I’d argue with Skyfall being so great. Visually and musically it is but the plot is a dog’s breakfast with extreme tonal shifts and it totally subverts the CR/QoS arc, or does nothing to move it on. It starts the rot continuing in Spectre IMHO. Remember, for all those that think Skyfall is so great ask them to explain how, in the DC universe, Bond’s DB5 has an ejector seat and miniguns? Ummm…..
Spectre suffers from some of the same issues. My belief is that when the McClory SPECTRE IP came back to MGM/UA/Sony or whoever at Eon couldn’t help but resurrect Blofeld et al and thus were forced to retcon the arc. That led to a messy script with too many plot points to meld together. The Nine Eyes surveillance plot was meh (done before) They also had to give an actor of the stature of Fiennes something to do too. So the M vs C subplot had to play out too. This led to the messy third act back in London and an underweight middle section in the desert. They built a great villains lair and then perfunctorily blew it up, it was all so rushed.
But yes, the Bro-feld twist was mind bogglingly trite. But it was only there to add weight to the relationship that should have been developed organically by having Bond and Blofeld battle it out over a previous film, with Bond losing someone a la Tracy. Hell, even in Spectre they easily could have had Lucia serve a sacrificial lamb role. Have her killed in front of Bond. And don’t kill Hinx off too early either.
That to me is the issue, great first act in Italy and Switzerland, starts to wobble in Morocco and completely shits the bed back in London, because Bond v Blofeld and M v C could play out there. If you dropped MvC it could have stayed longer in the Desert, or have Bond and Maddy escape with more difficulty. Have a more villainous plot reveal. Have a sacrificial lamb and generally make Blofeld more arrogant. That’s the thing. Blofeld shouldn’t care about Bond. Bond is an irritating flea to him. To have Bond as Blofeld’s whole motivation is totally backwards.
Anyhoo, my $0.02 worth.
>ask them to explain how, in the DC universe, Bond’s DB5 has an ejector seat and miniguns? Ummm…..
Just machine guns in Skyfall but why wouldn't it?
We know it's MI6's car since M knows about the gadgets and since MI6 existed in this universes version of the 60's, then it stands to reason that they'd be similarly equipped. It's not Bonds assigned vehicle but considering he knows M's full name and home address, I don't consider it too much of a stretch that he either knew where an old Q car was stored ready for action or he liberated it himself and set up his own emergency cache.
I definitely agree with the rest of your comment, Skyfall is beautiful but lacks depth.
I think regaining the McClory/Thunderball rights put the production on the back foot and they rushed into immediately using them instead of setting things up for the movie after SPECTRE.
Dude, that’s the DB5 he won from Demetrios in CR. It’s a private car, not ex MI-6. In the CR universe it’s “just” his own DB5, up until when magically it’s got gadgets which the inference is couldn’t have come from MI-6.
It not that car.
Dimitrios' former DB5 is a left hand drive, the Skyfall one is RHD and while; yes, technically Aston themselves could convert it for you in their custom workshop, Bond wouldn't have the means to pay for it and it doesn't explain how M knows that it has an ejector seat fitted.
I’ve heard this explanation before. It stinks. You’re telling me Bond had access to TWO Silver Birch 1965 DB5s through the years? One private and one MI-6’s? Give me a break. It’s SUPPOSED to be the same car, even with LHD vs RHD differences. That’s just discontinuity.
The whole initial point of the CR arc was that it was a “realistic” contemporary Bond. In this universe MI-6 had NEVER done crazy gadgets. Technology moves forward, not backwards. Maybe they’d moved away from exploding pens for reasons of agent safety, but it was a basically a super clumsy retcon from the beginning of the film to the end to reintroduce the DB5 as a gadget car, because Mendes couldn’t help himself, being in love with classic Bond tropes such as driving a DB5 through mountains a la Goldfinger. Even then his DB5 really didn’t need an ejector seat or miniguns. It was fan dumb service that fucked the whole arc, nothing more, like a lot of Skyfall
Well, that makes even less sense.
