Where does Bond go after Craig?

1219220222224225680

Comments

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    I don't think that the writers went into the theory of "Let's copy Austin Powers" when developing the idea of Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers.
    It's the fact that no one said 'But...but...Goldmember!' when MGW suggested it that baffles me!

  • Posts: 1,988
    delfloria wrote: »
    SPECTRE lost it's street creds when they introduced Bond and Blofeld as foster brothers and that Blofeld's goal was to simply torment his brother out of jealousy.


    As an original Bond fan, quite a few decisions have disappointed me over the history of the series, but none as much as the Bond/Blofeld connection.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.

    That's good point mate, you're probably right.

    I'm still baffled that they didn't think of Austin Powers though, they were so conscious of not straying into Austin Powers territory early on in the Craig era. The more I think of Brofeld, the more ridiculous it is
  • Posts: 1,860
    delfloria wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Just finished watching NTTD for umpteenth time and for the umpteenth time I keep getting something in my eye! This is why the likes of Mission Impossible can't get close to Bond. It takes more than clever stunts. I just cant fathom how Bond 26 can reach the heights of the Craig era but I have any faith in BB and MG whichever direction they head in. There are not many actors who are capable of succeeding Craig. Fassbender may have worked a few years ago but too old now.

    I'm a Bond fan and I am not a big fan of the MI series but..........................the last couple of MI films have been much better conceived and executed films than the last few Craig films. In addition to that, I think "The Man from U.N.C.L.E.", which released against SPECTRE, was the better film as well. Looking forward to a new direction.

    Man from Uncle better than Spectre? Really?

    Yep, better chemistry between the actors/characters, more engaging plot, more creative music, action scenes more engrossing, handled the humor in scenes better, more stylish wardrobes, more attractive and interesting villain and a climax that used the heroes brains to outwit the villain. SPECTRE lost it's street creds when they introduced Bond and Blofeld as foster brothers and that Blofeld's goal was to simply torment his brother out of jealousy. Thank you Austin Powers.

    I don't think that the writers went into the theory of "Let's copy Austin Powers" when developing the idea of Bond and Blofeld being foster brothers.

    Agreed. I think it was poor research practices on EON's part.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.

    That's good point mate, you're probably right.

    I'm still baffled that they didn't think of Austin Powers though, they were so conscious of not straying into Austin Powers territory early on in the Craig era. The more I think of Brofeld, the more ridiculous it is

    They probably didn’t remember or had never actually seen GOLDMEMBER. It’s also the weakest of the two sequels, so it’s not like it’s all that memorable. If it weren’t for Bond fans, I probably wouldn’t have remembered the plot point about Dr Evil being the long lost brother of Austin Powers.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.

    That's good point mate, you're probably right.

    I'm still baffled that they didn't think of Austin Powers though, they were so conscious of not straying into Austin Powers territory early on in the Craig era. The more I think of Brofeld, the more ridiculous it is

    They probably didn’t remember or had never actually seen GOLDMEMBER. It’s also the weakest of the two sequels, so it’s not like it’s all that memorable. If it weren’t for Bond fans, I probably wouldn’t have remembered the plot point about Dr Evil being the long lost brother of Austin Powers.

    I'm not quite sure this matches up with the general consensus. Both of the sequels were immensely popular with audiences and made a sizeable chunk of dough. I would struggle to believe that nobody brought it up during the creative process, even if Cain and Abel was the original source of inspiration for the idea.

    Either way, the implication that the similarities between Spectre and Goldmember aren't that big of a deal because the latter was a weak sequel and very unmemorable is quite funny in its own way.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited January 2023 Posts: 8,183
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,588
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.

    That's good point mate, you're probably right.

    I'm still baffled that they didn't think of Austin Powers though, they were so conscious of not straying into Austin Powers territory early on in the Craig era. The more I think of Brofeld, the more ridiculous it is

    The series hit its peak in 2002. No one today or even in 2015 really thinks of that series much now compared to what it was 20 years ago.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,792
    Who is Bond, compared with Kronsteen.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I guarantee you that MGW had Cain and Abel more in mind than Austin Powers.

