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 would go with this. Denbigh has absolutely no ounce (or I suppose it's gram these days) of menace whatsoever. He comes over as a sycophantic little squit, the likes of which are found slithering to their bosses the world over. I've encountered his type many times before and the easiest way to dispatch them is to buy a fly swatter. Either that or say "Boo!" very loudly and they go scuttling back to their mum's basement with their tail between their legs. Ralph Fiennes' M quite rightly ate Denbigh for breakfast.
Someone on these boards asked the question: "Why didn't Denbigh realise that his gun was light of ammo?" The answer is simple: his kind wouldn't really know how to hold a gun, let alone how heavy a loaded one weighed. That much is evident from the way that sorry excuse for a man was hefting it.
Anyone who says that he's more menacing or compelling than Oberhauser (especially after the Rome board meeting) really does need to see the movie again. Given the choice of who I'd rather be pitted against, it'd be Denbigh every time.
Now where's that fly swatter?
Changing name/identity is also a common trope in Ian Fleming's works: Le Chiffre, Hugo Drax, Julius No and... Ernst Stavro Blofeld all did it. Granted, Blofeld's name is his real name and the one he always came back to, but the point is there is a literary precedent.
I also think people make too much of the foster brother aspect. I doubt Bond and Blofeld ever considered themselves brothers. They share a certain affection for one father figure. Actually, Blofeld seemed more to have a sense of entitlement than love for his biological father. Bond must have never noticed the jealousy.
Talking of fathers, this is also a common trope in Fleming's novels: the "good," legitimate father figure (M, Oberhauser, Mathis), versus the depraved, monstrous, twisted father figure that is the villain (who is a direct descendant of Saturn, Cronos, Ouranos, Laius and even Satan).
Strongly agree. His performance is outstanding.
They had an opportunity to include Fields as well. I'd rather they have gone that angle than Silva, personally. (And I'll bet that had Mendes not directed SF, they wouldn't have tried to tie that film into Blofeld's backstory.)
When I saw the trailer and young Oberhauser's face was burnt out, my initial thought was that young Bond tried to repress the memory of YO by burning the photo (as opposed to the SF fire causing it). Either way, it seems the "blotting out" is simply not to give away Waltz' face so early?
I did like that Blofeld had the right photos in Bond and Swann's rooms in Morocco...kind of tied in nicely to the photos at MI6 at the end.
This sums it up for me. I think Christoph Waltz can do no wrong, and it's a shame he wasn't given more to work with. Obviously this would have required more foresight, but for Blofeld to be behind all of these plots, there hasn't been much to hint at it along the way. This serves to really only connect Blofeld to the villain plot of this film, which I found weak and far from original.
I agree. If this is it, then what a waste.
If he's back for B25 (both Seydoux and him) then perhaps they can give more depth to both their characters.
Quite frankly, I can't understand why Waltz (as a double Oscar winner) would have taken this role if what they gave us in SP is all there is for him. He probably could have realized from reading the part that it was somewhat thinly written. So I suspect there is more to this. I hope so anway.
Looking back at the previous three movies, it makes perfect sense than the shadowy organization that we had seen in CR and QOS (albeit with a different name) had a leader and was not merely run by a committee of villains. I suspect they wrote SP with a crypto-Blofeld in mind at first, then when they had the rights secured they decided to make him Blofeld.
I considered that. A stronger follow up to Spectre could change my opinion about Spectre, if Spectre is merely a set up to something better.
Absolutely.
I really don't know what else people expected. I thought he was so bloody good and every time I watch it I'm itching to see him on screen. His screen time is perfectly balanced.
Oberhauser was running a terrorist network intent on control, CR & QOS it wasnt until Bond killed Sciarra that Oberhauser decided it was time to deal with him finally.
His up-front presence certainly didn't hurt OHMSS one bit. Then again, Telly's take was vastly superior.
I'd rank him in my bottom 5(ish) of BOnd villains.
Blofeld was not upfront in OHMSS: he appears quite a while into the film (halfway?). He is referred to a long time before showing up. Same thing in the novel. It is early to tell which one I prefer over Savalas or Waltz, but Waltz is certainly a hit for me.
Can't kill YOUR dreams.
I would wager Telly occupied a far higher percentage of OHMSS' running time than Waltz did SP's.
For me it was an 148 minute orgasm :))
And I have fallen madly in love with this movie.
I even had to dethrone GoldenEye in my ranking, something I would never have thought possible!
Savalas benefitted from being in a seminal film. Objectively he's not really that close to Fleming's Blofeld. Waltz is.
Despite Blofeld's lame back story and the baffling retconning of the previous three films, Waltz gives a good performance, but thanks to the script it is certainly an uphill attempt on his behalf.
That may be so but he is still unseen for the first half or so of the movie. Besides, that is beside the point: Dr No is only seen a few minutes before the end of the movie titled after him and it does serve him.
Indeed. Savalas does have something of Blofeld's look in the novel TB, but his attitude is different in many aspects: he is more active, for one, he also seems to have a certain attraction towards women. Waltz's Blofeld is far more cerebral and may be asexual... Just like the novel's Blofeld. He is certainly a puritan: I need to watch the movie, but do we see him smoke or drink at all?