain has to be the most threatening of them all. Goldfinger was very entertaining and charismatic. Largo was boring and had nothing to distinguish him from any other villain except an eye patch. Grant and Jaws were excellent henchmen but it's only fair to compare them to another minion like Oddjob. Scaramanga had the Christopher Lee charm and is easily the best thing about the TMWTGG.

Also, it's Terence Young.

[Xenia]

As far as main villains go I think Blofeld is much more effective in films like From Russia With Love and Thunderball than in the films where he's visible for all to see.

Silva was a really great villain and definitely a step in the right direction. Honestly, I like the idea of Waltz regardless of who he is playing. We might get Hans Landa 2.0 though. Eh, regardless, looking forward to seeing what happens.

[Ben_UK]

I love most of Bardem's work as an actor. My one problem with his performance in Skyfall was that I just didn't find him threatening enough. I really wasn't keen on his campy performance and if I'm honest, I think Bardem's overall performance was not as good as I've seen in other films.

[Kevin Holly]

I didn't realize that Daniel Craig's Bond was less suave and sophisticated that the other's.

[ccg1978]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I love most of Bardem's work as an actor. My one problem with his performance in Skyfall was that I just didn't find him threatening enough. I really wasn't keen on his campy performance and if I'm honest, I think Bardem's overall performance was not as good as I've seen in other films.

agreed, plus I kept comparing him to his role in No Country for Old Men and he wasn't even close to being that threatening!

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

I never really cared for Goldfinger as a villain. Iconic? Sure. But as threatening as Scaramanga or Jaws? Not a chance. I preferred Largo and Red Grant in the Terence Young films.

My issue with Goldfinger was that he was very clearly dubbed over(as were many Bond actors back then). Gert Frobe gave a good physical performance, but I'm always distracted by how someone else was providing the voice. Largo was done the same way, but he was a boring villain to begin with so I never really cared.

[hthomas20]

Press Conference this Thursday!

[Foggy]

Probably an announcement of the title and the cast in two days as teased by Facebook...

http://variety.com/interstitial/#u=h...7a81e1d57b77ae

Also, Stephen Hawking for Bond Villian?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-fit-part.html

[Monterey Jack]

Who wants to bet the title will contain one or more of the four most popular 007 keywords, Live, Die, Kill or Gold?

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Who wants to bet the title will contain one or more of the four most popular 007 keywords, Live, Die, Kill or Gold?

Live, Die, Kill, Repeat?

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Iron-Fisted Punk

Live, Die, Kill, Repeat (For Gold)?

Fixed.

[Wireduck1]

Originally Posted by ccg1978

agreed, plus I kept comparing him to his role in No Country for Old Men and he wasn't even close to being that threatening!

Yes. I kept thinking that role was written with the late Kenneth Williams in mind. (Carry on James?)

[Xenia]

Not that I care whether or not the film is faithful to the book but I think Devil May Care is an AWESOME title.