James Bond: 007 - Spectre - - Part 11

[Soapy]

Craig's Bond quips in the other three films, it just isn't super cheesy all the time like in SPECTRE.

Assuming that Spectre is cheesy as you say, not that I necessarily agree, but assuming that is... what's wrong with that?

And if you think Spectre is cheesy, I guess it's safe to assume that you probably think most the other non Casino Royale/Skyfall Bond movies are cheesy as well? If that's the case, then good or bad, don't the cheesy one-liners in Spectre make it more of a traditional Bond movie?

Skyfall had the original tricked out Bond car.

Yes, but the way it was utilized was as more of a throwaway 50th anniversary reference than anything. Nevertheless, I'll give you that one.

Also, plenty of those elements are missing from other Bond movies.

I didn't say every Bond movie had every element I listed. You asked what traditional elements this movie had.

How many movies is Blofeld in?

Seven. Which is proportionally more than The Joker has appeared in Batman movies if you want to look at it that way.

Is there a Henchman in every movie?

I don't think so, but I would say at least 90% of them have one.

There is an exploding watch in every Bond movie?

Obviously not, but I meant like a cool gadget.

 

[Warhammer]

Why did Hinx waited that long to attack? Did he snuck on the train later that night? And now?

But you brought up a good point. Something I didn't think about, and that's why it's stupid to make it so personal for Blofeld. So obviously Bond can't be killed off because it's a part of a larger plan.

It also doesn't make sense why they were shooting at Bond while he was trying to escape from the Rome meeting.

And Hinx attempting to Murder Bond even though Bond was going to Blofeld's base.

I agree with all of this so so so much.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Assuming that Spectre is cheesy as you say, not that I necessarily agree, but assuming that is... what's wrong with that?

And if you think Spectre is cheesy, I guess it's safe to assume that you probably think most the other non Casino Royale/Skyfall Bond movies are cheesy as well? If that's the case, then good or bad, don't the cheesy one-liners in Spectre make it more of a traditional Bond movie?

Casino Royale and Skyfall had cheese. The difference is how it is used, and the method of delivery. Namely it was geared towards character and story. For example:

"Shaken or stirred?"

"Do I look like I give a damn?"

"How is your lamb?"

"Skewered. One sympathizes."

"I'm the money."

"Every penny of it."

"That is because you know what I can do with my little finger."

The sense of what I get is a traditional Bond film is that it equals stuff happening just because it is "tradition" post-Goldfinger. So if you remove the good ones, which attempt to tell a story, you have your traditional Bond.

Yes, but the way it was utilized was as more of a throwaway 50th anniversary reference than anything. Nevertheless, I'll give you that one.

Thank you.

I didn't say every Bond movie had every element I listed. You asked what traditional elements this movie had.

So then what makes them traditional Bond elements that separate it from other movies, that makes this one more "traditionally" Bond? Craig other three films had just as much traditional Bond elements, so what is the difference?

Casino Royale and Skyfall are every bit as traditional as any other Bond movie. The difference is the writing is much better then majority of Bond movies.

Seven. Which is proportionally more than The Joker has appeared in Batman movies if you want to look at it that way.

So how is he a traditional Bond element, if it is missing form the vast majority of Bond movies?

I don't think so, but I would say at least 90% of them have one.

But does this mean that every film that doesn't have one isn't traditional Bond?

Obviously not, but I meant like a cool gadget.

Bond had gadgets in CR, QoS and Skyfall. What he thankfully did not have is gadgets which could be used in one very specific situation only.

 

[Soapy]

So then what makes them traditional Bond elements that separate it from other movies, that makes this one more "traditionally" Bond? Craig other three films had just as much traditional Bond elements, so what is the difference?

Casino Royale and Skyfall are every bit as traditional as any other Bond movie. The difference is the writing is much better then majority of Bond movies.

If you think Casino and Skyfall are traditional Bond movies, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I would even go so far as to say that we might as well end this conversation because with such a fundamental difference of opinion, we're just going to end up talking in circles.

So how is he a traditional Bond element, if it is missing form the vast majority of Bond movies?

Because he's Bond's arch nemesis and the quintessential villain of the franchise. Do I really need to explain that to you?

Furthermore, Blofeld and Spectre most certainly would have been in even more of the movies were it not for the infamous legal shenanigans revolving around them.

But does this mean that every film that doesn't have one isn't traditional Bond?

You're really thinking too hard about this. As I said earlier, no, not every single Bond film has to have every single element traditionally associated with the Bond franchise.

Bond had gadgets in CR, QoS and Skyfall. What he thankfully did not have is gadgets which could be used in one very specific situation only.

What gadgets? The only thing I can think of is the radio from Skyfall, but they even joke about it in the movie that it's not really a traditional Bond gadget.

