SPECTRE | 11/6/15 | Final Trailer on Page 126! | Twitter reactions coming in, STID 2.0?

[TalismanRing]

2nd review on RT brought to you by "TheS

 

Another by HeyUGuys.   Now three 3/5 reviews.

[TalismanRing]

Times
 
So I saw tonight. Many, many caveats but you know what, it was fun. You'd have to be quite po-faced not to enjoy it.
— Nancy Durrant (@NancyDurrant) October 21, 2015

 
Yahoo/ MTV

 

Mike P Williams ‏@Mike_P_Williams 25m25 minutes ago
It pains me to say that #SPECTRE is rather underwhelming. It's (mostly) entertaining but falls way short of Casino Royale and Skyfall.

1. There's no character developments & women are reduced to little more than classic Bond sex objects. There's a limp, disjointed story too.
    
2. It's as if Mendes is still riding on the success of Skyfall, opting for lavish, OTT stunts & set pieces, only to neglect everything else
    
3. And it's such a shame because it opens so strongly but fails to hit top gear anywhere else. It's still a good, entertaining action flick. 

[Hatebox]

9-1 on RT. The binary system isn't hurting so far.

[TalismanRing]

Times

 

This fourth outing for Daniel Craig as James Bond is achingly cool, as sleek and powerful as the silver Aston Martin DB10 that races through the movie.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/5

[CJohn]

This is basically Star Trek Into Darkness and The Dark Knight Rises all over again. The only difference I notice is that both of those had a previous amazing movie. Spectre comes from shit 

Edited October 22, 2015 by CJohn

[MrPink]

This is basically Star Trek Into Darkness and The Dark Knight Rises all over again. The only difference I notice is that both of those had a previous amazing movie. Spectre comes from shit 

 

Also, the latter is amazing and is 15 minutes more epic

[Avatree]

 

Times

 

So I saw tonight. Many, many caveats but you know what, it was fun. You'd have to be quite po-faced not to enjoy it.

— Nancy Durrant (@NancyDurrant) October 21, 2015

 

Yahoo/ MTV

 

Mike P Williams ‏@Mike_P_Williams 25m25 minutes ago

It pains me to say that #SPECTRE is rather underwhelming. It's (mostly) entertaining but falls way short of Casino Royale and Skyfall.

1. There's no character developments & women are reduced to little more than classic Bond sex objects. There's a limp, disjointed story too.

    

2. It's as if Mendes is still riding on the success of Skyfall, opting for lavish, OTT stunts & set pieces, only to neglect everything else

    

3. And it's such a shame because it opens so strongly but fails to hit top gear anywhere else. It's still a good, entertaining action flick. 

 

Downgrade from Skyfall because it's sexist? Did this guy even watch Skyfall? Has he watched any Bond films?

[TalismanRing]

Downgrade from Skyfall because it's sexist? Did this guy even watch Skyfall? Has he watched any Bond films?

 

Maybe its even more sexist than usual though it would take a lot to be worse than the misogynistic Skyfall which made some of the Moore outings look progressive.

Edited October 22, 2015 by TalismanRing

[Ozymandias]

Wait, was a sexy eye-candy object in a Bond film? 

 

SHIT

Edited October 22, 2015 by Ozymandias

[Michael Gary Scott]

If it's as good as stid and tdkr I will be pretty happy

[Kvikk Lunsj]

So basically this the fanboys bond version of Aou/ TDKR/ STID. I hope I like it.

[dudalb]

Is the Gun Barrel beginning back?

 

I missed it in the last two films. They was a very good reason for omitting it in Casino Royale,but not in the other 2.

[The Futurist]

I always suspected Sony had a crap deal for Bond, I was right.

They literally make peanuts with Mr Bond.(Edit : Spectre in particular, they had a better deal for Skyfall & QOS)

Bond is a free agent after this one.

 

In an email last October, Andrew Gumpert, who heads Sony's business affairs, predicted that if Spectre grosses $1.1 billion worldwide, and assuming a budget between $250 million and $275 million, Sony would realize about $35 million.

 

How Sony Could Lose James Bond After Bloated 'Spectre'

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-sony-could-lose-james-833474

Edited October 22, 2015 by The Futurist

[Avatree]

How can the budget be so big? It doesn't have the setpieces of Fast and Furious, the CGI of The Hobbit, it doesn't have the cast of Avengers... seriously how can the budget be more than something like AGE OF ULTRON?

[Jawa]

Oh, I've been expecting this for months. The internet loves nothing more than to tear something down. Casino Royale was great. Quantum of Solace was great (yeah, that's right). Skyfall was great. Spectre will be great as well.

 

Craig is love. Craig is life.

[TalismanRing]

How can the budget be so big? It doesn't have the setpieces of Fast and Furious, the CGI of The Hobbit, it doesn't have the cast of Avengers... seriously how can the budget be more than something like AGE OF ULTRON?

 

Bond probably still has thousands of VFX shots to go along with multiple locations, mostly practical stunts and a hefty up front producers fee.  But yea, it's a long way from Goldeneye which cost $60m in 1995.

[The Futurist]

Bond probably still has thousands of VFX shots to go along with multiple locations, mostly practical stunts and a hefty up front producers fee.  But yea, it's a long way from Goldeneye which cost $60m in 1995.

 

Skyfall was already a 200m+ affair after tax rebates...

[Avatree]

Bond probably still has thousands of VFX shots to go along with multiple locations, mostly practical stunts and a hefty up front producers fee.  But yea, it's a long way from Goldeneye which cost $60m in 1995.

But all modern blockbusters have thousands of VFX shots, multiple locations etc.

 

My mind simply cannot comprehend how James Bond costs almost twice as much as Jurassic World...

[Jake Gittes]

Will be funny if Rogue Nation ends up being a more impressive globe-trotting spy action movie while costing half of what Spectre does.

[Cmasterclay]

It has tons of elaborate, stunt-based shoots in exotic locations. That expands the shooting schedule and they have to pay extra for cast, crew, locations, etc. Shooting difficult, old-school effects scenes in public locations over the course of nine months is certainly going to cost alot more than shooting CGI robots blowing through CGI buildings (not that Bond doesn't use CGI, of course, but this clearly is more of an old school stunt n explosions type movie rather than motion capture combat), or actors on a soundstage. It's the reason something like the Revenant cost so much, too. Super long, tricky shoots=$$$