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 relish the "return" of Bond staples, it was always just a matter of time and I expected it to play out that way from 2006. Moneypenny. Q. That was part of the plan. MI6 not going in for exploding pens? Think about it, folks.
There can't be an elimination game played with what came before, the homages are already a part of the established Bond film formula. And it's really unavoidable anyway at this point.
This revived discussion really puts perspective to a lot of the complaints laid against the Craig Bond films.
Some Bond staples deserve to be left in the dust when they've outlived their purpose. That doesn't apply to Moneypenny or Q, who were reinvented capably for the Craig era. Blofeld wasn't. He drowned in a sea of camp and unimaginatively recycled tropes. And why does Blofeld even need that cat? It worked when we didn't have the character's face to look at. When we did, it made Blofeld look less threatening and more goofy. Peter Hunt had the good sense to put aside the trope in OHMSS--not coincidentally Blofeld's best outing after his face reveal.
And the screenwriters can surely devise new gadgets instead of recycling exploding pens. They're paid to do that sort of thing.
A modern Bond film needs to be fresh and relevant to a general audience, not the equivalent of a tribute band for nostalgists. And since the best Craig films (CR and SF) were not generically formulaic, why settle for the "established Bond film formula"? I want to see films as startling and exciting as FRWL and GF were to audiences in the 60s. Spectre failed because it made cliches out of the personal stories from the prior Craig films and lazily recycled tropes from earlier Bonds.
What's so interesting about a cat?
Actually I think Blofeld is pretty much impotent and his affection for his cat is an indication of this.
In any case the cat was used sparingly in SP, as a nod to the cinematic character and in an original way, so I was quite happy with his presence.
Well, Fleming's Blofeld was asexual.
But the most prominent scene involves Blofeld tossing the cat aside when he hears Bond has escaped. Then he joins his team on skis. It's a rejection of the cat and what it stood for in YOLT's version of Blofeld.
Not so. In TB Blofeld has no interest in sex, in OHMSS he has an evident sign of syphilis, in YOLT he's bumping uglies with Irma Bundt. Furthermore, it seems out of character for Blofeld to have affection for cute animals. The only beings he has affection for are ugly monsters like Irma.
Not original enough, and what's the point of nodding to an outmoded, cliched, campy, Austin Powers cliche of the character? The cat stands for Spectre's failure to make Blofeld a credible, modern villain. If Blofeld returns, I don't want to see that damn animal anywhere near him. All it does is make Blofeld into a stupid cartoon.
Of course remember Egyptians or... Disney movies!
And what about this?
Richelieu was a cat lover in real life, but even in his case it's possible to overdo the felines--his desk was overrun with frolicking kittens in the otherwise excellent 1921 film Les trois mousquetaires.
I am Putin s moron puppet here at MI6.
Little by little, like a vaporizing drop of water daily building mass. A stormcloud is coming.
Blofeld is merely a puppet. Hopefully that is Boyle and Hodge's great idea. It would neatly tie the story to Spectre. If it could be revealed that the cat once belonged to Vesper or M (Judi Dench) it would really be the story arc that Craig's Bond has been trying to achieve.
At this point, I wouldn't put it past EON.
And I think you're reading too much OHMSS' cat scene. It was getting old and that's probably why they kept it short but they still had one.
Yes, but mainly black cats.
That's a cat?
And Pablo Escobar owned several hippos, which have now escaped and infested the waters of Columbia.
Do you require an origin scene for his tertiary syphilis? I think it's much creepier for Fleming to let us wonder. And I think it's pretty clear in YOLT (Bond and Tiger are clearly convinced) that he is very involved with Irma Bundt and has taken her as his consort. If it was any clearer the reader would need a barf bag.
No, all too obvious reasons. And once again, it out of character for Blofeld to show any care or consideration for animals. Bond is the one who gets upset about fish, not his villains.
Good rule of thumb--if it appeared in Austin Powers, it's well past the sell-by date.
Hardly. The most memorable scene with the cat is of Blofeld tossing it aside in order to join his men on skis on pursuit of Bond. Nothing in a film like this is there randomly. Remember that Peter Hunt disliked Donald Pleasance's Blofeld for being sedentary and moving badly. Hunt's Blofeld would be the opposite, and that meant putting aside the most obvious sign of sedentariness--that damned cat.
And of course Fleming had no need for a trope that dated back to Cardinal Richelieu. His Blofeld didn't need cuddly pets to be scary:
Thanks for the clarity, @Benny. I was going to suggest they read the book.
Every aspect of Bond has been parodied by Austin Powers. Heck the cat was parodied in DAF! No Fleming didn't need such trope, but using visual short cuts has been a constant in the movies. And I'm fine with too obvious association. Dr No is an evil Chinese man and I don't mind either.