I wasn’t planning on doing any major commenting on the Spectre teaser trailer. I was content to just leave it at – “Yeah, it looks good. Looking forward to seeing it.” Yet, since being asked for additional thoughts on it I figured I could squeeze more reaction out from this ninety-second tease. That really shouldn’t be too hard from the guy who did a nearly two-hour dissection of Quantum of Solace. Boy, did I go overboard with that project!
So the Spectre teaser was much better than the that teaser poster that was revealed. You know, the one that just had Daniel Craig standing against a plain background with just the title of the movie. Whoopee. The teaser trailer was much more effective giving us hints of what we can expect from the story, the locations and the actors. That’s what a good teaser is supposed to do – whet our appetites. And mine is now whetted!
I’m not going to go through a shot by shot analysis of the teaser and try to dissect everything we saw in it and begin theorizing on what it all possibly means. Enough fans are doing that. Besides I’m getting somewhat burnt out on the idea of scrutinizing every frame to a trailer for every big upcoming movie to try to cull clues from it. It’s kinda losing its luster for me.
With Spectre I’m not even watching any of those short on-set videos they’re releasing and I’ve just been trying to avoid reading or hearing too much about it. I think I’d prefer to just to be anxious to see it, not know everything about it, hopefully be somewhat surprised by things when I actually see the movie and save all the talking about it that us Bond fans will be doing for afterwards.
But since you’re reading this and are expecting to read some kind of thoughts and opinions on the teaser I will say that I think Daniel Craig looks younger here than he did in Skyfall somehow. He looks more like Quantum of Solace -Craig than Skyfall – Craig.
I always thought his shorter haircut in Skyfall made him look a bit older. He has those hard features anyway, but his shorter hair accentuated them somehow. I guess it worked in the story with Bond being out of shape, scruffy looking and feeling perhaps he’s been doing this job for too long, but in Spectre it looks like he’s going too look a bit more cleaned up and lively.
One little thing I have noticed is that they changed the spectre ring logo. That octopus no longer has eight legs, but seven. I wonder what that’s all about.
My initial thoughts were purely for business reasons. I started to consider the possibility that EON couldn’t reuse the old spectre logo, that it was still copyrighted and out of their hands somehow. So instead of going through more legal hassles they dropped a leg and made their own new version of it. They just felt lucky enough they’re getting to use spectre again and didn’t feel like fighting for that eighth leg on the organization’s logo. I wouldn’t rule something like that out. But maybe they just redesigned it for this new Bond.
So with only having seven legs can we call that logo an octopus anymore? Or are they dropping the octopus idea and that logo is meant to be an actual ‘spectre’, a ghostly emblem? A head with a flowing body under it and they’re just representing it with the leg shapes. I’ll be looking forward to hear interviews with the designers about the reasoning as to why that famous logo was redesigned.
What I found the most interesting part of the teaser trailer – besides a lot of the images that look very nice and Craig’s hair – was that it establishes that all of Craig’s Bond films are connected and are happening on a sequential timeline.
That’s really a first. It used to be kids could just start watching the Bond series at any point and not have to worry about any kind of chronology or anything like that. Now with Craig’s films that’s changed.
Casino Royale that was the first, Quantum of Solace is an epilogue to it so it helps to know a bit of Casino background when watching it. Skyfall was pretty much a stand alone. Even the Aston Martin we see in it doesn’t appear to have any kind of connection being the same one Bond won in Casino – it’s like it’s a completely different car. But now we know some of the Skyfall events get followed up on in Spectre.
I thought it would just be some of the new actors and characters that were introduced in Skyfall to reappear in Spectre, but it looks like Skyfall will be reverberating throughout the story – or at least in the beginning to help jump start events in a new one. This along with the reappearance of Mr. White who we first met way back in Casino Royale, we got ourselves a Bond timeline happening here!
One thing that I keep thinking about is how the Bond series had never played a chronological game with the films. They never worried about continuity.
And in the few instances a remark or reference was made to its history or the character it was a kick to hear and created a small jolt of excitement – at least for me. Like, I loved seeing Roger visiting Tracy’s grave in For Your Eyes Only!
The old parlor game was trying to organize the Bond films in some kind of order. With Craig coming along – we don’t have to worry about debating the groundwork of his films. They’re pretty much laid out for us.
Here’s another thought – and I’m really jumping way ahead here – say the rest of Craig’s Bond films follow this sequelized pattern, which I have no problem with – will all future Bond adventures feel compelled to do this?
