007 SPECTRE |OT| It's me, Austin. It was me all along, Austin.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Speevy said:
3jGKmc1.jpg
Click to expand...

After Home Alone, I won't be surprised if they pull this..."the author of your pain" lol

Lemme guess, he kills Bond's parents.
 
Faddy said:
I don't think the plot is flimsy. Bond has stumbled onto an unknown covert group who are surrepticiously corrupt governments around the world. Bond foils a plot to install a corrupt government in Bolivia.

Bond leaving Camille isn't a plot hole. He has no reason to think she is useful to him. He is tracking Greene and she is unconcious. Maybe he should have waited and questioned her but he has been shown he isn't in a waiting or asking questions mood. It is the whole point of the film that he has stopped seeing people and now only sees targets. He is cold and blunt and selfish. He is broken and can't do the job anymore.

I don't think it is asking much of the audience to remember the events of the previous film.

Knowing particulars about the Terria Project wouldn't have been that helpful compared to the information gained by chasing Greene to Switzerland. So he made the correct choice.
Click to expand...

Well actually if the whole point of his character in the movie is that he is cold and blunt and selfish and doesn't see people anymore, then he has no reason to actually rescue her if he isn't going to question her. The fact that Greene tried to kill her is a pretty obvious red flag that she knows something. Sounds like exactly exactly the kind of logic problem you're complaining about in Skyfall to me; the only real difference is that "Bond is mad" is used to justify an aimless, meandering plot that struggles to make it to an hour and 45 minutes.

Sure, asking people to remember stuff isn't too much, but it makes Quantum feel like a footnote to another movie, and a largely unnecessary one at that since it contributes so very little to Bond's characterization; Casino Royale had a more or less complete character arc The idea that Bond had a temper tantrum afterwards and magically recovered from it by helping out some other girl is something you can cut and lose nothing at all. The plot is flimsy because, once again, it involves Bond stumbling into every single lead like it's by accident. Casino Royale had a much more persistent goal and gave him more agency; Quantum feels like Bond is wandering around, hoping for the next action scene to happen to him.

Oh, and Bond didn't actually gain any particular knowledge about the project at the opera apart from the people who were involved, which is fairly pointless considering he interrogates Greene at the end of the movie.
 
I still remember when I saw QoS on opening night, and as I was walking out I overheard someone saying "I have no fucking clue what that film was about"
 
APZonerunner said:
I wasn't really a fan of Newman's work on Skyfall, and while I know they had him because Arnold was doing the Olympics and Newman was a composer Mendes loves, I wish they'd bring Arnold back. Then again, even he misstepped - the stripped-back nature of the score in Casino Royale made sense, but then it stayed stripped back for Quantum, and I'm not really sure why. His work in The World is Not Enough and (dare I say it) Die Another Day hit a sweet Barry-ish sort of spot, but they've failed to hit that since.
Click to expand...

Newman's work on Skyfall was totally forgettable for me, insofar as I cannot remember any of it.

It is a shame they haven't brought Arnold back yet, but I think I'm much higher on his Casino/Quantum scores than you are. Vesper's theme is, I think, borderline iconic for the series now and, 7 years later*, I still absolutely love Night at the Opera from QoS.



*typing that made me feel really strange. 7 years, when the hell did that happen...
 
Oni Actual said:
Well actually if the whole point of his character in the movie is that he is cold and blunt and selfish and doesn't see people anymore, then he has no reason to actually rescue her if he isn't going to question her. The fact that Greene tried to kill her is a pretty obvious red flag that she knows something. Sounds like exactly exactly the kind of logic problem you're complaining about in Skyfall to me; the only real difference is that "Bond is mad" is used to justify an aimless, meandering plot that struggles to make it to an hour and 45 minutes.

Sure, asking people to remember stuff isn't too much, but it makes Quantum feel like a footnote to another movie, and a largely unnecessary one at that since it contributes so very little to Bond's characterization; Casino Royale had a more or less complete character arc The idea that Bond had a temper tantrum afterwards and magically recovered from it by helping out some other girl is something you can cut and lose nothing at all. The plot is flimsy because, once again, it involves Bond stumbling into every single lead like it's by accident. Casino Royale had a much more persistent goal and gave him more agency; Quantum feels like Bond is wandering around, hoping for the next action scene to happen to him.

Oh, and Bond didn't actually gain any particular knowledge about the project at the opera apart from the people who were involved, which is fairly pointless considering he interrogates Greene at the end of the movie.
Click to expand...

A justifiable character choice isn't a logic problem. Casino Royale has a complete character arc and it leaves Bond broken. He finds out Vesper was playing him but it only makes him distrust Mathis more.