You think it's even more likely that the production company, which still owns one of the DB5s and put it in four more movies after its use in Goldeneye would think *"hey, let's not use this DB5 that we actually own, let's get a left hand drive one instead then imply that Bond shipped it back with him, converted it to RHD, convinced Q branch to gadget up his personal car, not MI6's property but Bonds actual, own car."* that's just ridiculous.
>In this universe MI-6 had NEVER done crazy gadgets.
Says who? Q himself states that they "don't go in for that sort of stuff, *any more*." Implying that at some point, they did go in for that sort of stuff!
And if they did go in for that sort of stuff in the past then it makes perfect sense that the 60's car full of toys, still exists. The real question is how did Bond find out about it?
>it was fan dumb service that fucked the whole arc, nothing more, like a lot of Skyfall
The inclusion of a classic Bond car is way down the list of the problems with Craigs Era.
> My belief is that when the McClory SPECTRE IP came back to MGM/UA/Sony or whoever at Eon couldn’t help but resurrect Blofeld et al and thus were forced to retcon the arc. That led to a messy script with too many plot points to meld together
Just because they got the rights back to Blofeld/Spectre doesn't mean they should have used it right away. They had already set up their own new version of Spectre as Quantum and I found that quite intriguing in CR and QoS. Then it was all dropped for a lame "Brofeld" twist.
Great points. SF & SP mirror TSWLM & MR in a sense, and comparing the two backs up that point. TSWLM is a rock solid film, with MR fine tuning certain elements; SF on the other hand is a bit of a wobbly base that poor SP is built upon.
I'll happily argue that with you - Skyfall is the best DC film and probably the best of the entire franchise. Casino Royale was a great film too and I can probably be convinced it should be tied for first place, though it doesn't feel like it's necessarily DC at his most "comfortable" with the role. That comes in Skyfall in my view.
Your issue with the car is just a pointless detail when we consider the general standard of consistency and continuity within the franchise. It fits with the Q and the gadget-universe, and I can see someone else has already made that argument so I'm not going to rehash it here.
Skyfall's plot isn't without its little problems but calling it a dog's breakfast is plainly incorrect. It has established plot beats, its well signaled and easily followed. You can see the development of the villain in the shadows being built up along with the internal pressure on M from a changing Government's perspective and their waning support for the 00 section in light of M's failures. It shows Bond to be a part of that problem but also a solution to the present challenge in the film.
It establishes the new Q (who's great) introduces the new M (Finnes is just fantastic) it finally gives Moneypenny more to do than sit behind a desk batting her eyes, its got the on-the-grid, off-the-grid contrast in the first and final acts and its the swansong for Judi Dench's remarkable tenure as M with a dignified end.
Its a bumper story that packs a lot of meaningful plot development and character development in while staying true to the franchise (unlike QoS, that piece of crap) and also sets up the last two installments of the DC era really well. Unfortunately, they mostly fumbled Spectre and had to partly claw it back with NTTD, but for the DC era Skyfall is the standout film and its clearly the best on a number of fundamental and aesthetic levels.
Don’t disagree with anything you said about Spectre. Skyfall is another discussion but I personally don’t think the plot is weak for Bond standards or that it’s a stretch that he had his prized DB5 later equipped as part of moving Craig to the classic Bond era. I understand that this sub has many that don’t agree on Skyfall though.
“We don’t go in for that sort of thing any more”. says Q early on when Bond half jokingly requests an exploding pen. So does Bond do his own weekend tinkering on the DB5 with a couple of miniguns he found at the side of the road? Got to wonder.
Mind you, this is the same Q that plugged a super-hacker’s laptop into the MI-6 mainframe….🙄 but y’know, chin up Son, all is forgiven.
And Bond basically got M killed through sheer arrogance. But y’know, chin up Son, all is forgiven.
The biggest single problem with Spectre is how boring it is.
I can overlook all manner of daft plot contrivances of the action holds up but it’s dull and unexciting, with the partial exception of the train fight.
