SPECTRE: Predictions and Speculation (SPOILER FREE ZONE)

Erica Ambler wrote:

They tried something new with Silva. He was the betrayed rather than the betrayer.

Wasn't that, by inference, really Trevelyan's motivation ('not exactly our finest hour') and isn't it also a foundation for Elektra's behaviour (albeit buried deep in p&w overblown psychobabble that in turn seems to call on everything and its brother to 'explain' her motivation)?

lachesis wrote:

Erica Ambler wrote:

They tried something new with Silva. He was the betrayed rather than the betrayer.

Wasn't that, by inference, really Trevelyan's motivation ('not exactly our finest hour') and isn't it also a foundation for Elektra's behaviour (albeit buried deep in p&w overblown psychobabble that in turn seems to call on everything and its brother to 'explain' her motivation)?

Trevelyan's parents were betrayed, depending on your political point of view, and Elektra's father was advised not to pay her ransom. However, that's quite different from Silva, a loyal if somewhat autonomous agent, being betrayed by his own commander purely for the bigger picture. It's suggested that Silva was not just Bond's intellectual superior (not so difficult), but a better agent too.

None of that is enough to save Silva from M, who sees just another pawn on the board despite the emotional dependence she's fostered in him.

Erica Ambler wrote:

Trevelyan's parents were betrayed, depending on your political point of view, and Elektra's father was advised not to pay her ransom. However, that's quite different from Silva, a loyal if somewhat autonomous agent, being betrayed by his own commander purely for the bigger picture. It's suggested that Silva was not just Bond's intellectual superior (not so difficult), but a better agent too.

None of that is enough to save Silva from M, who sees just another pawn on the board despite the emotional dependence she's fostered in him.

I'd still argue it's the same idea in sheeps clothing. To my thinking Skyfall is the successful packaging of the very same themes that the previous four (maybe six) films have laboured over with a varying lack of success......but now we've finally had it done 'right' I'd much appreciate them to move on and leave them behind - at least for a few films.

lachesis wrote:

I'd still argue it's the same idea in sheeps clothing. To my thinking Skyfall is the successful packaging of the very same themes that the previous four (maybe six) films have laboured over with a varying lack of success......but now we've finally had it done 'right' I'd much appreciate them to move on and leave them behind - at least for a few films.

See what you're getting at, but it's difficult from a dramatic point of view. There's few emotions more powerful than betrayal. I find it a far more compelling plot device than the usual car chases and explosions.

jet set willy wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Campbell4 wrote:

SPECTRE running MI6 sounds too obvious. SPECTRE manipulating MI6 so they do the dirty work for them, that's Blofeld.

Meh I find both ideas totally at odds with the Bondian universe, this really is the stuff of Bourne and Blandest spy XXXX.

I'm sick of EON's obsession with moles and baddies working as double agents for MI6. Ever since GE we've had this bullshit - Sean Bean's rogue villain, then we had Elektra, then Mathis and Vesper, then Silva in Skyfall.

It's predictable, and tired, far more tired than going back to a traditional 60's concept of Bond being briefed on a mission in M's office, then goes after a villain in the traditional sense. The fact that Waltz is not named as Blofeld means EON are up to their old tricks again of trying to be too clever.

Just give us a straightforward Bond story again for once, without these silly, predictable twists. It's not rocket science!!

Every Bond film since LTK has been "personal." with the exception of TND. It will be nice to one day get a Bond movie where he's not out for revenge or hurt about something.

I think the powers that be have judged that audiences won't take a Bond movie seriously if it doesn't have a "personal" angle. Doesn't always work as I, for one, thought Broz-Bond was an unlikeable, smarmy see-you-next-Tuesday even with all the deep n' gritty crap they crammed in to make him human or whatever.

Ultimately though, people don't go to see Bond films to be taken on an emotional rollercoaster. Rather they go because the Bond brand name promises a fun action-adventure movie with a sprinkling of familiar tropes.

