SPECTRE Theatrical Trailer!

Yeah it's not just about age for me. Mr Mumbles' awkward delivery of charm/humour when he is clear doesn't always come across all that well. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. And granted he does look better here than in SF, but it feels as though SF should have been his last Bond film, and SP his third.

Δ

Maybe they'll do that for his "mmmd whaddYU think" line to Moneypenny as well.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Craig looks a bit old in the trailer.

The "I was taking an overdue holiday" line sounds rushed and lacking punch...

Sounded fine to me

bitchcraft wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Salomé wrote:

Craig looks a bit old in the trailer.

The "I was taking an overdue holiday" line sounds rushed and lacking punch...

Sounded fine to me

No, I didn't like it precisely because he's not good at all with the cheesy one liners. His best two bits in SKYFALL involved no attempt at making a joke: the first one is when he jumps on the back of the moving train and tells the woman to open the door. The look on his face was pretty damn funny (and hers to). The other scene was when he reached for the ejector button in the Aston Martin; nothing needed to be said; his look says it all.

Here in the SPECTRE trailer the line delivery is the kind of bad pun we'd expect from Brosnan; it's not even up to Roger's standards, much less Pierce's, so what's it doing in a Craig film? I may not like everything about the Craig series, but don't go try making the man into what he's not.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Maybe, but it gets pretty tiresome when it's all that he does.

Not even factually correct. Not even close. If I weren't a Bond fan, I wouldn't be on this board. But I'm not going to hold back from criticizing the Craig series, nor offering false bromides, just so you and a handful of others can not be bothered with having to read opinions you don't like or agree with. We've all seen how quickly this forum goes down the shitter when a few people start acting like it's an inconvenience to have to deal with contrary opinion.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

We've all seen how quickly this forum goes down the shitter when a few people start acting like it's an inconvenience to have to deal with contrary opinion.

Gravy's right. Healthy discussion requires opposing views, something this forum used to be good at.

The real problem with humour in the Craig films is the lack of good double entendres. So far he's only referred to his cock as "my little finger"* and "the stationery."

*Though in that instance he may have meant that he's great at fingerbanging with his pinky.

He has said in the past that he knows he's no good at Moore-esque 'schtick' and that he's more comfortable with humour that might arise naturally out of whatever situation Bond happens to find himself in.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Maybe, but it gets pretty tiresome when it's all that he does.

Not even factually correct. Not even close. If I weren't a Bond fan, I wouldn't be on this board. But I'm not going to hold back from criticizing the Craig series, nor offering false bromides, just so you and a handful of others can not be bothered with having to read opinions you don't like or agree with. We've all seen how quickly this forum goes down the shitter when a few people start acting like it's an inconvenience to have to deal with contrary opinion.

I can deal with contrary opinion - yours or anybody else's - that's not a problem. It only gets tiresome when it drifts into l'art pour l'art, just a vehicle to show off one's underdone ego. Not saying that's the case with yours. When I feel somebody is desperately out to use every opportunity to nurse his image and establish a certain persona I for one pretty fast get the impression he's a fake and a bore, both not boding well for intellectual intercourse. So I consequently have no other option but to ignore and that's that. But this place is meant to be fun, isn't it?

Blunt Instrument wrote:

He has said in the past that he knows he's no good at Moore-esque 'schtick' and that he's more comfortable with humour that might arise naturally out of whatever situation Bond happens to find himself in.

People won't be satisfied until they get some Tarzan yells and an action scene which includes a California Girls soundbyte.

CJB wrote:

The real problem with humour in the Craig films is the lack of good double entendres. So far he's only referred to his cock as "my little finger"* and "the stationery."

*Though in that instance he may have meant that he's great at fingerbanging with his pinky.

My favorite is in SF when he meets Moneypenny for the first time since being shot by her.

Moneypenny: "I'm the one who should say 'sorry'."
Bond: "It was only four ribs. Some of the less vital organs. Nothing major."

It took me a few viewings to actually understand what he was saying in that scene.

You have terrible hearing.

I appreciate the return of levity under Mendes however successful it is in execution......is Craig good with the humour, well sometimes yes which indicates to me that it is either the quality of the writing (and imo the last five or so films have lost the vital essence of both irony and sarcasm) or that Craig simply needs a more tailored approach to his witticisms. His mumbling of dialogue is sometimes a valid issue I think, but again it may be his comfort with the line as presented that is the root cause.

The great thing about humour in the Connery era imo was that it was Bond laughing at the situation and by association us along with him, Moore made it more overtly a comedic moment which suited his style but didn't/doesn't translate well to others (one area Brosnan tended to cope with better than his two immediate colleagues).

Craig isn't much older, it's just that you have shadows on his face in some shots. That's weird lighting since they should make sure Bonds looks good, especially in this new film as the real top of his game Bond we all know and love his back.

Still not a fan of the cinematography. I find that hue dulling, drab, and "generic blockbuster." The Mexico bits, in particular, did not look good. The shots themselves are fine (better than fine, really) but Mexico City, especially the DOTD parade, should look lush and really "pop" off the screen. Instead we are treated to some sort of filter that makes everything look like Transformers. I prefer my Bond films to look really vibrant and full of color.

Everything else I'm impressed with. Very excited.

Δ

A third and final trailer will be released at 6:00pm BST today.

Final trailer's up.

Song aside, still looking forward to it. Having avoided any type of spoiler, like Skyfall I might end up pleasantly surprised.

WHERE'S THE FUCKING CAT?

CJB wrote:

WHERE'S THE FUCKING CAT?

Where's Monica Bellucci? The "trailer" felt too short; at 1:15 it felt more like an extended teaser than a true trailer (which usually clock in over 2 minutes long). The CGI looked god-awful (did we learn nothing from the fake tital wave in DAD?) and the wall-to-wall stunts in the preview leave no room to make any sort of emotional connection to anything else, which is odd because the human element was supposed to be the selling point of the Craig series. But I digress.

I've read a few concerns comments on other message boards about the hue of the film and I'm in agreement with them. Almost everything in every scene other than the trip to Austria looks like a variation of brown, tan, beige, etc....there's very little color.

Eh, whatever. I'm going to see it on opening day, but I'll go to the matinee and use a $7.00-off coupon to see it; not paying full price for this.

... Seriously? "The CGI is no better than what was used in DAD"? What planet are you living on? Sure, there's obviously some degree of CGI here, but the stuff used in DAD looked like a cartoon bu comparison.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

... Seriously? "The CGI is no better than what was used in DAD"? What planet are you living on? Sure, there's obviously some degree of CGI here, but the stuff used in DAD looked like a cartoon bu comparison.

That scene with Bond running away from a falling wall....pure garbage. I mean, it doesn't even look like Craig was running away from a green screen; looks like his face grafted onto someone else's body.

Furthermore, why are we using CGI dust and dirt? It's not as if Mendes was creating a Martian landscape. There's not a world shortage of rubble, dirt and dust, so why fake it?



The pertinent bit is at the 6:22 mark: Cubby: "They are very smart. They know just where you are. They know you're in Hollywood behind a palm tree and not in Ouarzazate or not in Morocco."

What's the point of a $300 million dollar budget if you have to lower yourself to manufacturing cgi dust? It's laziness, pure and simple.