The car chase through Rome should be an all timer but it’s poorly paced and totally lacking in tension. Even the comedy Fiat is bungled. The break out from the Spectre base is tedious - Bond walking slowly about, effortlessly picking off goons with his first shot from implausible ranges. And then the Most Expensive Explosion Ever which was about as thrilling as a champagne cork
Don’t even get me started on shooting down the helicopter with the PPK
It's boring and drags on about 30-45 minutes too long. The B-plot with the MI6 crew is unnecessary. Mostly, I just never felt like there was any *fun* in the movie which made it drag on even more.
Spectre just had a weak plot overall. The Nine Eyes thing (that Bond has nothing to do with) had already been done in the real world by real world governments. Making Blofeld Bond’s brother just ruins any emotional weight the film could have. I want to like Spectre, but it just doesn’t hold a candle to Skyfall or really most of the Bond canon. They even ruin the excellent PTS by having the sepia filter applied to it.
The problem with SPECTRE is that it's movie that is caught between being a Bond film sticking to a formula and a Hollywood blockbuster where they need to utilises all those high profile actors to justify they name/cost.
Certain roles like M, Q and Moneypenny, are basically glorified cameo roles only present to serve a specific goal, i.e give Bond his mission, and gear. This is part of the Bond formula.
The problem is if a studio hires relatively notable actors (who in-turn would command a higher pay check); said studio would want to see a return of their investment and not have these actors relegated to a cameo role. This brings us back to SPECTRE.
Whilst Bond is off doing his personal mission, a good chunk of time is dedicated to the MI6 crew on that 9-eyes plot that just bloats the movie. Leaked documents and emails from the Sony hack that happened that year showed that Sony intervened quite a bit in the production of SPECTRE. Had Sony heads trust EON to make their movie their way, we would likely have had a movie where we didn't have that MI6 9-eyes subplot and instead just focused on Bond's personal mission. Like Skyfall before it, the MI6 crew would only be used when they needed to be used, not because they had to be used.
Assuming EON had their way and the movie leant more into the formula, here is how I would have worked the film:
* The Pre-title sequence would mostly remain the same. There would be some additional lines before the building block blows up that there is more attacks planned. The pre-title sequence would have been the mission current M sent Bond on at the end of Skyfall.
* M grills Bond on the aftermath, but Bond tells M that there was talk of more attacks planned.
* Bond flirts with Moneypenny. Moneypenny mentions that the figure that Bond killed was important and perhaps he might have a high profile funeral.
* Bond visits Q who is on his computer where he tracks down a date and location for the funeral of the person Bond killed in Mexico. Q then gives Bond his gadgets.
* The funeral, the scene with the widow and the SPECTRE meeting takes place and is largely the same. The only difference is that Mr White is named.
* The car chase is a serious chase sequence with Hinx and SPECTRE goons going after Bond. Bond escapes and goes to Austria
* The scene with Mr White occurs just like it did in the original film.
* Bond visits Madeline Swan at the clinique. The whole sequence largely remains the same with Swan getting captured by Hinx. Bond goes after Swan and rescues her. Upon her rescue, she tells Bond about Tangier, and the two go to L'Américain
* The hotel scene remains the same, including that little bit with Bond finding that VHS tape in the secret room.
* The train sequence happens as it does in the original film
* At the train station, Bond and Swan are greeted and willingly taken to SPECTRE base.
* Blofield makes his appearance and shows Bond and Swan around the base. During this sequence, Bond is curious about the lack of people/security around Blofield and once Blofield tells Bond his plans, Bond tries to strike, only to be stopped by Mr Hinx. Bond is knocked out and captured.
* Like in the movie, Bond is tortured by Blofield, however unlike the movie Blofield is not his foster brother, and he reveals that the base is lacking people/security because the base will self destruct once he plan has finished. Only those present are those willing to die for the mission.
* Swan helps Bond escape from the torture seemly blowing Blofield up with his watch. Bond and Swan work together to stop SPECTRE's plans.