    That's good point mate, you're probably right.

    I'm still baffled that they didn't think of Austin Powers though, they were so conscious of not straying into Austin Powers territory early on in the Craig era. The more I think of Brofeld, the more ridiculous it is

    The series hit its peak in 2002. No one today or even in 2015 really thinks of that series much now compared to what it was 20 years ago.

    I’d argue THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME was the peak. 60s nostalgia was big in the 90s and that was probably its last gasp. Look how GOLDMEMBER shifted towards the 70s as nostalgia for that decade was becoming more pronounced. The next obvious step would have been to do an 80s send up, but I don’t think Myers views that decade as fun as the 60s/70s, especially when it comes to Bond. AUSTINPUSSY notwithstanding.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.

    I don't think anyone is exaggerating anything. Conversely, let's not pretend that nobody remembers it either. All of that rhetoric is fine, but ultimately they ended up with a plot point already used in a parody film and did it in a self-serious way, which ironically made it even more silly.

    There isn't really a defence of it that holds up. It was a daft idea, part of an admirable experiment that unfortunately was creatively dead on arrival as a result.
  • Posts: 1,988
    Who is Bond, compared with Kronsteen.

    One of my favorite quotes. Vladek Sheybal. A small role and so much more menacing and memorable than Cristoph Waltz in two Bond films.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.

    I don't think anyone is exaggerating anything. Conversely, let's not pretend that nobody remembers it either. All of that rhetoric is fine, but ultimately they ended up with a plot point already used in a parody film and did it in a self-serious way, which ironically made it even more silly.

    There isn't really a defence of it that holds up. It was a daft idea, part of an admirable experiment that unfortunately was creatively dead on arrival as a result.

    I’m not defending it. It was an unnecessary element because if anything Blofeld should have enough grievance over Bond just for foiling past operations of SPECTRE. The foster brother stuff is so inconsequential that if you snipped out all the bits from the film it wouldn’t really change the plot that dramatically.
  • Posts: 1,860
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.

    I don't think anyone is exaggerating anything. Conversely, let's not pretend that nobody remembers it either. All of that rhetoric is fine, but ultimately they ended up with a plot point already used in a parody film and did it in a self-serious way, which ironically made it even more silly.

    There isn't really a defence of it that holds up. It was a daft idea, part of an admirable experiment that unfortunately was creatively dead on arrival as a result.

    I’m not defending it. It was an unnecessary element because if anything Blofeld should have enough grievance over Bond just for foiling past operations of SPECTRE. The foster brother stuff is so inconsequential that if you snipped out all the bits from the film it wouldn’t really change the plot that dramatically.

    True....................but unfortunately they did leave it in.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,388
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.

    I don't think anyone is exaggerating anything. Conversely, let's not pretend that nobody remembers it either. All of that rhetoric is fine, but ultimately they ended up with a plot point already used in a parody film and did it in a self-serious way, which ironically made it even more silly.

    There isn't really a defence of it that holds up. It was a daft idea, part of an admirable experiment that unfortunately was creatively dead on arrival as a result.

    I’m not defending it. It was an unnecessary element because if anything Blofeld should have enough grievance over Bond just for foiling past operations of SPECTRE. The foster brother stuff is so inconsequential that if you snipped out all the bits from the film it wouldn’t really change the plot that dramatically.

