It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think we have a winner folks.
And there we have it. The Craig era is not the Godsend some previously designated it as, or others hoped it would be. It's just another bunch of cool Bond movies with varying degrees of individual quality depending on your personal take. B-)
Me too. And what's frustrating is that it was all so unnecessary. SP could have functioned just fine without...A) Blofeld ever knowing Bond as a child; B) Blofeld being the author of all Bond's pain.
I'm not sure it's the silliest. In principle it's a reasonable idea. The trouble was the execution with them only thinking of it at the start of SP and then having to shoehorn everything together retroactively.
And of course the brother angle makes it even worse.
When I heard they were going to do it I thought 'oh well - give the idea a chance it might work. I'm sure they'll explain it convincingly.' And then we just get a few lines from Blofeld and a SPECTRE octopus on Q's laptop.
As it is I think it's more deserving of a 'shittest execution' award than anything else.
It's silly but had they had the SPECTRE rights in 06 they could've built up to this convincingly.
Personally giving Blofeld such a trite motive to hate Bond was a far worse decision and in that it turns the master criminal into a petulant toddler.
I found the arrival of the choppers at the end of GE more of a WTF moment. No way they could just appear like that without anyone hearing them!
A reason they may have gone down this path is due to some obsession with trying to emulate Nolan's Bat franchise for thematic heft. Ironically, it was in the first 1989 Batman film where I recall seeing one of these ridiculous retcon contrivances, when they made the Joker the killer of Wayne's parents. The other was the Sandman retcon of Uncle Ben's killer in Spider Man 3. Neither was particularly convincing, and nor was this.
I'd prefer that too, but after SF I'd prepared myself for similar in SP.
I'd have preferred no connection to childhood, and no retcon 'author of pain', but on top of this, I did not find Bond's reactions to the scenario convincing. He blows it off - is dismissive and uninterested. That for me, is not consistent with behaviour I would expect from Craig's Bond, as portrayed by him in the last three films. I would have expected him to go after Blofeld and kill him in a particularly uncomfortable manner - Dalton LTK style. Perhaps they are keeping this for B25.
His dismissive attitude to the man who killed Oberhauser, indirectly killed Vesper, indirectly killed M (who he cried for apparently just a few weeks back) and who just tortured him in unforgiving fashion is as contrived for me as his amazing recovery from said torture. It just doesn't add up, even if it is supposed to be 'mature Bond's' way and manner to be so nonchalant. It's almost like he's a sleepwalker in his own story - a story of supposed immense thematic magnitude & consequence according to the words being told on screen.
I'm not sure if I feel this way on account of the acting, the storytelling or the premise, but it is the way I feel. I didn't have this view when watching TDKR's 'author of pain' scenario. I've wondered why. Perhaps it was because Wayne was beaten to a pulp and had to endure an excruciatingly painful recovery (something we already went through in SF for Bond)..... Perhaps it was because he did in fact react emotionally in such battered half conscious state, when Ra's Al Ghul appeared before him in a 'vision' to tell him who was behind it all. That resonated with me and appeared credible even though it was a brief scene.
But that's the whole point isn't it? That he has arrived at point where this man and/or his organisation can no longer manipulate him. He's done. It also ties in with the notion of choices, 'we always have a choice', 'a licence to kill is also a licence not to kill'. Perhaps it's an angle that doesn't ring true for some fans and he should blow ESB's brains out, but for me it's grayer than that, which I'd expect from DC's Bond. He's not Dalton Bond.
I did initially feel enraged by Blofeld's conceit as communicated by Waltz, but couldn't emotionally care because Bond didn't appear to care. Additionally, as I said above, even if Bond is supposed to have moved forward at this point, it didn't feel credible to me, emotionally.
Regarding your previous question - I wouldn't have minded a Blofeld connection to Oberhauser (not my first choice though), but I would have preferred an impersonation or some other misdirection to deviously ensnare and draw Bond in rather than them ultimately being the same person.
I would have preferred a third option: villain as the head of Quantum, without Blofeld, Spectre and the childhood connection. That means the film is connected to CR and QoS.
Skyfall stays a standalone story.
If I have to choose between the two options you offered, then I opt for the latter: Blofeld as the head of Spectre, no connection, no retcon.
I wasn't too keen about Spectre and Blofeld reappearing, but a childhood connection between Bond and the villain is a terrible idea, so I would leave it out in every scenario. I agree with @Birdleson, I don't want them to go that far into Bond's past.
Obviously the latter. Who in the world was actually strongly desiring to go into Bond's childhood? Never once in a "what do you want to see in Bond 24" thread or even in conversation with more casual fans have I heard someone say "you know, I really want to delve more in Bond's past. What was he like as a kid？ How did those experiences shape him?"
As has been pointed out many times, the Blofeld 'reveal' is utterly pointless because Bond doesn't know who Blofeld is. Now, if Bond as chasing a mysterious figure named "Blofeld" who turned out to be Oberhauser, that'd at least be an improvement.
I was proffering a hypothetical scenario based on what we actually got. I wasn't suggesting anyone would being chomping at the bit to explore Bond's childhood (besides, the film doesn't even explore his childhood beyond a couple of lines detailing his movements) but in the context of the film itself would it have been favourable to remove the Blofeld angle (easy), or the Oberhauser angle (less so)?
On another note, the Blofeld reveal is for the audience alone, hence why it's downplayed.
The direction of that moment works, but whether Oberhauser should be Blofeld is up for debate. In the context of the story the way Mendes handled it was much better than it could've been. The whole thing is messy because whichever way you spin it, Bond doesn't know Blofeld, so for any sort of reveal to work in this particular film it could only be from an audiences perspective.
Very good point. He's very much more Hans Landa than Fleming's Blofeld.
I don't particularly mind this but in his own way Christoph Waltz is just as far from the serious gangster of the TB novel as Donald, Telly and Charlie were in theirs.
I still think Telly is the closest to the book Blofeld we have had and there's nothing Christoph does in SP to alter that perception for me.
The unseen Blofelds are my favorite, but Telly was great. He wasn't 300 lbs, but he was big, imposing and bald, which is more than you can say for the other Blofelds.
See above. He's not big either, he's 5' 8".