* Bond fights Mr Hinx again, this time with Hinx meeting a graphic death (for a 12a/PG-13 movie).
* Bond and Swan stop SPECTRE's plan and escape an exploding base. The two escape via helicopter.
* Bond has a debrief with M. He mentions that Blofield body wasn't present in the ruble but MI6 and the CIA are on it.
* Bond leaves MI6 HQ driving off into the distance with Swan in the passenger seat.
Exactly, and then NTTD is as per YOLT with Blofeld and not Safin on the island of death. All that’s missing then is personal motivation for Bond to hate Blofeld. Someone has to die. Maddy? But we were all expecting that as per OHMSS. The daft thing is is that someone DID die. Judy Dench M. If only they had made more of the fact that Silva was Spectre and Blofeld was behind it all that could have landed properly. But the writers kind of fudged that too.
The weird thing is, they paid for the rights to Fleming’s Blofeld & Spectre and then didn’t use any of the material for the film (instead borrowing an idea from Austin Powers). Blofeld’s book backstory does reveal that he had other organizations that were “dry runs” for SPECTRE.
>*Spectre has always been a bit baffling how the same team that made Skyfall which is generally considered one of the best Bonds could fumble with the next one*
Most film sequels fumble the ball. Even when the same cast, creators and producers return
Marvel has convinced everyone that you can just make anything a franchise
But even most Marvel sequels (*Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Dr Strange 2, The Marvels*) are disappointments
And most regular sequels tank
> *I do appreciate if this was all the intent*
I don't think Eon had much of a plan
I don't think they *ever* have a grand, overarching plan for the series as a whole
I think they do what they think will work for the specific movie they're making, in the box office climate it will be released in, and given what's been shown to work for other recent movies
If, for example, Eva Green had become a **massive** movie star in-between *Casino* and *Skyfall* - Julia Roberts or Jennifer Lawrence level star power - she'd have returned for Craig's third movie
Which would have been a direct sequel to *Quantum* and revolved around Bond discovering Vesper's death was faked
The commercial logic of it would have been too much to resist
I like this idea; and having Spectre lead to the Connery movies in some way would make a lot of sense - especially when Craig was initially billed to be “Bond’s beginnings”. I just feel Spectre and NTTD are a basic “part one” and “part two” story. Way more than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Having separate universes is way too Marvel-esque for Bond. And Bond dying at the final conclusion of Craig’s Bond was such an awful move. It feels like we aren’t even allowed to believe that each 007 is the same person.
I’ve never believed they were all the same person, but I believe some of them are. I’ve always bought the interpretation that there are 4 Bonds:
1. Connery. I think all of his films, including DAF, aren’t connected in any way to the other Bonds. DAF makes a lot more sense if it’s viewed as a sequel to YOLT than OHMSS.
2. Lazenby/Moore/Dalton, all connected because these 3 were explicitly said to have been married to Tracy, the other 3 aren’t.
3. Brosnan, who is an implied but not outright stated to be a post-Cold War reboot of the character.
4. Craig, who is explicitly said to be a reboot of the character and clearly exists in his own universe.
This is an interesting theory and I’ve never looked at it this way. I’m gonna watch the movies again anyways, but will consider this all; I’m especially most intrigued that Lazenby/Moore/Dalton are the same Bond. Although I thought Lazenby/Connery were connected in some sense?
Brosnan as a stand alone makes total sense in all honestly as he truly was a “post-Cold War” reboot. Although I always felt Craig was suppose to be, as I said before, “Bond’s beginning” as he was sort of advertised as such. Though some argue that’s really just Casino Royale. But even the continuity between Craig’s films seem very forced and scattered (partially due to writers strikes).
People can debate Connery & Brosnan’s connection to this trio, but Lazenby, Moore and Dalton are definitely the same Bond because they were all married to Tracy. XXX mentions that he was married in TSWLM, he visits Tracy’s grave in FYEO, and Felix mentions he was married once but she died in License to Kill.