Craig is going to leave the role one day, and I wonder if the producers will feel the need to maintain this chronological format for the next 007 actor. You know, give him a sequential series of films that each build off the previous one. They obviously must be pleased with the success they’ve been having with Craig’s films, so I wonder if they’ll stick to this layout.
Plus, now the rage is all this ‘shared universe’ stuff! Everyone has become so gung-ho with this idea. Every friggin’ movie series has to have a shared universe and some are being made solely to bank on audience’s excitement with that idea.
The older Bond films were so far removed from that format. With them being just stand alone movies it might be viewed as a passé way of presenting the 007 series and maybe they’ll just jettison that.
I don’t know. It’s something to ponder other than pooling over every frame in the Spectre teaser, which I don’t feel like doing. I’ll just say I liked it, I’m looking forward to it and am feeling optimistic about it.
A little funny side comment – the big spectre meeting reminded me of the party scene from Eyes Wide Shut. And I’m also wondering if Judi Dench’s porcelain British bulldog will be sitting somewhere in the background of Bond’s apartment.
Here’s the Spectre Teaser Trailer…
do you have any thoughts?
For fun I made a retro-style Spectre teaser starring Sean Connery
I can sum up my thoughts in one sarcastic line.
"Mr. Bond, I am your father"
After seeing what they did with the Spider Man and Godzilla movies, I'm guessing they'll reboot the series every time they hire a new actor to play James Bond.
A briliant and very effective teaser. The Bond theme played on a triangle is so haunting. I for one am glad that this film refers to the previous three entries, and since two of those entries were two of the best Bond films ever than I'm not surprised that the filmmakers have referred to them. Seeing Mr. White looking disheveled, right up to Waltz's Oberhauser suggesting he maybe the new Blofeld has opened up a can of worms and I for one will not guess anything till I've seen the film. I'm really starting to think now that the end of Bond's Aston Martin DB5 in Skyfall really is saying a farewell to the past and starting afresh.
The idea of continuing Craig's continuity when a new actor take over really sounds redundant and I for one would not suggest it. According to official news Craig has only got SPECTRE and one more film left which will probably be released in 2018 when Craig will hit the big 50, so if the producers continue his story line when a new and younger actor takes over, it will seem mute. Not to mention wrong since it will show that the producers have no faith in Craig's successor. I just pray that PC stupidity won't come into play and they recast Bond as a woman. I read over the weekend that some politician wanted Rosamund Pike as Bond! Sure she's a good actress, and she's hot, but…. no.
Anyhow I really can't wait for this film, and I hope for a great Bond film. However if there's one thing I wish for in this film is that Moneypenny plays a far far, far smaller role. Judging from the teaser, she's still awful.
Just as a warning right up front, I'm going to make some spoilery comments about the content of the trailer, but I'll try and be as vague and elliptical as possible so as not to say too much to those wanting nothing spoiled at all.
Long story short, when Sony was hacked an outline of the script was stolen and parts of it made it online. Again, trying to be as vague as possible I'll just say that the big reveal about the villain's identity that appeared in the leaked material was (at least to me) absolutely ridiculous. Lee Tamahori code name theory ridiculous if you can believe that! Unfortunately, based on what I'm seeing in this trailer it appears that they didn't rethink that reveal and they will in fact be going with it for the final film.
I am still looking forward to a lot of the movie and I think we can look forward to a lot of good action and stuntwork. At the same time, however, gird your loins for the reveal. I think we'll be scratching our heads over that for some time after.
I did not like the Teaser at all. Not at all. It's now clear…The "Nolan Effect" is in full swing and has, apparently, engulfed Bond. 'Dark'. 'Brooding'. 'Dour'. These are not supposed to be the words which define a 'Bond' film. 'Fun'. ‘Exciting’. 'Escapist Action'. 'Colorful'. That's a Bond movie. Or at least it was. And yet, here we are. That trailer looked liked something straight of Nolan's world. And I am so sick of it.
And what's with the 'Personal' connection the villain from SPECTRE apparently now has to Bond? That was never the case or requirement before. But now, it seems every movie has to have a 'Personal' element to it. Can you imagine if Donald Pleasence suddenly said “I am your long lost brother, James!” in the middle of “You Only Live Twice”? Or if Dr. No was his Uncle? Ugh. It is not needed or welcomed. And how the hell would Bond keep a secret like that? Absurd. But again, that’s that “The Nolan Effect”. Crossed with something out of “Goldmember”. Worst. Idea. Ever. I really hope I am wrong.
