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
Solitaire, Pussy and Vesper are villains?
Le Chiffre and Scaramanga below Renard and Elektra?
Oddjob, Goldfinger, Scaramanga and Doctor No below Xenia and Alec?
Bullion and Boris make the list but Professor Dent and Necros don't?
Indeed. Who are we to argue with a junior hack eking out a living by writing filler like this for that well renowned cinematic tome The Metro?
If you're reduced to quoting clowns like this to prove Silva is shit @BondJasonBond006 you e already lost the argument.
It sounded a bit wrong to my ears. My favourite quote would be "so what do we do now?" I wanted to applaud at the next scene I was laughing so hard.
Silva finishes #9 out of 102 Bond villains (and sixty-nine spots ahead of Bambi & Thumper) in Esquire's ranking.
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/g2496/best-james-bond-villains-ranked/
I guess he's iconic again. ;)
I liked his Dr Schultz character Django but it was Hans Landa that he truly shinned. I remembered that opening scene in IB when he arrives at the wood cabin invites himself in, starting in German then switching to French then finally to english in the space one scene.
Although I put Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs before Inglourious, I think this scene is probably Tarantino greatest achievement in film so far. He cranks the tension beautifully and he's assisted greatly by Waltz's performance.
From then on whenever he's on screen he walks away with the film. This is why allot of us got excited by his casting and the fact we knew he was going to ESB.
Anyone thinking different was deluding themselves, that title and that actor but you have to give great actors great material and he didn't get it.
That and the expectation of what we thought Waltz might deliver, he didn't.
Like Bond I don't think you should cast an actor who is attached to an iconic role already as we can't the see anything that and for all his skill Waltz hasn't a huge amount of range.
They should of wrote a great part, I know we are buggered with tweedle dee and tweedle dum at the typewriter but the writing should have been basis then cast an actor known but not synonymous with other iconic roles.
The next time they cast Blofeld they need to keep this in mind.
This is the reason that despite some people thinking that Nolan had gone mad casting Heath Ledger as the Joker that he surprised so many (possibly not BJB006).
He was a blank slate not a movie star, I'm sorry I know some love Batman 89 (I don't) but all I see is Jack Nicholson in make up. With Ledger I saw the Joker as he had no baggage.
I didn't see Blofeld or Oberhauser I saw Christoph Waltz. This was the big one, they wrestled back the rights of Bond's most iconic adversary, 007 hadn't faced him for decades and they spunked it all on one film and used an element of the backstory that can't be ignored going forward.
The only thing we can hope for when Craig finishes they reboot with a new actor and tease SPECTRE'S emergence and Blofeld coming out the shadows to reveal himself to Bond with subtlety & class and not in the space of one bloody film.
Of course he is.
It's sad reading some of the stuff in this thread, especially the last page.
What chore must it be for those people to live through that Spectre-era when they think Skyfall is Bond Heaven.
Well, the good thing is Bond 25 might satisfy them, unless EON decides to give us another entertaining, fun, action, slightly OTT James Bond. Even then, at one point another one will be made that suits them.
Why do you always assume that people who think SP is deeply flawed must think SF is a work of genius?
They are both very excellent Bond films but SP has a lame and incoherent 3rd act and takes borderline offensive liberties with the character of Blofeld.
SF meanwhile is dragged down by requiring you to suspend your disbelief to levels way beyond belief.
It's no chore at all. Maybe, just maybe, it's a case of people having differing opinions.
I agree on the borderline liberties. Personally I could have done without that revelation and preferred him to be simply Oberhauser. But that is (for me) such a negligible small part of Spectre that it doesn't hurt the movie at all for me.
There is a pattern: a noticeable amount of members here seem to love SF and dislike SP, because they didn't receive another SF and/or SP resembles too much the Bond of the Brosnan-era. I don't make that up, it's an observation.
My main complaint with SF is the combination of the need to suspend belief (something which has to be done in most Bond movies) and the movie (SF) taking itself as seriously as no Bond has done before, to a level where it becomes almost a parody again (Silva's various scenes) (Imho).
It's no coincidence that TWINE and SF are the two movies I have most trouble watching, in fact it's the only two that I would call a "chore" to watch.
They are too similar and I couldn't believe P+W recycled the worst story they have ever written for the 50th Anniversary movie. That was just lazy and stupid, and they finally completely ruined Judi Dench's M in SF.
Well, that's fine, but I never see anyone explain why its so offensive to have Bond and Blofeld know each other. All I see is people merely state it as a fact that it is offensive.
=D>
Then again, some of us might not be bright enough to get the "complexities" of Spectre. It is such a complex film, where the entire connection between CR, QOS, SF and the most powerful criminal organization in the world can be found by scanning a piece of jewelry on laptop.
I don't think any of us do.
That's what I was saying, no one seems to understand that this Blofeld is a different interpretation in the same way that Moore was a different interpretation of what Fleming wrote. Why is taking liberties with the character as they were written originally only a problem when it comes to Blofeld? That's what I'm asking.