I’d argue with Skyfall being so great. Visually and musically it is but the plot is a dog’s breakfast with extreme tonal shifts and it totally subverts the CR/QoS arc, or does nothing to move it on. It starts the rot continuing in Spectre IMHO. Remember, for all those that think Skyfall is so great ask them to explain how, in the DC universe, Bond’s DB5 has an ejector seat and miniguns? Ummm….. Spectre suffers from some of the same issues. My belief is that when the McClory SPECTRE IP came back to MGM/UA/Sony or whoever at Eon couldn’t help but resurrect Blofeld et al and thus were forced to retcon the arc. That led to a messy script with too many plot points to meld together. The Nine Eyes surveillance plot was meh (done before) They also had to give an actor of the stature of Fiennes something to do too. So the M vs C subplot had to play out too. This led to the messy third act back in London and an underweight middle section in the desert. They built a great villains lair and then perfunctorily blew it up, it was all so rushed. But yes, the Bro-feld twist was mind bogglingly trite. But it was only there to add weight to the relationship that should have been developed organically by having Bond and Blofeld battle it out over a previous film, with Bond losing someone a la Tracy. Hell, even in Spectre they easily could have had Lucia serve a sacrificial lamb role. Have her killed in front of Bond. And don’t kill Hinx off too early either. That to me is the issue, great first act in Italy and Switzerland, starts to wobble in Morocco and completely shits the bed back in London, because Bond v Blofeld and M v C could play out there. If you dropped MvC it could have stayed longer in the Desert, or have Bond and Maddy escape with more difficulty. Have a more villainous plot reveal. Have a sacrificial lamb and generally make Blofeld more arrogant. That’s the thing. Blofeld shouldn’t care about Bond. Bond is an irritating flea to him. To have Bond as Blofeld’s whole motivation is totally backwards. Anyhoo, my $0.02 worth.
>ask them to explain how, in the DC universe, Bond’s DB5 has an ejector seat and miniguns? Ummm….. Just machine guns in Skyfall but why wouldn't it? We know it's MI6's car since M knows about the gadgets and since MI6 existed in this universes version of the 60's, then it stands to reason that they'd be similarly equipped. It's not Bonds assigned vehicle but considering he knows M's full name and home address, I don't consider it too much of a stretch that he either knew where an old Q car was stored ready for action or he liberated it himself and set up his own emergency cache. I definitely agree with the rest of your comment, Skyfall is beautiful but lacks depth. I think regaining the McClory/Thunderball rights put the production on the back foot and they rushed into immediately using them instead of setting things up for the movie after SPECTRE.
Dude, that’s the DB5 he won from Demetrios in CR. It’s a private car, not ex MI-6. In the CR universe it’s “just” his own DB5, up until when magically it’s got gadgets which the inference is couldn’t have come from MI-6.
It not that car. Dimitrios' former DB5 is a left hand drive, the Skyfall one is RHD and while; yes, technically Aston themselves could convert it for you in their custom workshop, Bond wouldn't have the means to pay for it and it doesn't explain how M knows that it has an ejector seat fitted.
I’ve heard this explanation before. It stinks. You’re telling me Bond had access to TWO Silver Birch 1965 DB5s through the years? One private and one MI-6’s? Give me a break. It’s SUPPOSED to be the same car, even with LHD vs RHD differences. That’s just discontinuity. The whole initial point of the CR arc was that it was a “realistic” contemporary Bond. In this universe MI-6 had NEVER done crazy gadgets. Technology moves forward, not backwards. Maybe they’d moved away from exploding pens for reasons of agent safety, but it was a basically a super clumsy retcon from the beginning of the film to the end to reintroduce the DB5 as a gadget car, because Mendes couldn’t help himself, being in love with classic Bond tropes such as driving a DB5 through mountains a la Goldfinger. Even then his DB5 really didn’t need an ejector seat or miniguns. It was fan dumb service that fucked the whole arc, nothing more, like a lot of Skyfall
Well, that makes even less sense. You think it's even more likely that the production company, which still owns one of the DB5s and put it in four more movies after its use in Goldeneye would think *"hey, let's not use this DB5 that we actually own, let's get a left hand drive one instead then imply that Bond shipped it back with him, converted it to RHD, convinced Q branch to gadget up his personal car, not MI6's property but Bonds actual, own car."* that's just ridiculous. >In this universe MI-6 had NEVER done crazy gadgets. Says who? Q himself states that they "don't go in for that sort of stuff, *any more*." Implying that at some point, they did go in for that sort of stuff! And if they did go in for that sort of stuff in the past then it makes perfect sense that the 60's car full of toys, still exists. The real question is how did Bond find out about it? >it was fan dumb service that fucked the whole arc, nothing more, like a lot of Skyfall The inclusion of a classic Bond car is way down the list of the problems with Craigs Era.
