SPECTRE (2015) - UK Oct 23rd , US Nov 6th

Wondering if SPECTRE will finally be Craig's 'more than one lay' Bond flick.

Makeshift Python wrote:

Her in that dress.

UGHNNNN...

Are you masturbating?

No.

Maybe.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Wondering if SPECTRE will finally be Craig's 'more than one lay' Bond flick.

That was already in SKYFALL. What should finally be done for SPECTRE is to actually have the film end with Craig and a woman by his side. The guy never had that in the first three films and it needs to change.

Makeshift Python wrote:

No.

Maybe.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Wondering if SPECTRE will finally be Craig's 'more than one lay' Bond flick.

That was already in SKYFALL. What should finally be done for SPECTRE is to actually have the film end with Craig and a woman by his side. The guy never had that in the first three films and it needs to change.

Personally, I would leave that for Craig's last outing. So, unless EON or Craig did decide to end Craig's running with SPECTRE, I hope this won't be the case.

Makeshift Python wrote:

No.

Maybe.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Wondering if SPECTRE will finally be Craig's 'more than one lay' Bond flick.

That was already in SKYFALL. What should finally be done for SPECTRE is to actually have the film end with Craig and a woman by his side. The guy never had that in the first three films and it needs to change.

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about the chick he's hooked up with while he's 'off the radar'.

SPECTRE is an "origin story"

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/14/spectre-james-bond-origin-story

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Four films into the Craig series and we're still trying to figure out who Bond is? How much further back are we going to go? Are we going to get a spin-off film that focuses on his parents (like SONY was trying to do with Aunt May and the Spider-Man property?) I mean, when does this insanity stop and we just get a no-holds-barred, straight-up Bond film?

Mendes is, unfortunately, going to regret getting involved with this film. He was going to back out of it but stuck with it for Bab's credibility, but this thing is going to get some really bad reviews and a total house-cleaning at SONY after it fails to make the money they assumed it would/could. Not only are Bond fans getting sick of this, but movie fans in general are getting tired of both origin stories, series that "reboot" too quickly, and dark, angst-ridden anti-heroes trying to determine what's justice and what is revenge.

I long for the day when the movies used to be entertaining; henchmen that would strangle you with a Walkman or squeeze you to death between her thighs. This series has just gotten beyond depressing.

Unless they made some radical changes to the script after it leaked, I wouldn't call SPECTRE an origin story. At least not an origin story in the sense that films like Batman Begins are.

Jack Wade wrote:

Unless they made some radical changes to the script after it leaked, I wouldn't call SPECTRE an origin story. At least not an origin story in the sense that films like Batman Begins are.

Agreed. However, the thrust of the talking points coming from EON is that this is an origin story that will help explain how Bond became the man he is today. I guess they're saying that CR-SF showed us how Bond became the agent he is today, but SPECTRE shows us why he is dark, and edgy, and withdrawn...and doesn't trust anyone.

EON is offering up a Bond film that no one was asking for. While it won't crater at the box office like FANTASTIC FOUR, both films have had very similar problems during production. SPECTRE will do respectable returns at the box office, but it's going to be a big let down for all involved.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Unless they made some radical changes to the script after it leaked, I wouldn't call SPECTRE an origin story. At least not an origin story in the sense that films like Batman Begins are.

Agreed. However, the thrust of the talking points coming from EON is that this is an origin story that will help explain how Bond became the man he is today. I guess they're saying that CR-SF showed us how Bond became the agent he is today, but SPECTRE shows us why he is dark, and edgy, and withdrawn...and doesn't trust anyone.

EON is offering up a Bond film that no one was asking for. While it won't crater at the box office like FANTASTIC FOUR, both films have had very similar problems during production. SPECTRE will do respectable returns at the box office, but it's going to be a big let down for all involved.

I'm with GS on this one. I don't really know why we are 4 films in, and still talking of origin stories, and exploring who Bond really is. CR should have been the only film to do that, and by the end of the film, when Craig finally says `The names' Bond, James Bond!' that should have been the end of it.

Instead, QoS carried on where we left off in CR. Bond is still not quite Bond yet. He isn't going to let anyone in, and still looking for his Quantum of Solace, not sleeping with the female at the end of this film, instead still angst ridden and looking for closure to move on.