But, to answer the question, there is a big difference. While Moore was playing a different take on the character of Bond, he was still James Bond. Ernst Stavro Blofeld is NOT Franz Oberhauser. You won't find that connection anywhere, whether it be in the novels or any of the other films. It's not an interpretation of Blofeld, it's creating an entirely new character and then just slapping the name Blofeld on it because they think that will actually serve as a twist in the film, which it doesn't.
Making Bond and Blofeld essentially foster brothers is changing both characters and their motivations far too much. Then there's also the fact that it's a ripoff of Austin Powers in Goldmember. Films should never borrow plot devices from their own spoofs.
Because it's inane.
The world's greatest criminal mastermind just happened to know his nemesis growing up. And not only this but the fact that Bond stole his father's love away set him on his course of evil.
I can picture P&W sitting there so proud 'So actually Bond is author of his own downfall. Do you see? It's almost Shakespearean in its tragedy.'
I take your point about interpretation and maybe if they'd executed it all better it might not have been so bad but the way they stitch all the films together so feebly with the aforementioned magic ring and then crown this shit pie with the particularly juicy turd of Blofeld turning out to be Bond's foster brother just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
It's fan fiction/comic book stuff and not very well written comic book stuff at that.
And above all else it's criminally lazy. In lieu of creating a new interpretation of Blofeld (which I would be fine with) they just think making up this drivel will automatically convince the audience he's the embodiment of evil instead of a whiny teenager.
Are you being sarcastic here as well? Because, as has been explained hundreds of times now by various members here, Bond and Blofeld are not 'essentially foster brothers'. They're not brothers in any sense. Blofeld only makes that link because his father told him that's how he should treat Bond, as a brother. He keeps referring to Bond as a brother because he knows how uncomfortable it makes Bond to share a connection and a past with someone like himself. In short, he's trying to unnerve him.
Of all the issues to have with SPECTRE (and I do love the film), this one just strikes me as a bit trifling. Especially when people are blaming the writers for mistakes they didn't even make.
Exactly right. Although it's surprising that what was incredulous to some of us (myself included) seems to have been willingly lapped up by others.
What's especially disappointing is the fact that the following quote "Franz Oberhauser died twenty years ago, James, in an avalanche alongside his father. A man you're talking to now, a man inside your head, is Ernst Stavro Blofeld." probably meant 'f' all to members of the general audience and additionally many of us die hards were left shaking our heads in disbelief at the piffle we had just heard. So it was just a completely wasted moment all round.
And, yes, I'm perfectly aware that they're not officially foster-brothers. I'm not that thick, thank you. It's easier to type "foster-brother" than it is to go through the unnecessarily "complex" phrasing you'd need to use to describe their relationship. That's also something that's been cited by many members on these boards as well.
As to why he keeps referring to himself as Bond's brother. It has to be for another reason than to unnerve Bond, because at no point does it look like such commentary bothers Bond. In fact, Bond couldn't look as though he could care less about much of anything happening in Spectre. The Oberhauser connection never seems to bother him, only giving him a way in to the investigation of the leader of SPECTRE. So there must be other reasons for him bringing it up, because using it to bother Bond is never effective over the course of the entire film.
Definition of the term foster brother:
'Foster-brother: your foster brother is a male who is not a son of your parents but who is raised by your parents.'
I would say this reasonably sums up the events of the film. The fact that it was only for two years is neither here nor there.
And as other members have also explained hundreds of times it's just clutching at semantic straws to claim that just because there's no formal/legal arrangement that makes them brothers then that makes it ok. It's the fact that there's any link when they were children at all that makes it a shit idea. Members of the same scout troop would be just as lame.
I'm curious why those in the 'it doesn't bother me' camp are always at such pains to point out that they are not strictly adopted brothers as if a letter from the court confirming this would be a vindication of the shittest plot twist in Bond history.
The length you go to in explaining excessively why Blofeld is such a failure is astonishing.
So says the guy who was so desperate to show Silva is shit trawled the internet until he found a pathetically cobbled together list of Bond villains in the Metro as proof of his reasoning.
I also wouldn't call a grand total of two posts (just speaking of my own output) being enough to warrant being called "obsessed" with the whole Blofeld issue.
There have been far more posts in this thread, and elsewhere, displaying clear condescension towards those who don't like Spectre because, apparently, we're not intelligent enough to "understand" it.
Well that Metro list was the first that popped up in google search. And you act as if I had made up that list.
Silva is not shit, I never said it. Silva is a pathetic Joker clone and ridiculous to a degree where he could be in an Austin Powers movie with the same exact acting and dialogue.
Do I dislike Silva? Absolutely. He ruins a movie that is really good until its 70th minute. Then he enters the screen and SF falls apart. IMHO. And yes I know it's a minority that thinks that way. Like you are in a minority who thinks Waltz wasn't a good Blofeld.
IMHO.
I will not say anything more to this topic. I made my point. But please keep up the good work and continue.
And for the record, I like the Austin Powers movies (well, the first two...).