He doesn't have a temper tantrum, he doesn't show any emotion. His realisation that he is needs to have an emotional investment comes in two forms. 1. He listens to Camille's story and empathises with her need for closure, she has a target where as Bond's ruthles streak is somewhat aimless as he struggles to find the reason Vesper was taken from him. 2. Fields is killed and he is going on about the oil but then M tells him she was an office girl which hits Bond in that he is surprised he cares. It plays very nicely when he gives Greene the motor oil at the end exacting some small revenge which is a close as Bond gets to expressing remorse for his actions.

Mathis' death scene is a stand out. Mathis is alive when Bond pulls him from the boot but Bond uses him as a shield. Mathis asks Bond to stay with him. Bond watches him die and puts him in a dumpster and ransacks his wallet. Camille asks why he is leaving his friend and Bond's answer is that he wouldn't care, this is a lie. Bond doesn't care and Mathis wasn't his friend, he was the only means he had available to him. It is clearly Bond's low point of the movie.

Bond gained plenty of information and information he didn't have at the time and information which ultimately convinces M to let him loose in the hotel. The pictures are perhaps very useful. Mr Greene, Mr White, Le Chiffre. These are possibly/probably cover names. Perhaps Greene doesn't know real names but they can match photos to other intelligence MI6 already has.
 
Faddy said:
A justifiable character choice isn't a logic problem. Casino Royale has a complete character arc and it leaves Bond broken. He finds out Vesper was playing him but it only makes him distrust Mathis more.

He doesn't have a temper tantrum, he doesn't show any emotion. His realisation that he is needs to have an emotional investment comes in two forms. 1. He listens to Camille's story and empathises with her need for closure, she has a target where as Bond's ruthles streak is somewhat aimless as he struggles to find the reason Vesper was taken from him. 2. Fields is killed and he is going on about the oil but then M tells him she was an office girl which hits Bond in that he is surprised he cares. It plays very nicely when he gives Greene the motor oil at the end exacting some small revenge which is a close as Bond gets to expressing remorse for his actions.

Mathis' death scene is a stand out. Mathis is alive when Bond pulls him from the boot but Bond uses him as a shield. Mathis asks Bond to stay with him. Bond watches him die and puts him in a dumpster and ransacks his wallet. Camille asks why he is leaving his friend and Bond's answer is that he wouldn't care, this is a lie. Bond doesn't care and Mathis wasn't his friend, he was the only means he had available to him. It is clearly Bond's low point of the movie.

Bond gained plenty of information and information he didn't have at the time and information which ultimately convinces M to let him loose in the hotel. The pictures are perhaps very useful. Mr Greene, Mr White, Le Chiffre. These are possibly/probably cover names. Perhaps Greene doesn't know real names but they can match photos to other intelligence MI6 already has.
Click to expand...

You haven't actually addressed any of the inconsistencies I pointed out with the Camille thing; you've just repeated that you think it's justified because he's mad, which would be a flimsy argument even if it WAS actually addressed in the movie (it isn't, despite how eager the movie is to point out when Bond messes up in other instances by killing so often).

Pretty sure the movie spent most of its runtime trying to convince me Bond was really angry because he kept killing a bunch of people, which also isn't the point; the movie leaves Bond in a place that can be assumed from the ending of Casino Royale, excluding maybe the final scene with the boyfriend. None of what you mentioned actually contributes to Bond eventually putting away his need for revenge while simultaneously helping someone else get revenge. This is also the second time you've ignored the mention of the general plotting issues with Quantum of Solace.

"Plenty of information" is just the names of the people involved, as I said; he arrives, he listens to people talk about transferring funds, he interrupts the meeting, and then he gets their faces. Once again, you're simply repeating yourself. And I'd say the amount of "perhaps" and "possibly" and "probably" speaks for itself.

At this point I think it's clear you're more interested in reiterating your talking points than anything else, so I'll leave it at this.
 
Bronx-Man said:
Wait, Stone Cold Steve Austin is the new Bond?

He's a little old but I'm down for it.
Click to expand...

I thought it would be Thanos again.

Still not looking forward to this after the Sony leak script kerfuffle. And I actually liked Skyfall, the underwater opening and the neon lit sniper fight were pretty nice.
 
i'm not a big fan of skyfall but one thing it gave us was very competent direction from sam mendes and some nice looking shots. plus craig is easily the best bond since connery.

expecting >>>kingsmen, uncle and maybe > MI5

waltz, batista and moriarty are a good set of villains. i've given up any craig movie being as good as casino royale at this point.
 