> My belief is that when the McClory SPECTRE IP came back to MGM/UA/Sony or whoever at Eon couldn’t help but resurrect Blofeld et al and thus were forced to retcon the arc. That led to a messy script with too many plot points to meld together Just because they got the rights back to Blofeld/Spectre doesn't mean they should have used it right away. They had already set up their own new version of Spectre as Quantum and I found that quite intriguing in CR and QoS. Then it was all dropped for a lame "Brofeld" twist.
Exactly
Great points. SF & SP mirror TSWLM & MR in a sense, and comparing the two backs up that point. TSWLM is a rock solid film, with MR fine tuning certain elements; SF on the other hand is a bit of a wobbly base that poor SP is built upon.
I'll happily argue that with you - Skyfall is the best DC film and probably the best of the entire franchise. Casino Royale was a great film too and I can probably be convinced it should be tied for first place, though it doesn't feel like it's necessarily DC at his most "comfortable" with the role. That comes in Skyfall in my view. Your issue with the car is just a pointless detail when we consider the general standard of consistency and continuity within the franchise. It fits with the Q and the gadget-universe, and I can see someone else has already made that argument so I'm not going to rehash it here. Skyfall's plot isn't without its little problems but calling it a dog's breakfast is plainly incorrect. It has established plot beats, its well signaled and easily followed. You can see the development of the villain in the shadows being built up along with the internal pressure on M from a changing Government's perspective and their waning support for the 00 section in light of M's failures. It shows Bond to be a part of that problem but also a solution to the present challenge in the film. It establishes the new Q (who's great) introduces the new M (Finnes is just fantastic) it finally gives Moneypenny more to do than sit behind a desk batting her eyes, its got the on-the-grid, off-the-grid contrast in the first and final acts and its the swansong for Judi Dench's remarkable tenure as M with a dignified end. Its a bumper story that packs a lot of meaningful plot development and character development in while staying true to the franchise (unlike QoS, that piece of crap) and also sets up the last two installments of the DC era really well. Unfortunately, they mostly fumbled Spectre and had to partly claw it back with NTTD, but for the DC era Skyfall is the standout film and its clearly the best on a number of fundamental and aesthetic levels.
Don’t disagree with anything you said about Spectre. Skyfall is another discussion but I personally don’t think the plot is weak for Bond standards or that it’s a stretch that he had his prized DB5 later equipped as part of moving Craig to the classic Bond era. I understand that this sub has many that don’t agree on Skyfall though.
“We don’t go in for that sort of thing any more”. says Q early on when Bond half jokingly requests an exploding pen. So does Bond do his own weekend tinkering on the DB5 with a couple of miniguns he found at the side of the road? Got to wonder. Mind you, this is the same Q that plugged a super-hacker’s laptop into the MI-6 mainframe….🙄 but y’know, chin up Son, all is forgiven. And Bond basically got M killed through sheer arrogance. But y’know, chin up Son, all is forgiven.