By SF we suddenly jump from Bond Begins, to Bond at the end of his career. Washed up, worn out, lost his mojo, looking to get back to where he once was (but where is that exactly? the Bond from QoS?) including the specatcle of going back to his house in Scotland, something which was never really touched upon by Fleming, other than a brief mention.

But by the end of SF things looked promising. We see that final scene, Bond ready to get back to work, in M's 1960's throwback office, and we've come full circle again. Great. Maybe THIS time we have finished the origin reboot arc, so the next film will start afresh.

But no. Another origin story, The reboot continues, and Bond has a secret. His past is being resurrected again, although this past is again nothing to do with Fleming. SPECTRE, Blofeld and Bond's childhood have nothing to do with each other, so why are we going there?

Ever since LTK we've had some kind of personal angle for Bond, although at least in that particular film it didn't get in the way of the story too much, and still felt like it was part of the old series.

jet set willy wrote:

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Unless they made some radical changes to the script after it leaked, I wouldn't call SPECTRE an origin story. At least not an origin story in the sense that films like Batman Begins are.

Agreed. However, the thrust of the talking points coming from EON is that this is an origin story that will help explain how Bond became the man he is today. I guess they're saying that CR-SF showed us how Bond became the agent he is today, but SPECTRE shows us why he is dark, and edgy, and withdrawn...and doesn't trust anyone.

EON is offering up a Bond film that no one was asking for. While it won't crater at the box office like FANTASTIC FOUR, both films have had very similar problems during production. SPECTRE will do respectable returns at the box office, but it's going to be a big let down for all involved.

I'm with GS on this one. I don't really know why we are 4 films in, and still talking of origin stories, and exploring who Bond really is. CR should have been the only film to do that, and by the end of the film, when Craig finally says `The names' Bond, James Bond!' that should have been the end of it.

Instead, QoS carried on where we left off in CR. Bond is still not quite Bond yet. He isn't going to let anyone in, and still looking for his Quantum of Solace, not sleeping with the female at the end of this film, instead still angst ridden and looking for closure to move on.

By SF we suddenly jump from Bond Begins, to Bond at the end of his career. Washed up, worn out, lost his mojo, looking to get back to where he once was (but where is that exactly? the Bond from QoS?) including the specatcle of going back to his house in Scotland, something which was never really touched upon by Fleming, other than a brief mention.

But by the end of SF things looked promising. We see that final scene, Bond ready to get back to work, in M's 1960's throwback office, and we've come full circle again. Great. Maybe THIS time we have finished the origin reboot arc, so the next film will start afresh.

But no. Another origin story, The reboot continues, and Bond has a secret. His past is being resurrected again, although this past is again nothing to do with Fleming. SPECTRE, Blofeld and Bond's childhood have nothing to do with each other, so why are we going there?

Ever since LTK we've had some kind of personal angle for Bond, although at least in that particular film it didn't get in the way of the story too much, and still felt like it was part of the old series.

In fact, Mendes has officially gone on record saying that SPECTRE begins literally a few minutes after SKYFALL ended. The two stories connect more closely with each other than they do with previous entries, but all previous three films will be tied together as well. We may be looking at SPECTRE being to SKYFALL what QUANTURD OF SOLACE was to CASINO ROYALE and that's not a good thing.

This film has been the only Bond movie for which not a single frame of the trailer interests me at all. It's like, not only have we done this all before, but we JUST DID IT A FILM OR TWO AGO. Really? REALLY? We're back on a train with a sexy Bond Girl asking us if we're comfortable being an assassin?

Everybody involved is singing off the same hymn-book and Sam is giving the cast good talking points, but ultimately all it is is spin. The fan community will see right through this. And while there may not have been any on-set tension on SP like there was on FANTASTIC FOUR, and Mendes wasn't locked out of the editing room and had control taken away, the film itself was doomed from the start. The script wasn't ready and can never be ready when your entire premise for existing is literally to make a release date that you were obligated to deliver a film by. The release date has dicated the script quality, not the other way around. What's more, we've now reach a point in Bond fandom where we're doing a "serious" interpretation of AUSTIN POWERS: GOLDMEMBER, which in and of itself was a parody of 007. Have we become that starved for material? My God! In 2002 if you'd have told me we'd have back to back 007 films dealing with mommy/daddy issues I would have thought you were crazy.

