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
That would work if Waltz returned as Blofeld. But if Blofeld returns in the next film and he's not played by Waltz, it might look awkward without an explanation, so suggesting Oberhauser was a fake would work. Additionally, "it wasn't the real Blofeld" might be contrived, but at least it recons the horribly stupid idea that Blofeld was Bond's stepbrother.
Eee's James Bond's big bruvva mate,yeah,,cool.
I'm afraid so.....poor little shit....daddy loved Jimmy not Frannie.
Hahaha it is ,isn't it ? I was thinking that as I typed it.
True...to be fair it was only the final third and when they went to London that it goes to pot.
Before that I was fine with it,i have no problem with the car chase,and the train fight with Hinx was seriously disturbing,seeing Daniel Craig's Bond being beaten to crap !
I'm in the minority for liking the plane chase too...if it had a proper Bond score instead of Newman's lazy SF re-use ,it would have made such a difference.
SP sits at #13 in my rankings atm so not bad.
That's how I see it,but there are some scenes (that brilliant train fight), and banter that still works...its the only Craig Bond film that is a 'popcorn ' Bond to me.
Amazing to think that Daniel was in serious pain with his knee when he did that scene,he doesn't show anything either with his body or his face.
Totally professional .
I can see how he would want to be protecting DenchM but the way he went about it was wrong when SF made a clean break from it.
I don't think they need to retcon it because it doesn't have to affect the films going forward anyway. All "it wasn't the real Blofeld" would do is muddy things up and make SP feel redundant. Plus why would Oberhauser pretend to be Blofeld if nobody knows who Blofeld is? And come up with a whole little backstory about it being his mothers name?
I'd prefer it if they just recast. If they have to explain it they could go the plastic surgery route, he's completely different every time in the books after all.
Love the film but that really bothers me as well. He has no reason not to trust Mallory and he's such a smug prick about it. The whole scene is like the cocky kid in class winding up an overly strict teacher. I think it must be a hangover from when M was written as a traitor because then him going rogue would have been justified in hindsight, but in the finished film it doesn't work at all. If he was protecting him then it should have been written/played much differently. As it stands Bond just comes across as a needlessly antagonistic bellend in that scene.
Sure, but it would at least walk back of one of the stupidest ideas ever perpetrated in a Bond film. I think that's worthwhile enough.
Two worthy goals.
Let's posit that Blofeld's name was known and respected in the underworld as the shadowy kingpin of Spectre, the world's premier terrorist organization. Oberhauser, being a crazy power-seeking little fantasist, decides to pretend he's the little-seen Blofeld--much as Blofeld pretended to be the reclusive Willard Whyte in DAF--and makes up a stupid story about his mother's name (which was really Schicklgruber or something equally awful). I'd prefer all that to waving things away with plastic surgery.
Plastic surgery is in keeping with the character. In the Fleming books he's basically a new person every time. Blofeld is one of the few characters you could really get away with a recast with imo, and they don't really have to address a potential recast anyway, they could easily just cast a similar actor and not mention it ala OHMSS. So I don't see any reason for them to address the foster brother stuff at all. Just let us all forget about it, easy enough since it's such an afterthought in SP already.
But really, if Waltz isn't back I have a feeling we'll be looking at a new villain. I think that the success of Logan means that we might get an old man Bond coming out of retirement movie, but it'll be to face a new bad guy. Or at least one we haven't seen before.
If Blofeld is forgotten about for a few films, sure. If he reappears in the next film played by someone new, audiences will remember and want to know why the new guy is there. Plastic surgery is no less contrived an explanation and a more cliched one.
No, all we know is that Bond and the SIS hadn't heard of Blofeld, though they had been dealing with various Spectre operations. We don't know if Blofeld was known to the sort of people who were in Ellipsis or Quantum (the terrorist elite).
If that was the actual dialogue I'd say no thanks too. But I also have the feeling that Blofeld won't appear in the next film. Dealing with a new villain would require fewer explanations.
And cliched maybe but it was good enough for Fleming. They could turn it into a sort of gimmick actually, play up the idea that once he disappears he could be anyone. There isn't really much to him as a villain beside generic evil mastermind so a new angle like that could add to the character.
That, at least, is the one saving grace of SP's dog turd of a script - they make all this effort to come up with the bullshit twist of them being brothers only for Bond not to give the slightest toss (bear in mind Fleming's Bond hunted down Major Dexter Smythe for killing Hannes) about any of it. He never refers to it again and is happy to call him Blofeld both to M and to his face.
What's the point of pouring a vat of urine over Fleming's grave to give us this big personal revelation for Bond when his reaction is basically:
That's the thing about the brother 'twist'; you could erase it in a couple of lines and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the rest of the film so if it has no bearing on the relationship between Bond and Blofeld why is it there? Only because every film has to have a personal connection for Bond these days.
The more time that passes SP's script actually gets worse. Analysing it is like constantly picking at a scab which gets infected and starts oozing pus before eventually turning gangrenous.
This is pretty much how I feel about the whole thing. Bad decision but have to live with it. Trying to invent a new Blofeld while retconning the one in SP to Oberhauser would only create more issues. And it's one aspect of the Blofeld character not the whole character. I would argue that it's not even central to SP or at least superfluous. So it can easily be ignored and forgotten in future movies.