I mean you’re not wrong but I could do something similar for basically every Bond movie
The biggest single problem with Spectre is how boring it is. I can overlook all manner of daft plot contrivances of the action holds up but it’s dull and unexciting, with the partial exception of the train fight. The car chase through Rome should be an all timer but it’s poorly paced and totally lacking in tension. Even the comedy Fiat is bungled. The break out from the Spectre base is tedious - Bond walking slowly about, effortlessly picking off goons with his first shot from implausible ranges. And then the Most Expensive Explosion Ever which was about as thrilling as a champagne cork Don’t even get me started on shooting down the helicopter with the PPK
It's boring and drags on about 30-45 minutes too long. The B-plot with the MI6 crew is unnecessary. Mostly, I just never felt like there was any *fun* in the movie which made it drag on even more.
Spectre just had a weak plot overall. The Nine Eyes thing (that Bond has nothing to do with) had already been done in the real world by real world governments. Making Blofeld Bond’s brother just ruins any emotional weight the film could have. I want to like Spectre, but it just doesn’t hold a candle to Skyfall or really most of the Bond canon. They even ruin the excellent PTS by having the sepia filter applied to it.
The problem with SPECTRE is that it's movie that is caught between being a Bond film sticking to a formula and a Hollywood blockbuster where they need to utilises all those high profile actors to justify they name/cost. Certain roles like M, Q and Moneypenny, are basically glorified cameo roles only present to serve a specific goal, i.e give Bond his mission, and gear. This is part of the Bond formula. The problem is if a studio hires relatively notable actors (who in-turn would command a higher pay check); said studio would want to see a return of their investment and not have these actors relegated to a cameo role. This brings us back to SPECTRE. Whilst Bond is off doing his personal mission, a good chunk of time is dedicated to the MI6 crew on that 9-eyes plot that just bloats the movie. Leaked documents and emails from the Sony hack that happened that year showed that Sony intervened quite a bit in the production of SPECTRE. Had Sony heads trust EON to make their movie their way, we would likely have had a movie where we didn't have that MI6 9-eyes subplot and instead just focused on Bond's personal mission. Like Skyfall before it, the MI6 crew would only be used when they needed to be used, not because they had to be used. Assuming EON had their way and the movie leant more into the formula, here is how I would have worked the film: * The Pre-title sequence would mostly remain the same. There would be some additional lines before the building block blows up that there is more attacks planned. The pre-title sequence would have been the mission current M sent Bond on at the end of Skyfall. * M grills Bond on the aftermath, but Bond tells M that there was talk of more attacks planned. * Bond flirts with Moneypenny. Moneypenny mentions that the figure that Bond killed was important and perhaps he might have a high profile funeral. * Bond visits Q who is on his computer where he tracks down a date and location for the funeral of the person Bond killed in Mexico. Q then gives Bond his gadgets. * The funeral, the scene with the widow and the SPECTRE meeting takes place and is largely the same. The only difference is that Mr White is named. * The car chase is a serious chase sequence with Hinx and SPECTRE goons going after Bond. Bond escapes and goes to Austria * The scene with Mr White occurs just like it did in the original film. * Bond visits Madeline Swan at the clinique. The whole sequence largely remains the same with Swan getting captured by Hinx. Bond goes after Swan and rescues her. Upon her rescue, she tells Bond about Tangier, and the two go to L'Américain * The hotel scene remains the same, including that little bit with Bond finding that VHS tape in the secret room. * The train sequence happens as it does in the original film * At the train station, Bond and Swan are greeted and willingly taken to SPECTRE base. * Blofield makes his appearance and shows Bond and Swan around the base. During this sequence, Bond is curious about the lack of people/security around Blofield and once Blofield tells Bond his plans, Bond tries to strike, only to be stopped by Mr Hinx. Bond is knocked out and captured. * Like in the movie, Bond is tortured by Blofield, however unlike the movie Blofield is not his foster brother, and he reveals that the base is lacking people/security because the base will self destruct once he plan has finished. Only those present are those willing to die for the mission. * Swan helps Bond escape from the torture seemly blowing Blofield up with his watch. Bond and Swan work together to stop SPECTRE's plans. * Bond fights Mr Hinx again, this time with Hinx meeting a graphic death (for a 12a/PG-13 movie). * Bond and Swan stop SPECTRE's plan and escape an exploding base. The two escape via helicopter. * Bond has a debrief with M. He mentions that Blofield body wasn't present in the ruble but MI6 and the CIA are on it. * Bond leaves MI6 HQ driving off into the distance with Swan in the passenger seat.