    It's true. I think the Spectre script has lots of nice ideas in, but it feels like it went through lots of different versions and by the final one they'd left various ideas in which had a reason to be there in earlier drafts but had removed those reasons by the last one, and not really noticed. A bit like Nomi in NTTD: I feel there must be an earlier draft of that script where she has something to do and a reason to be there. It needed a big clever script doctor who hadn't been attached to the process previously to sweep in and take an aerial view of the whole thing and give it a good pruning/rationalisation.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,216
    delfloria wrote: »
    The fact that they went with it in SPECTRE either means they forgot about the third Austin Powers film or they were aware of it and didn’t care. But let’s not exaggerate the popularity of GOLDMEMBER. It was a hit for its day, but I don’t think it ever held up as well as the original. It’s easier for spy film aficionados to recall GOLDMEMBER that than it is for others. I know for a fact that I saw Paul Feig’s SPY but I’m damned if I remember it much beyond Jason Statham playing a deadpan comedic role.

    I don't think anyone is exaggerating anything. Conversely, let's not pretend that nobody remembers it either. All of that rhetoric is fine, but ultimately they ended up with a plot point already used in a parody film and did it in a self-serious way, which ironically made it even more silly.

    There isn't really a defence of it that holds up. It was a daft idea, part of an admirable experiment that unfortunately was creatively dead on arrival as a result.

    I’m not defending it. It was an unnecessary element because if anything Blofeld should have enough grievance over Bond just for foiling past operations of SPECTRE. The foster brother stuff is so inconsequential that if you snipped out all the bits from the film it wouldn’t really change the plot that dramatically.

    True....................but unfortunately they did leave it in.

    Yes, exactly.
  • Posts: 1,988
    Have the writers ever commented on why they went with the Bond/Blofeld connection? I did not recall the Goldmember similarity, but then I only saw the film once and immediately forgot it. It seemed more of an odd "Luke, I am your father" moment for no apparent reason. Shock? Wow, I didn't see that coming! New wrinkle? If Blofeld somehow returns in future films, I hope the filmmakers will have the sense never to make that connection again.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Yeah, I think we're safe on that one - they even backtracked from it in NTTD ('It's a good job you're not really related').
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,388
    I think it does makes sense if you follow the thinking through. They were adapting Fleming's Octopussy where Bond meets the killer of his childhood mentor Oberhauser, no Bond fan objects to that story, even though it's a personal mission. As with a lot adaptations from Fleming they decided to punch it up a bit and make the baddie of his story into the main villain of their film. And in the world of Bond, why shouldn't it be Blofeld? It's not like it's M or anyone else he already knew: this Blofeld is as unknown to the audience as Smythe is to Bond in the short story, so it's not really a "I am your mum!" soap opera-style reveal. And as he is the main villain of the film, he has to be reasonably close to Bond in age, which means, as Oberhauser's death happened some time ago, he would have been a teenager; which then naturally links them to growing up together or spending some time together as children; so then: foster brothers. It all makes sense, it all works as an adaptation.

    But they just never got the time to take a step back and see that 007 and Blofeld being brothers is basically a bit silly, and that the final version of the film didn't really get any mileage out of the concept anyway; it's a sort of pretend, fake dramatic reveal instead of one which actually means something. But I imagine you get caught up on these things and don't get much of a chance to look at the final version of your script as if it's the first time you're seeing it.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    I don't think they ever commented on it thoroughly. Due to the Sony leaks there is a pretty good understanding of the various stages the script went through, although I can't say I know a whole lot about that. Wasn't one thing that they had the whole Octopussy/Oberhauser thing going already and then they got the rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld and jumped the gun by just making the guy they had in mind Blofeld?

    One can kind of see the room where the decision was made: Cigarette smoke. Take-out containers everywhere. The scent and smoke and sweat of a writers' room are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high writing--a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension--becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it. And suddenly Robert shouts: "Neal! I've got it! He's his foster brother!"
    The more complicated question is how this made it through notes and revisions and pre-production and reherseals and shooting and editing and was left in the film...
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,152
    Especially the SP script, with the myriad changes requested every few weeks by the studio execs. mtm's justification for Brofeld is the best reasoning for it that I've yet seen but, like he says, it's fundamentally a bit daft and they didn't make much of it anyway. And, yes, they probably could've lost that whole foster-brothers angle and still had the rest of SP unchanged. It's always seemed like such an unnecessary own-goal to me.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,789
    I don't think they ever commented on it thoroughly. Due to the Sony leaks there is a pretty good understanding of the various stages the script went through, although I can't say I know a whole lot about that. Wasn't one thing that they had the whole Octopussy/Oberhauser thing going already and then they got the rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld and jumped the gun by just making the guy they had in mind Blofeld?