And that last balcony scene with all the candles is indeed reminiscent of Kubrick’s last movie, but is now… “GoldenEyes Wide Shut”.
*Sigh*…I really miss Connery. And Moore for that matter too.
In a series that spans 50 years, 24 films, and various novels and short stories, it is a necessity to try new things. And Christopher Nolan doesn’t own the patent on “darker” and “more realistic” tones. He merely utilized those tools for Batman and it worked out. Michael and Barbara needed to drastically switch gears after Die Another Day plunged the series into mediocrity and made it more of a Bond satire than the actual satire that was released that year. First off, you complain that Bond is too dark and gritty now. Well, if you knbow anything about the character and his origins, he was ALWAYS dark and gritty. Fleming painting the portrait of a philandering sociopath, that even M refers to as a blunt interment, there to do the dirty jobs for Her Majesty. And I don’t now where you’re getting this “every Bond villain needs to have a personal connection to Bond” argument. In the entirety of the series Bond has had MAYBE three personal connections to the antagonist. Alec Trevelyan, Franz Sanchez, and Elektra King. Out of nearly 30 Bond villains and henchman, he has had barely a handful of personal enemies. Why can’t this happen in the 24th Bond film? Must we continue to recycle the same “billionaire plots world domination” scheme? Why can’t we learn more about James Bond? It’s been 50 YEARS. Let the series explore Bond a bit. Guess what? If it doesn’t work out, the next set of films will wash away this canon like X-Men most recently did. My point being, don’t get your nickers in a twist because ONE of TWENTY FOUR Bond films took a darker path.
Your reply was nonsensical and littered with inaccuracies.
Where did I write I wanted a Bond Film like ‘Die Another Day”? I didn’t. That is your conjuring. Not mine. I didn't mention Brosnan. You did. I also never wrote that I wished to see “billionaire plots world domination“.
You obviously need to PAY ATTENTION to what I actually wrote.
It your “knickers that are in a twist”, not mine. But since you obviously have trouble with reading comprehension, I will surmise once again. Copying and imitation is not “staying current”. It is lazy film making that is chasing a trend for cash. And that trend at the moment is the “Dark and Dour” (I did NOT use the word ‘Gritty’) palette cultivated by Nolan. I also never wrote that Bond himself was not Dark and “Gritty” I wrote the FILMS THEMSELVES were never Dark and Dour, as is the trend today with Nolan and his imitators (just look at Man of Steel as another awful, prime example). The Bond films were always fun, exciting and filled with a sense of wonder. And simply stating the years and number of films Bond has been around is supposed to support your ‘theory’? Yes, we can all count. But no matter how many years they have been around, there is something called “The Bond Blueprint” (which this blog does a superb job of analyzing, so I won’t. But I highly suggest you read it. You may even learn something!) which makes the James Bond films something all their own. I am all for Bond staying current in the modern world and integrating the films with a fresh stories and film techniques. I loved ‘Casino Royale’ and felt that this was a great example of an updated, current era Bond Film while still holding true to all the things that make Bond movies so unique. Imitating the latest fad and running after those imagined box office receipts is not one of them. That was one of the major criticisms about “The Quantum of Solace” in that it was trying way too hard to be a “Bourne” movie and not a Bond one. And if you can’t grasp that simple concept, then you have no clue to what makes Bond so different.
And I never mentioned “The Henchmen” either, did I? Again…PAY ATTENTION. I referenced two of the main SPECTRE villains from two of the Bond movies: “Dr. No” and “You Only Live Twice” as semi-humorous examples of what it would look like in the “Goldmember” universe and what it appeared they were doing in this trailer. In the Bond world, 007 never had a previous, personal, connection to any of the main SPECTRE villains prior to his initial introduction to them. Why? Because it would be absurd and not keeping with the Bond tradition or his universe. Nor was it necessary. But it is the trend today.
See how that works?
Maybe you would like to see Bond battling Transformers? Is that your idea of ‘staying current”? Oh wait, that assumption would be exactly what you did in your reply to my post. See how lazy, inaccurate and juvenile that is?
Who knows? Maybe you’re just another Nolan fanboy attacking anyone who dares write anything that is not steeped in superlatives about their cult leader.
But I will try once again to point out that you really need to PAY ATTENTION and read what someone has ACTUALLY written and not the imaginations or assumptions going on inside your head.
Very intriguing! Can't wait to see this one.