Very true, I have, I’m mostly trying to make a point, generally, not specifically at you, that the Madeline criticism is holding her to a higher standard than ANY of her predecessors. Bond films (and novels for that matter) are too fast paced to really allow a crafted love story to unfold, it’s unfair to expect it of Spectre when it’s 23 predecessors have shown that. Both of Dalton’s, which I’d put in the better half of how well they sold romance, have similar “just go with it” jumps.
Fair enough.
Yeah, i dont think that because the others did it is an excuse for the new ones to continue it - the fact they are choosing to follow up or were forced to follow up on this one makes it more than valid to analyse critically
But this particular criticism was up LONG before Madeline was returning.
It’s just an attitude I’ve noticed a lot towards Spectre as a film, it being held to a higher standard of storytelling than the rest of the series. This is a series of action films (the first of which is a B movie) based on a series of (self-described) airport novels. How you know what you’re getting with “A Bond movie” has often been part of its charm, so why should Spectre apologise for being that over the rest? Why is it, at film 24, you (general you, not specific you) have gone to see a Bond movie and criticised it for being a Bond movie?
3 Likes
I feel like the “continuity” and its effect on storytelling is new to this generation of Bond and has been the major source of contention with Spectre, certainly mine - madeline is part of that. That said, whatever it is that happens with Lucia (and Berenice Marlohe’s character in skyfall whose name escapes me) is more egregious than Madeleine which i always took as a sort of near death experience raised adrenaline kinda sex - perhaps understandable theyd be driven together in those extreme circumstances.
1 Like
I suspect the problem with Madeleine isn’t so much the sex but the confession of love when Bond is tortured. Overall, at least for me, this is the weak spot of SPECTRE and the film would improve significantly if the torture/escape thing were handled differently.
But it’s true, SPECTRE gets particular flak for things that are largely staple 007 diet.
2 Likes
This is pretty much how I feel about it. Madeleine falling in love with Bond feels completely unearned. You never get the feeling that these 2 love each other. Sleeping together doesn’t mean they’re in love and it never feels like they are.
3 Likes
The torture scene is problematic for many reasons. The most egregious of which, to me at least, is Blofeld basically allowing Madeleine to do whatever she wanted. If the point were to break Madeleine as much as Bond wouldn’t he want her restrained as well so whilst Blofeld is inflicting pain on Bond, Madeleine would be powerless to stop it?
1 Like
But that’s my point - that IS normal for Bond, even when they claim it’s love - so why is Spectre getting the flak?
As for the torture scene, since when has a torture scene in Bond made any logical sense? it’s a commonly known feature of the series as far back as Goldfinger.
So can anyone explain why Spectre is seen as the Bond film that should be judged for being a Bond film?
1 Like
And that’s a key trope in bond. I believe it’s often very plausible. It’s easy for the audience to sit and judge all this spontaneous sex, but when thy do they forget the intense situations these people are going through. Bit of hanky panky is probably a blessed break from the endless killing and a welcome chance to chill out a bit.
I think there could be a bit more tbh. Flemings flavour is very much about the symmetries between sex and violence; it’s why I first thought of Craig as Bond - the way the sex scenes were portrayed in the film Love is The Devil. Craig seemed a great fit for Flemings death and sex bond.
1 Like
It is. So why is the Madeline love story not an okay trope they used, like it was when it was used in OHMSS (and others) with FAR less interaction between Bond and the female lead before she says she loves him.
1 Like
I’m just expressing my opinion. To me, Tracy and Bond have far more chemistry in OHMSS than Madeleine and Bond do in Spectre. Bond seemed to like her, but Madeleine never seemed to have anything other than disdain for Bond right up until the scene where they have drinks on the train. The preceding scene still has Madeleine being cold and abrasive with Bond. The issue I have is that there is never a scene showing Madeleine softening to him. She goes from hating him to loving in the span of about 5 minutes with no explanation.
1 Like
Tracy and Bond have one BIG advantage: there’s the collage of them spending time to the Louis Armstrong tune. You can’t get more romantic in a Bond film than that. And at the time it wasn’t universally liked even.