 

[Golgo-13]

I found Patrice a more menacing henchman than Mr.Hinx.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I remember the LED billboards more than I remember Patrice.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If you think Casino and Skyfall are traditional Bond movies, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I would even go so far as to say that we might as well end this conversation because with such a fundamental difference of opinion, we're just going to end up talking in circles.

But I don't understand the fundamental difference because for why you set those two films as different from all the other Bond films. I would say there is definitely a quality difference, but the concept is not. Like all Bond movies, they took the Bond style and mixed it with contemporary films.

Because he's Bond's arch nemesis and the quintessential villain of the franchise. Do I really need to explain that to you?

Ok, but follow that logic. Does that suddenly mean the Bond movies without him aren't traditional? The Joker isn't in Batman Begins, is it not suddenly Batman? Of course not. You don't need Blofeld for a traditional Bond film, unless you are saying there are only 7 traditional Bond films.

Furthermore, Blofeld and Spectre most certainly would have been in even more of the movies were it not for the infamous legal shenanigans revolving around them.

But that didn't happen and they would have eventually left him behind.

You're really thinking too hard about this. As I said earlier, no, not every single Bond film has to have every single element traditionally associated with the Bond franchise.

And yet you say Casino Royale and Skyfall aren't traditional Bond movies. Do you not see the conflict of logic here?

What gadgets? The only thing I can think of is the radio from Skyfall, but they even joke about it in the movie that it's not really a traditional Bond gadget.

In CR Bond saves himself with the gear in the car from Q branch. He gets the car from Q branch, it is simply delivered to him. He also has the tracker in his body, which can monitor his body.

Skyfall, he has the radio, the car and the ID gun, that only he can fire.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I remember the LED billboards more than I remember Patrice.

Too be fair, those were some sexy billboards.

 

[Schlosser85]

Patrice got two cool action sequences to be part of, but there was nothing specifically memorable or special about Patrice himself.

 

[Soapy]

But I don't understand the fundamental difference because for why you set those two films as different from all the other Bond films. I would say there is definitely a quality difference, but the concept is not. Like all Bond movies, they took the Bond style and mixed it with contemporary films.

It's not just those two. There are other Bond movies as well that don't follow the traditional formula. I just singled those out because they were the two that you seemed to be putting on a pedestal.

Ok, but follow that logic. Does that suddenly mean the Bond movies without him aren't traditional? The Joker isn't in Batman Begins, is it not suddenly Batman? Of course not. You don't need Blofeld for a traditional Bond film, unless you are saying there are only 7 traditional Bond films.

Obviously that's not what I'm saying. As I've said for the third time now for anyone keeping count, not every Bond film needs to have every element associated with the traditional Bond milieu.

And I never said that Bond movies that don't have Blofeld or eschew the classic formula "weren't Bond". Just not traditional Bonds.

Which leads me to want to clarify something that I think might have gotten lost here. Just to be perfectly clear, when I say one of these isn't a traditional Bond movie, that is no way a qualitative statement. I am in no way saying they're bad movies. In fact most of my favorite Bond films are the ones that don't adhere super closely to the formula, and on the other side of the coin there are plenty of the more pastichey ones that I'm not crazy about.

But that didn't happen and they would have eventually left him behind.

Probably. But that doesn't change the fact that he's the classic Bond villain. I mean they're bringing him specifically back instead of Largo or Drax or Carver for a reason.

And yet you say Casino Royale and Skyfall aren't traditional Bond movies. Do you not see the conflict of logic here?

No because I'm not talking in absolutes necessarily. Look at Licence to Kill. Just because it has gadgets and a henchman doesn't mean it falls in line with the classic Bond formula. Yes, it has some such elements, but not enough for it to fit into that classic mold, thus becoming something different. That's the category that I put Craig's first three movies in.

And then you have the movies that do utilize the traditional Bond formula which is where I would place Spectre.

However there are definitely also other movies in the franchise that skirt that line and don't fit neatly into either category.

In CR Bond saves himself with the gear in the car from Q branch. He gets the car from Q branch, it is simply delivered to him. He also has the tracker in his body, which can monitor his body.

Skyfall, he has the radio, the car and the ID gun, that only he can fire.

If you consider those gadgets, I think you're really stretching the definition of gadget, but fine whatever that's your opinion. I just disagree.

Opinions, man.

 

[Frodo]

As far as the whole "traditional Bond film" argument goes in relation to CR and SF, I would say CR is more of a traditional Bond film than SF. SF really is something of a divergence from all the other films, why is why it was able to garner so much cross over non Bond fan appeal and win the BAFTA. It really is something different when you compare it to even what are considered the best in the canon.