    One can kind of see the room where the decision was made: Cigarette smoke. Take-out containers everywhere. The scent and smoke and sweat of a writers' room are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high writing--a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension--becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it. And suddenly Robert shouts: "Neal! I've got it! He's his foster brother!"
    The more complicated question is how this made it through notes and revisions and pre-production and reherseals and shooting and editing and was left in the film...

    This made me chuckle!

    :))
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,630
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    I don't think they ever commented on it thoroughly. Due to the Sony leaks there is a pretty good understanding of the various stages the script went through, although I can't say I know a whole lot about that. Wasn't one thing that they had the whole Octopussy/Oberhauser thing going already and then they got the rights to SPECTRE and Blofeld and jumped the gun by just making the guy they had in mind Blofeld?

    One can kind of see the room where the decision was made: Cigarette smoke. Take-out containers everywhere. The scent and smoke and sweat of a writers' room are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high writing--a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension--becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it. And suddenly Robert shouts: "Neal! I've got it! He's his foster brother!"
    The more complicated question is how this made it through notes and revisions and pre-production and reherseals and shooting and editing and was left in the film...

    This made me chuckle!

    :))

    Me too. 🤓😂 Are we sure it was Robert Wade, though? It could have been Neal Purvis or MGW.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,388
    I think the problem probably is that Bond doesn't really care that he's his foster brother. Which is true to his character, but if he doesn't care then why should we: especially as it's made clear that Blofeld cares way more, and it actually seems a bit petty.
    Maybe if Bond had held a grudge and was the only man capable of pursuing Blofeld thanks to his prior knowledge of him, but Blofeld was more unaware of Bond (and we ditch all of the 'author of your pain' stuff) it would work better? But I don't know; I suspect if someone here pitched the idea behind Spectre we'd probably think it sounds good!
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 693
    They made Blofeld and Bond brothers because they were 4 movies into the Craigverse and needed to throw in a massive retcon in order to give their rivalry some dramatic weight, instead of doing the smart thing by simply having Mr. White, a villain who'd been there since the beginning and shared an effective on-screen past with CraigBond, be the main villain. They should have saved the rebooted Blofeld for the next actor.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,970
    I don't think they needed to save Blofeld, but Bond 24 needed to be more of an introduction of SPECTRE than an introduction to both them and Blofeld at the same time. The books and the earlier films took the time to build up to them. Retconning a different organisation to give your new one a backstory isn't enough. They were just too eager to play with the toys they finally got their hands on. I don't blame them but they should have been more patient with how they approached it.
  • Posts: 4,142
    The strange thing is even if they’d ditched the idea of Blofeld and Bond knowing each other prior there’d still be plenty of potential drama between the two characters. I mean, Blofeld is essentially responsible for Vesper’s death in a sense. Not saying that Bond needed to be motivated by revenge, but surely the idea of Bond facing down a man who created this criminal organisation that led to the death of his only chance at a normal life has a bit more bite to it than what we got.
  • Posts: 1,860
    All the analysis here of the unfortunate inclusion of the Foster Bros reminds me of why I was not totally upset when Bond got killed in NTTD. When it happened, part of me realized this meant a hard reset for the next set of films. Craig was excellent as Bond but they really mucked up his universe.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,970
    What frustrates me as well is how they butchered the Octopussy short story. I don't mind any writer playing around with it but what they did with Hannes Oberhauser was just incredibly weak and I felt they could've done something better with it. Why couldn't Waltz have just been a Dexter Smythe type character?
Sign In or Register to comment.