Where did SPECTRE go wrong?

When Christoph Waltz dropped news that he would not be returning to play Blofeld in Bond 25, he also served notice that the story arc, that began with Casino Royale, might also be coming to an end.

Spectre earned  over $200 million at the box office, 10th highest grossing film of 2015. So it was far from a flop. Yet the film received its share of criticism. Two years later, the dust has cleared, and Waltz’s apparent exit suggests that EON may be looking to leave the film and Blofeld behind as quickly as possible. So why? What really did go wrong with the 24th Bond film? Here’s a recap:

The foster brother story line

It was a bad idea, simple as that. Having James Bond and Blofeld as foster brothers, as children, was bad enough, but it’s worse when considering it’s a ripoff of Austin Powers. Imagine the Star Wars franchise stealing a plot line from Spaceballs. The worst part is that it was unnecessary. While an attempt was made to dig at Bond’s backstory a little more and force him to battle inner demons (following Skyfall), all of this was possible without the overreaching coincidence of a Bond-Blofeld childhood connection. It was yucky.

Madeleine Swann

Let’s be clear. There was nothing wrong with Lea Seydoux or her performance. The problem was the under-developed love story between Madeleine and Bond. Consider, for instance, the London street scene: Bond leaves her, the woman he supposedly loved, in the middle of a dark, deserted street, to walk away to…where? A hotel somewhere? It was a disturbing decision on Bond’s part, especially knowing that Blofeld and Spectre were “everywhere.”

An unsatisfying final act

Before shooting began on Spectre, news had already surfaced that the script was not where Sam Mendes wanted it. Jez Butterworth was hired to apply some last-minute fixes, but whatever the remedy, it still didn’t work. Spectre’s final act is a mess. On top of the aforementioned issue with Madeleine, the need to quickly wrap up the story, in some sort of satisfying manner, resulted in complete chaos. Spectre’s middle-of-nowhere headquarters made no sense. Bond’s escape from the headquarters was a bit too easy…and aided by the dumbest placement of pipelines ever. There was no transition from Morocco to the safe house in London. Bond’s capture and escape was contrived. And it all seemed rather anti-climactic, as Bond merely shot down Blofeld’s helicopter, leading to speech about having “better things to do.” More work was needed.

Forced humor

With Spectre, a greater attempt was made to integrate gag humor into the story. It didn’t work. While the couch bit, during the building collapse in Mexico City was refreshing, much of the rest of the film’s gag humor fell flat. This most notably occurred with an ill-advised attempt at air bag humor during what should have been a far more tense car chase.

Heavy-handed psychology

There is nothing wrong with a storyline involving Bond’s past. But Spectre overdoes it, particularly in regards to Blofeld being the source of all of James Bond’s pain. Blofeld lays it on thick, too, with childhood photos in Bond’s room (and Madeleine’s) and, even worse, in the shooting range at the old MI6 headquarters. In fact, the screeprint images of Vesper, M, and Silva are so heavy-handed that they’re cringe worthy. Whose idea was this?

There is much to like in Spectre, so let’s not get too carried away. The film didn’t spell doom for the Bond franchise. But it also demonstrated what can happen when good ideas (venturing into Bond’s back story and psychology) are overemphasized.

What do you think? Let us know.