That's not to say it doesn't utilize classic bond elements , but when people talk about Spectre not having, "The heart", "emotional core", of Skyfall, its fare to say that those terms aren't really considered in reference to the vast majority of Bond films.

OHMSS is the closet to being associated with those terms and that sentiment , but even that is much more of a traditional Bond film than Skyfall. That sort of shows how much Skyfall as a different type of Bond from the rest in series, set a different standard for a different type of Bond film that many seemed to have assumed we were going to get from now on.

One of the main divergence in opinion over Spectre seems to be between those who aren't big Bond fans and those who are big Bond fans, with the prior group tending not to like Spectre and expected Spectre to be more like Skyfall and the prior group being more fine with it because its business as usual with the other films in the series.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

If CR and SF aren't traditional Bond movies, I don't want traditional Bond movies.

Those are my top two all time Bond films.

 

[The Chris]

As far as the whole "traditional Bond film" argument goes in relation to CR and SF, I would say CR is more of a traditional Bond film than SF. SF really is something of a divergence from all the other films, why is why it was able to garner so much cross over non Bond fan appeal and win the BAFTA. It really is something different when you compare it to even what are considered the best in the canon.

That's not to say it doesn't utilize classic bond elements , but when people talk about Spectre not having, "The heart", "emotional core", of Skyfall, its fare to say that those terms aren't really considered in reference to the vast majority of Bond films.

OHMSS is the closet to being associated with those terms and that sentiment , but even that is much more of a traditional Bond film than Skyfall. That sort of shows how much Skyfall as a different type of Bond from the rest in series, set a different standard for a different type of Bond film that many seemed to have assumed we were going to get from now on.

One of the main divergence in opinion over Spectre seems to be between those who aren't big Bond fans and those who are big Bond fans, with the prior group tending not to like Spectre and expected Spectre to be more like Skyfall and the prior group being more fine with it because its business as usual with the other films in the series.

If I had the opportunity to do two Bond films I'd probably try it like that too honestly. Do one where I get to express myself and my mood through a Bond movie and then another where I get to play the more traditional Bond game.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Okay, I lol'd

 

[Golgo-13]

Craig definately looks better with longer hair.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Why did Hinx waited that long to attack? Did he snuck on the train later that night? And now?

But you brought up a good point. Something I didn't think about, and that's why it's stupid to make it so personal for Blofeld. So obviously Bond can't be killed off because it's a part of a larger plan.

As with most Bond villains, I've always assumed it was the thought process of "Kill him if you can, but if he gets to me, then I'll do it myself, slowly and painfully". Not that it's the most sound logic but I feel like that's the general idea.

Craig's Bond quips in the other three films, it just isn't super cheesy all the time like in SPECTRE.

What cheesy lines? Have you even seen the film, honestly?

 

[TeeKay]

Okay, I lol'd

You monster.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

No worse than a minion avvy

 

[TeeKay]

No worse than a minion avvy

Take that back.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

 

[Frodo]

If CR and SF aren't traditional Bond movies, I don't want traditional Bond movies.

Those are my top two all time Bond films.

My top Bond film is Goldfinger. That's basically Bond personified , and every film since then has one way or another called back to it. Even Skyfall makes nods to it with the Aston Martin. Skyfall and Casino Royale are among the best imo but Skyfall really is different from everything else .

That's what makes it special, but its not the norm by any stretch in the series.

 

[TeeKay]

Let's go.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

As far as the whole "traditional Bond film" argument goes in relation to CR and SF, I would say CR is more of a traditional Bond film than SF. SF really is something of a divergence from all the other films, why is why it was able to garner so much cross over non Bond fan appeal and win the BAFTA. It really is something different when you compare it to even what are considered the best in the canon.

That's not to say it doesn't utilize classic bond elements , but when people talk about Spectre not having, "The heart", "emotional core", of Skyfall, its fare to say that those terms aren't really considered in reference to the vast majority of Bond films.

OHMSS is the closet to being associated with those terms and that sentiment , but even that is much more of a traditional Bond film than Skyfall. That sort of shows how much Skyfall as a different type of Bond from the rest in series, set a different standard for a different type of Bond film that many seemed to have assumed we were going to get from now on.

One of the main divergence in opinion over Spectre seems to be between those who aren't big Bond fans and those who are big Bond fans, with the prior group tending not to like Spectre and expected Spectre to be more like Skyfall and the prior group being more fine with it because its business as usual with the other films in the series.

How is Skyfall a less traditional Bond film than QOS? Skyfall had Q, the introduction of male M and Moneypenny, as well as a tricked out Aston Martin. Solace had none of these. Bond didn't even **** the Bond girl.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Honestly, I loved that about QoS. Unlike DAF, where Bond was pissed for all of 25 seconds then was back to normal.