Maybe that’s because with SPECTRE it wouldn’t take much to improve on the result.
To me, SPECTRE is a Bond film conceived originally around the plot, not the characters - in spite of having some interesting characters, somewhere they suddenly stop to matter.
Example: Lucia - why is she waiting for somebody to rescue her from the Spectre mob, when she must have had contact to Dench-M and arranged her divorce?
Example: Blofeld - when he’s been behind it all, why is he then sending this Hinx guy after Bond without having his great revelation speech?
Example: Mr White - why is White not telling Bond about the whereabouts of Blofeld straight away? Where is the motivation in sending Bond to his daughter first?
The characters want something; and then, for no apparent reasons, they change their aim or forget about it. These are the things that make SPECTRE perhaps more vulnerable to criticisms than most other films in the series.
2 Likes
No arguments here! I thought their relationship was fine by bond standards and they had great chemistry too (both being very wilful)
Indeed! Nothing cuts page-count like a music montage. And when you’ve got Louis Armstrong what’s not to love? It told us that time has past and we fill in the blanks ourselves
1 Like
Maybe because the Craig era tries to be or is regarded as “better” or “more realistic” than the classic era Bond films.
And CR and QOS actually tried to get around the tropes, IMO, much more successfully. SF and SP, however, embraced the tropes, maybe even strangled them. And if they had been directed by someone who is not celebrated for character based relationship dramas it would have gone unnoticed or just shrugged off as “well, that’s Bondian”.
But if you get someone like Mendes and still end up with something that John Glen would have pulled off as well, with better action sequences, then the criticism might even be justified.
5 Likes
No they didn’t. Not even close.
“Maybe you’re just out of practice”
“I can’t find the…um…stationary”
What I’m getting is, Skyfall and Spectre dared hire a man who won an Oscar 14 years before. That Oscar wasn’t for writing, and he came to make a Bond film, some are then angry he made a Bond film. Basically, if “directed by Alexander Witt” had come up, Spectre wouldn’t be such a favourite punching bag.
Certainly, expectations and all that. SKYFALL’s script had a few serious holes, but the characters remained solid in their ways. SPECTRE’s script had perhaps just as many holes, but the characters made few attempts to help us over them. Still, if SPECTRE had been done by Michael Bay it would have been regarded differently.
1 Like
I said they tried to get around the tropes. How successfully they managed that or not is up to one’s tastes. For mine, especially the “stationary”-scene uses a quite amusing ellipsis to not show the usual seduction moment.
No, no, no. Sam Mendes not only won an Oscar for a surprise hit and universally lauded film, he also was celebrated again and again for many theatre productions. And as you know, a director always rewrites a script and especially dialogue. No way Mendes allowed any line as written by the writers without his seal of approval.
But I agree on this: if “directed by Alexander Witt” had been put on SPECTRE, people would have gone in with different expectations. Also, they would have hated the film for not being directed by Sam Mendes.
Look, we can defend SPECTRE any way we want (although there is a special thread here for that). But its shortcomings are plain to see. Just as the problems of other Bond films. And I agree on this, too: SPECTRE will be regarded much more favorably in time. Just as previous Bond films grew in appreciation. My personal riser is THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Didn’t like it before, now I love it.
BOND 25, to get back to this thread´s topic, will either be a huge crowdpleaser or crash down under the huge expectations. But in the end, it will be a Bond film. And we will all look fondly back on it when there are more Bond films… or none at all anymore.
I’m not sure there are huge expectations, at least yet. People do seem to like Craig but I think it’s wait and see at this stage. My guess is a lot will depend on the trailers. If the footage intrigues and excites, then the hype train will leave the station.
Oh, I’m absolutely sure BOND 25 will have to deal with the most ridiculous expectations from critics and the yellow press - after all the troubles this production was already going through before shooting.
Do audiences feverishly await BOND 25? Hard to say whether the target audience is still looking forward to a Bond film like it did 10 or 20 years ago. But just the nature of being a Bond film will work in its favor.
The hardcore fans, I’m afraid, already are much older than those people who are counted on to visit theaters regularly, not waiting for the eventual home video/streaming possibility.
So, we are not a deciding factor anymore…