But like a slowly boiling frog, many in this community seem to have become used to, or indifferent, to the danger that EON is creating. It's right in front of your faces but you don't see it. Well, you know what? The chickens come home to roost this October/November. Money talks and bullshit walks, and when this film fails to come anywhere close to SKYFALL money (and it will fall hard) SONY (and MGM) will start doing a considerable rethink of both the series going forward and their desire/ability to do it as a co-venture between the two studios. Nothing about this film looks like it should cost $300+ million.

The bitchcraft crystal ball thinks you're both going off tangent...relax...

bitchcraft wrote:

The bitchcraft crystal ball thinks you're both going off tangent...relax...

Amen to that. Some of the above almost had me asking would they care for some cheese to go with their whine.

I don't have a problem with someone from Bond's past being a pain in his ass now.

If that means revealing secrets from his past...what exactly is wrong with that?

"It's not the old Bond formula!!!"

Makeshift Python wrote:

"It's not the old Bond formula!!!"

Those don't make enough money anymore.

Wonder if GS saw Rogue Nation yet...

Don't pay much mind to GS. Aping Laz's Skyfall cynicism is his shtick. It's getting a bit tedious.

bitchcraft wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

"It's not the old Bond formula!!!"

Those don't make enough money anymore.

Wonder if GS saw Rogue Nation yet...

No, I haven't.

#1 As long as Tom Cruise stars in them they'll never be written as a team of operatives; it'll simply be a starring vehicle for Cruise.

#2 Ethan Hunt as a character can't hold a candle to James Bond. Cruise has played Hunt the same way he's played many of his other characters: as a version of himself.

Jack Wade wrote:

Don't pay much mind to GS. Aping Laz's Skyfall cynicism is his shtick. It's getting a bit tedious.

No, my schtick is mine alone; the only one affecting my "schtick" is EON. I'm willing to back up my viewpoints You're unwilling to defend yours other than to simply be dismissive to anybody that doesn't suckle the tit of EON.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

Don't pay much mind to GS. Aping Laz's Skyfall cynicism is his shtick. It's getting a bit tedious.

No, my schtick is mine alone; the only one affecting my "schtick" is EON. I'm willing to back up my viewpoints You're unwilling to defend yours other than to simply be dismissive to anybody that doesn't suckle the tit of EON.

I don't really have any viewpoints to back up. Everything I know about SPECTRE is based off a total of something like four minutes of footage and a leaked draft of the script that was revamped prior to shooting.

Personally, I think SPECTRE will turn out a lot like Skyfall, but I'm not comfortable enough making that judgment yet, and certainly not comfortable with the hyperbolic doom you're suggesting.

Why don't you all watch the film and then discuss it? I realise that's a radical suggestion.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Why don't you all watch the film and then discuss it? I realise that's a radical suggestion.

From the voice of treason, of course.

Δ

Can someone remind me when we found out who were going to do the previous 3 themes? Was it sometime in August?

bitchcraft wrote:

Can someone remind me when we found out who were going to do the previous 3 themes? Was it sometime in August?

Skyfall: Oct. 1
Quantum: July 29
Casino Royale: July 26

bitchcraft wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

Why don't you all watch the film and then discuss it? I realise that's a radical suggestion.

From the voice of treason, of course.

So is Ambler suggesting that we not bother with discussing the film until it comes out? Isn't that a bit like telling EON they shouldn't promote or discuss the movie either until it comes out? What exactly are we expected to do on a message board where the sub-forum is dedicated to SPECTRE?

Maybe SPECTRE turns out to be Craig's THUNDERBALL....but right now it looks awfully dreary and morose.

Again, I'm trying to understand how we're having an origin story four films into a series that was itself a reboot. And Mendes has stated that by the end of SKYFALL, the series had been completely rebooted (remember, Nolan managed to reboot Batman and get his story arc done in three films), so if that's the case, why are we rebooting the reboot? At this point is even more exposition about Bond's history really necessary? We're starting to take away too much from the mystery of the man. Do we really need to know that Bond was not breast-fed as a baby, and that is why he had mommy issues? Geez!!