StaticJam said:
I still don't understand what people have against Skyfall
Click to expand...

it took a lot of good that casino royale created and threw it out of the window, and it opened the door to bring back old bond stuff like spectre is doing here.

plus the villian was boring and uninteresting, the bond girl wasn't even there really, and the final battle was not remotely exciting, plus M's death scene was poorly done.

see? didn't even bring up a home alone comparison.

Discotheque said:
i'm not a big fan of skyfall but one thing it gave us was very competent direction from sam mendes and some nice looking shots. plus craig is easily the best bond since connery.

expecting >>>kingsmen, uncle and maybe > MI5

waltz, batista and moriarty are a good set of villains. i've given up any craig movie being as good as casino royale at this point.
Click to expand...

personally kingsman >>> MI5, but that's just me.
 
-shadow- said:
People can hate on Skyfall as much as theywant, but you'd have a hard time tellign me that the movie wasn't absolutely gorgeous to look at. The cinematography is absolutely amazing and the editing was spot on. You can't say the same about QoS. I remember the first time I watched that film on blu-ray. I was so confused during the entire opening car chase that after it finished I started the movie again just to figure out what was happening.
And really every fight/chase scene is a mess. It's really a waste because the movie in setting is absolutely great. The desert looked great and the hotel exploding was a great set piece.
Click to expand...
Skyfall was a very beautiful film. But Quantum of Solace were the better movie.
 
Solo said:
Wow, this certainly snuck up fast on me. I'll be seeing it opening day, as always, but my expectations are next to nil after Skyfall due to Spectre having all the same key people involved as Skyfall. Maybe the lack of excitement and expectation will allow for me to be pleasantly surprised. Maybe.
Click to expand...

First Bond movie since TWINE that I'll be skipping from watching in theatres :(

I was hoping that this movie was going to be a pleasant surprise after Skyfall being a massive disappointment, but the reviews are confirming my worst fears about the movie :(
 
Me and my mates have tickets booked for tonight, Star Wars hype overshadowed this a little because I was super hyped when the trailers first started dropping but I'm gonna listen to some Bond themes to get myself back in the mood today.

Still convinced Waltz is Blofeld
 
obin_gam said:
Thinking of going to the midnight opening this Thursday. Now for the real question: tux or no tux?
Click to expand...

Just don't wear a bowtie, apparently it's a neckbeardy thing to do, according to what I read on GAF over the last week.

Solo said:
Wow, this certainly snuck up fast on me. I'll be seeing it opening day, as always, but my expectations are next to nil after Skyfall due to Spectre having all the same key people involved as Skyfall. Maybe the lack of excitement and expectation will allow for me to be pleasantly surprised. Maybe.
Click to expand...

same..

neogaffer1 said:
it took a lot of good that casino royale created and threw it out of the window, and it opened the door to bring back old bond stuff like spectre is doing here..
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's my main complaint as well.
You can bring up a lot of stuff what's wrong with Skyfall, but in the end my main argument is, that the Bond portrayed in Skyfall is not the same person he was in CR and QoS.

I wouldn't have had a problem if they had cast a new actor for Skyfall, beginning kind of a new continuity, going into a new (or should I say old?) direction.

I think CR started something incredibly refreshing for the series, and it's sad to see they threw it all away for some gimmicks and nostalgic revelry for the series tropes.
 
Not a massive fan of Craig's Bond and Skyfall is the only one of his films I've really liked, but still really hyped to see this tonight
 
I liked Skyfall, a lot of Bond is about surface and style and it did that really well. I'm also think people see CR with rose tinted glasses, because I found everything before the train scene with Vesper (the stuff at the island and the airport) to be really flat. It had the advantage of being a reboot and can have Vesper and a complete character arc, which I wouldn't really expect from any follow up unless you expect the franchise to end.
 
People complaining about bringing back old bond stuff? I think that's what they need more of. Not as cheesy as Moore but more of the classic formula. Not all at once, just bits and pieces, but for a while there I was scared the franchise was going to just be Bourne by another name.

What I want right now, after the first three Craigs, is to get a Bond movie where he goes on a completely unrelated adventure in the first 10 minutes (this hasn't happened in literally decades that I can recall), and then he walks into M's office, and is given a mission briefing and some dossiers. Then he goes on some a mission, and pulls it off. Without going rogue, awol, or having to deal with MI6 being infiltrated.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
People complaining about bringing back old bond stuff? I think that's what they need more of. Not as cheesy as Moore but more of the classic formula. Not all at once, just bits and pieces, but for a while there I was scared the franchise was going to just be Bourne by another name.

