SPECTRE (2015), the lowest point in the Bond franchise?

[BaronVH]

No, Spectre is a fine Bond. I find it unfortunate that movies today cannot stand on their merits without people picking up facts from the internet to dislike about it, like knowing that Craig was injured. Also, all Bond is recycled. They are interpreting decades old books that are very outdated. Only three films were semi-faithful to the books: Thunderball, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and Casino Royale. The initial Connery films had a very loose continuity, but the Craig films have a continuity to them, while loose, are more consistent than the early Connery ones (not saying they are better or worse). Somebody may not like Spectre, but it is a worthy Bond and is nowhere near the bottom of the pack. They all have dumb things. Poison knife shoes, ejector seats, villains with metal teeth. I think it is doing a decent job following down the rabbit hole of the promise of the mysterious bad guys promised at the end of Casino Royale and continued with Quantum of Solace.

[EvaDK]

What really disappointed me with SPECTRE, was the desperate attempt by the writers to connect Oberhauser/Blofeld directly to Bonds past and reveal Blofeld as the true architect of Bonds misfortune in the 3 previous films.

Absolute bollocks. They clearly established Le Chiffre, Mr White, Silva and Quantum as agents of their own free will and motivation in the respective films. They were not under SPECTREs control, knowingly or unknowingly.

The film has some individual gorgeous set pieces, but the storyline just didn't connect. A result of Eon getting the rights for using Blofeld and SPECTRE and they went overboard with it.

[CreasyBear]

Anyway, Diamonds are Forever is the low point of the franchise. An insecure and vain attempt at reclaiming past glories with a bored Connery in a recycled plot set in dull locations with the worst Blofeld by a wide margin.

[kwisatzhaderach]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Anyway, Diamonds are Forever is the low point of the franchise. An insecure and vain attempt at reclaiming past glories with a bored Connery in a recycled plot and boring locations with the worst Blofeld by a wide margin.

If only Connery had done 'OHMSS' and then quit... sigh, what could have been...

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by kwisatzhaderach

If only Connery had done 'OHMSS' and then quit... sigh, what could have been...

Connery would have been wrong for OHMSS. I'm glad we got Lazenby...I just wish he would have returned and the producers had enough confidence to keep him on. The best part of Diamonds is the opening with Bond hunting and killing Blofeld...though the way he kills him is just...god...it's so stupid.

[Aclea]

He'd have been just as lazy if he had: if that script and a $1m+ payday could get him back and interested, he'd have just phoned it in if he had done it. Maybe if, as originally planned, they'd made it after Goldfinger, but he was sick and tired of Bond by 1968. Lazenby gives the film much more than Connery would have.

[Canada]

Die Another Day is far worse than S.P.E.C.T.R.E

[Lee A Stewart]

IMO - Moonraker was the lowest point in the Bond franchaise.

[levcore]

I always found the really slow car chase in a deserted Rome to be very weird and distracting. Bond movies have the biggest budgets yet they couldn't afford to let the cars go faster and have more traffic on the streets?

[Winslow Leach]

Diamonds Are Forever is one of my favorites.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by levcore

I always found the really slow car chase in a deserted Rome to be very weird and distracting. Bond movies have the biggest budgets yet they couldn't afford to let the cars go faster and have more traffic on the streets?

With Rome's traffic you either shoot a car chase first thing in the morning or late at night or not at all: no-one would believe a car chase at any other time of day because all the gridlock would mean you'd be moving maybe a yard a minute, and you'd never get permission to shut down the roads in daytime (if you look at car chases in 70s poliziotteschis they're often shot in the morning when no-one's around and usually without permission, and even then usually end up in the outskirts for the big stunts). Which is one reason the scene was set late at night. It's often quicker to just walk.

[Chumley]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

IMO - Moonraker was the lowest point in the Bond franchaise.

I recognize how bad Moonraker is, but it was the first Bond flick I saw in a theater, which clouds my judgement.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Aclea

With Rome's traffic you either shoot a car chase first thing in the morning or late at night or not at all: no-one would believe a car chase at any other time of day because all the gridlock would mean you'd be moving maybe a yard a minute, and you'd never get permission to shut down the roads in daytime. Which is one reason the scene was set late at night. It's often quicker to just walk.

I don't have any issues with the time of day/ night that the chase takes place.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by levcore

I don't have any issues with the time of day/ night that the chase takes place.

They're the times you won't see many cars around in Rome. It's as deserted at night or first thing in the morning as it is gridlocked during the day. It's also a city of backstreets, making it hard to get up much speed.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Aclea

They're the times you won't see many cars around in Rome. It's as deserted at night or first thing in the morning as it is gridlocked during the day.

So why didn't production bring in their own vehicles and why is the chase so slow?

It's a really poor car chase and for a movie with a budget as big as Spectre, there's no excuse.

[Ben_UK]

Die Another Day is awful, but its kinda like a ridiculous awful and I can actually enjoy it because its so bad.

Spectre is just a dirge. Awful cinematography and it was just plain dull. A lot of wasted talent in that film too.

It’s a shame that a bit like Brosnan, Craig’s best outing as Bond was his first. Both Goldeneye and Casino Royale had a perfect balance of humour, action and a semi serious tone.

I would like someone like Matt Vaughn have a go at a Bond film, at least it would be light and humorous.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

It’s a shame that a bit like Brosnan, Craig’s best outing as Bond was his first.

Originally Posted by levcore

So why didn't production bring in their own vehicles and why is the chase so slow?

It's a really poor car chase and for a movie with a budget as big as Spectre, there's no excuse.

Because it's like 2AM. Are any city's roadways busy at that time of night?

It didn't feel slow to me. But then it's been a few years since I watched it.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I would like someone like Matt Vaughn have a go at a Bond film, at least it would be light and humorous.

If EON are trying to be more progressive with their portrayal of women and female characters, I'm not sure Vaughn would be the best choice for a new Bond movie.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by levcore

So why didn't production bring in their own vehicles and why is the chase so slow?

It's a really poor car chase and for a movie with a budget as big as Spectre, there's no excuse.

The roads are far too short to build up much speed and there simply wouldn't be any cars around at that time.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Aclea

The roads are far too short to build up much speed and there simply wouldn't be any cars around at that time.

In that case I think the car chase should have been set somewhere else. If Mission Impossible can do fast and busy chases in Paris (which is just as busy as Rome) then I don't see why Eon struggled to put something as impressive onscreen. Having been to Rome and walked around at night, there are most definitely a lot of cars around.

I really wasn't a fan of that sequence at all but if you liked it that's cool, let's agree to disagree.