Moore wrote:

Every Bond film since LTK has been "personal." with the exception of TND. It will be nice to one day get a Bond movie where he's not out for revenge or hurt about something.

And to add to that, every Bond film since TLD hasn't really gone by the classic formula, with the exception of TND. With that in mind, that means other than AVTAK and TND, there hasn't actually been a traditional Bond film reminiscent of the earlier films for 30 years.

Which is why TND is so great!

If only that were true.

Although even TND felt the need to bring in an ex-girlfriend to add a human touch and provide Brosnan with a shoulder to bite.

Luckily, five minutes after she's murdered, Bond is giggling while he plays with his toys and she's never mentioned again.

'Twas a simpler time.

Well, it was Teri Hatcher. I think most audience forgot about her during the garage sequence.

I forgot she was even acting still.

Turns out this is what Bond was actually looking at on his phone.

Everyone grieves in their own way.

Control wrote:

I forgot she was even acting still.

The few parts of her face that haven't been petrified by botox are still acting.

With LTK the personal angle felt a refreshing idea and perhaps something we hadn't seen before nor might again.

Brosnan's tenure is blighted by a half hearted approach to he personal concept - with GE it was fairly peripheral, with TND it was an awkwardly and arbitrarily sandwiched interlude in an otherwise formulaic entry. TWINE is the most determined attempt at integrating the personal angle even though it is really given no context. DAD is similarly burdened to begin but they just seem to drop the idea half way through.

With Daniel Craig in the hot seat the determination to make it all personal is fuelled by a Fleming story that just might make it appropriate but Casino Royale is really like two films spliced messily together - one a overblown and overlong generic actioner, the other a worthy personal arc but one which is crippled by being marginalised in terms of time and ineptly characterised leads. QOS desperately tries to be personal, littering the movie with emo-exposition to compensate for the fact it is otherwise a completely soulless and charmless journey and worse that its stated intent is widly inconsistent with actual events. Finally Skyfall does manage to merge the personal element and see it through to the end, it's clever swerve to use the series history to get us on board rather than labour 'lurve' as a pretence for someone who really doesn't mesh well with his female leads.

So after 4 half hearted attempts and two genuinely inept ones (even with the added advantage of Fleming material) I'd suggest the lesson is to avoid the issue altogether.

Here's an idea that I am hoping for:

SPECTRE have existed for nearly a century in various forms - starting with the Phoebus Cartel, a cabal that allegedly existed between the big power companies to fix the price of lightbulbs. Over the next eighty or ninety years, they constantly evolved and redefined themselves as groups like Majestic 12, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Council, Quantum and now SPECTRE.

It's only a matter of time until SPECTRE spoilers from the Sony leak start making their way into this thread.

All because an administrator can't fucking log in and make separate subforums for spoilers and non-spoilers.

I was away for ages. Who is the moderator nowadays?

Lazenby.

SPECTRE might shut down due to Sony's financial woes. The Times is reporting that Sony has told their filming agencies to stand down.

If that were the case, I doubt filming would have been started. You don't get into such a dire financial position overnight unless you're incompetent, a criminal, or an incompetent criminal. Sony would have known well in advance that they were in trouble, and if it were so serious, SPECTRE would not have started shooting.

If it's true, they have probably shut down the projects they have complete or majority control over to stop themselves haemorrhaging money. They'll be banking on projects with limited liability and/or are expected money-earners - like SPECTRE - to come good. It might explain some of their objections in the leaked e-mails, but SPECTRE's production is too big and its projected costs known too far in advance for the studio to justify shutting production down after a week of filming.

Harmsway wrote:

SPECTRE might shut down due to Sony's financial woes. The Times is reporting that Sony has told their filming agencies to stand down.

Yikes.

I ask that no one should post any potential spoilers on this thread. Keep it all speculative, and leave the spoilers to the leaked thread. Thanks.