What I want right now, after the first three Craigs, is to get a Bond movie where he goes on a completely unrelated adventure in the first 10 minutes (this hasn't happened in literally decades that I can recall), and then he walks into M's office, and is given a mission briefing and some dossiers. Then he goes on some a mission, and pulls it off. Without going rogue, awol, or having to deal with MI6 being infiltrated.
Click to expand...

It's never looked like Bourne. Casino Royale and QoS still had him travelling to exotic locations, high class events, elegant and dangerous people, smirking lines delivered, suit and tie. It just gave Craig's Bond a character. People mistake a specific Bond period for the 'true' Bond. Connery started out rough and relatively low key doing actual spy stuff. It only got really goofy towards the end, and Moore expanded on that. Moore's was a Bond always on the verge of making a joke. Constant smirk. Super silly fun plots. Then Dalton took it to a darker places perhaps even than Craig at times. All the actors have put their mark on Bond. Craig did too, but then they scaled that back and made him a touch more generic. That's not good. The next Bond actor can go in any number of directions - but should still be a distinct Bond.
 
Faddy said:
Yes it does and the Q example is the most relevant and crucial to the film's demise. Here we have the most intelligent computer whizz, many times compared to Silva who is also heralded as a genius. Now Silva's careful plot to confront and kill M involves getting captured by elite intelligence agency who he knows will track them down. His plan also involves MI6 and Q in particular being so incompetent he will plug his laptop into their system at an exact moment.

These two things cannot be reconciled.

A second example is Silva's attack on Bond's house. He sends in a team of men in cars then on foot who soot indescriminately and fire multiple times at M. But then once they are killed he comes in a seperate helicopter with another squad and immediately reminds them not to kill M ( I say reminds because he presumably shared these thoughts in the pre-mission breifing). Why the two squads, why does he even need back up to take out Bond and a gamekeeper. He as already shown Bond he is smarter, more ruthless and all around better than Bond.

This is a film that is actually trying to have a plot but relies on contrivances and out of character decisions so that cinematic scenes can be set up. It wants to be a smart film but has to be a dumb film because the written script can't sustain the action that has been predetermined to happen before a script was even outlined. It is a series of unlinked vignettes.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'll say about this is that I think Silva acted "out of character" is because he has been hell-bent on catching up to and getting his hands on M for years. Here he knows he is so damn close and is about to get there, and that overtakes everything else, even his own usual security and logic.
 
Oni Actual said:
You haven't actually addressed any of the inconsistencies I pointed out with the Camille thing; you've just repeated that you think it's justified because he's mad, which would be a flimsy argument even if it WAS actually addressed in the movie (it isn't, despite how eager the movie is to point out when Bond messes up in other instances by killing so often).

Pretty sure the movie spent most of its runtime trying to convince me Bond was really angry because he kept killing a bunch of people, which also isn't the point; the movie leaves Bond in a place that can be assumed from the ending of Casino Royale, excluding maybe the final scene with the boyfriend. None of what you mentioned actually contributes to Bond eventually putting away his need for revenge while simultaneously helping someone else get revenge. This is also the second time you've ignored the mention of the general plotting issues with Quantum of Solace.

"Plenty of information" is just the names of the people involved, as I said; he arrives, he listens to people talk about transferring funds, he interrupts the meeting, and then he gets their faces. Once again, you're simply repeating yourself. And I'd say the amount of "perhaps" and "possibly" and "probably" speaks for itself.

At this point I think it's clear you're more interested in reiterating your talking points than anything else, so I'll leave it at this.
Click to expand...

Ok. You have lost me. Bond making a decision isn't a plot hole. He is presented with a choice. Wait and question Camille or follow Greene. He chooses to follow Greene. You can argue the merits of each option but doing one thing over another is not a plot hole.

He isn't angry because he killed a bunch of people, he isn't angry about anything. So I'm "pretty sure" you don't understand the movie at all.
 
I wonder how, if at all, the movie connects SPECTRE to Quantum. Given Mr. White being in the movie, and some of the reviews talking about how it ties up loose ends from the other Craig films, I'm hoping they do something interesting with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Is it me or is Instagram shit?
38
216
Eirin replied
Eddington | Trailer | July 18 | Dir. Ari Aster | Pedro Pascal, Emma Stone, Austin Butler and Joaquin Phoenix
49
1K
Nocty replied
Gaf, tell me about times you got it wrong.
13
288
Blade2.0 replied
My neighbor offered me some Moonshine
48
271
DavidGzz replied
Apple to rename all of its operating systems
23
609
Drew1440 replied
Top Bottom