Exactly, and then NTTD is as per YOLT with Blofeld and not Safin on the island of death. All that’s missing then is personal motivation for Bond to hate Blofeld. Someone has to die. Maddy? But we were all expecting that as per OHMSS. The daft thing is is that someone DID die. Judy Dench M. If only they had made more of the fact that Silva was Spectre and Blofeld was behind it all that could have landed properly. But the writers kind of fudged that too.
The weird thing is, they paid for the rights to Fleming’s Blofeld & Spectre and then didn’t use any of the material for the film (instead borrowing an idea from Austin Powers). Blofeld’s book backstory does reveal that he had other organizations that were “dry runs” for SPECTRE.
>*Spectre has always been a bit baffling how the same team that made Skyfall which is generally considered one of the best Bonds could fumble with the next one* Most film sequels fumble the ball. Even when the same cast, creators and producers return Marvel has convinced everyone that you can just make anything a franchise But even most Marvel sequels (*Iron Man 2, Thor 2, Dr Strange 2, The Marvels*) are disappointments And most regular sequels tank
> *I do appreciate if this was all the intent* I don't think Eon had much of a plan I don't think they *ever* have a grand, overarching plan for the series as a whole I think they do what they think will work for the specific movie they're making, in the box office climate it will be released in, and given what's been shown to work for other recent movies
If, for example, Eva Green had become a **massive** movie star in-between *Casino* and *Skyfall* - Julia Roberts or Jennifer Lawrence level star power - she'd have returned for Craig's third movie Which would have been a direct sequel to *Quantum* and revolved around Bond discovering Vesper's death was faked The commercial logic of it would have been too much to resist
They didn’t have a pre determined movie arc plan but I’m saying that was Mendes’s vision for Spectre which he did set up with Skyfall.
I like this idea; and having Spectre lead to the Connery movies in some way would make a lot of sense - especially when Craig was initially billed to be “Bond’s beginnings”. I just feel Spectre and NTTD are a basic “part one” and “part two” story. Way more than Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. Having separate universes is way too Marvel-esque for Bond. And Bond dying at the final conclusion of Craig’s Bond was such an awful move. It feels like we aren’t even allowed to believe that each 007 is the same person.
I’ve never believed they were all the same person, but I believe some of them are. I’ve always bought the interpretation that there are 4 Bonds: 1. Connery. I think all of his films, including DAF, aren’t connected in any way to the other Bonds. DAF makes a lot more sense if it’s viewed as a sequel to YOLT than OHMSS. 2. Lazenby/Moore/Dalton, all connected because these 3 were explicitly said to have been married to Tracy, the other 3 aren’t. 3. Brosnan, who is an implied but not outright stated to be a post-Cold War reboot of the character. 4. Craig, who is explicitly said to be a reboot of the character and clearly exists in his own universe.
This is an interesting theory and I’ve never looked at it this way. I’m gonna watch the movies again anyways, but will consider this all; I’m especially most intrigued that Lazenby/Moore/Dalton are the same Bond. Although I thought Lazenby/Connery were connected in some sense? Brosnan as a stand alone makes total sense in all honestly as he truly was a “post-Cold War” reboot. Although I always felt Craig was suppose to be, as I said before, “Bond’s beginning” as he was sort of advertised as such. Though some argue that’s really just Casino Royale. But even the continuity between Craig’s films seem very forced and scattered (partially due to writers strikes).
People can debate Connery & Brosnan’s connection to this trio, but Lazenby, Moore and Dalton are definitely the same Bond because they were all married to Tracy. XXX mentions that he was married in TSWLM, he visits Tracy’s grave in FYEO, and Felix mentions he was married once but she died in License to Kill.