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
Even that could easily have been taken out: Bond could have been brooding about the fact that this mysterious chairman of the board knows him, or knows of him. Even the "author of all your pain" line does not need any justification outside Blofeld's involvement, indirectly, in the death of Vesper and M.
Why, when it can so easily be undone with a bit of dialogue? The Blofeld-brother garbage was a blot on the character, both Fleming's and the cinematic version, and should be wiped out (though I guess I'm in the minority for thinking so!). The solution is relatively simple--Oberhauser pulled a Willard Whyte among the underworld.
If Blofeld returns without Waltz, a new Blofeld will have to be invented anyway. The character was so badly handled in Spectre that he has to be reworked. If the filmmakers want to get the most out of him, he'll have to revert to be being a behind-the-scenes mastermind, and that's best accomplished by putting as much distance between Waltz's campy Blofeld and the new one as possible.
Take away the "sibling rivalry" from Waltz's Blofeld and you don't have much character left.
For sure. My point was more that if you want to remove the idea, there's more that needs cutting/reworking than just a couple lines of dialogue (contrary to what some fans claim). The idea is woven throughout the movie, not woven very well or to any great effect, but it's there nonetheless.
It's hardly woven.
The scenes with Bond looking through the box of stuff from Skyfall could simply be axed without you even noticing as could the line about Oberhauser in the car to MP and the picture of them on the wall in the crater base. And I don't see Bond brooding once apart from possibly when he's going through the box.
There's not even a single scene like on the beach in GE which, while hardly Oscar worthy, demonstrates to SP how to make the personal connection to the villain work.
The other option of course which would've been equally valid would be to have had Oberhauser as the main villain in the Largo mould and kept Blofeld in the shadows. Then you could have kept your shit brother connection and it wouldn't have been nearly as appalling.
The person who first mooted the idea of blending the two should be barred from ever walking on a Bond set ever again.
As for recasting Blofeld, it's not like he or indeed every recurring Bond character including Bond himself has never been recast.
Spectre is presumably a big organization made of various cells. If it's headed by a rarely seen mastermind, then someone impersonating him, by "revealing" himself as Blofeld and using this fake authority to take over a few cells, is plausible. And the real Blofeld, after an initial fit of pique, might welcome having a decoy to take the fall for him should an operation go wrong, or to take the authorities' attention away from the real Blofeld. Perhaps Oberhauser was even intentionally set up to fall, to draw the heat away from Blofeld and get rid of a deranged member. None of that strikes me as anything crazier than the plotting in the last few Bond films.
Which still isn't much in the way of characterization. Have there been any Bond villains who weren't ruthless, utterly evil and cruel?
Sure, but recasting a character from one film to the next would raise eyebrows more than in the 60s. But as I stated previously, I'm guessing Blofeld won't appear in the next film, and by the time he's reused, enough time will have passed for a recasting to seem normal.
Having Oberhauser masquerade as Blofeld doesn't make "Blofeld" a code name if there is a real Blofeld whose own name isn't a code. It just invalidates Oberhauser's identification as Blofeld, which felt tacked on in the film anyway.
The Bond code name nonsense only appeals to people who can't grapple with the idea that all of Bond's adventures happened to a single character. Making Oberhauser a fake invalidates only his claim to Blofeld, which was pretty tenuous to begin with, since he had little in common with the film or literary Blofeld, besides some cliched props.
Retconning Oberhauser so that he was pretending to be Blofeld is just like pouring water on the chip fire that is the whole mess; 'It'll take your face off.'
I think it would be roundly ridiculed.
If they want to distance themselves from the whole disaster then the best thing is to just ignore Blofeld completely and only bring him back in about B27.
The whole brothergate thing is a bit like Brexit (Bloexit? Oberexit? Broexit?). One very misguided decision by someone in charge has led us to a total clusterf-bomb of a situation with no viable solution and every option rather undesirable. And I have to say EON bear more than a passing resemblance to May's government at the moment - bumbling along without the faintest idea of how to extricate themselves from this mess of their own making.
Still at least the spectre of Kevin McCorbyn isn't waiting in the wings to take over so small mercies and all that.
I am indeed pro Brexit in principle. But alas what I am not is a total unmitigated shambles at the hands of people who, incredibly, are managing to make the odious Eurocrats in Brussels appear vaguely competent by comparison.
Corbyn or the the present abortion of a government limping on? I think I'd favour a military coup at this stage.
James Bond assistant director sues for £2.5m over 'career-ending' injury on Spectre set.
An assistant director on the James Bond films who was left with career-ending injuries after he was crushed on the set of Spectre is suing for £2.5 million in damages.
Terry Madden was filming in Austria when a camera truck veered off the road and crashed into him, pinning him by the legs.
He suffered multiple fractures, tissue damage and nerve damage in the February 2015 accident and has had a succession of reconstructive operations including a skin graft.
The insurers for Eon Productions, makers of the Bond films, admitted liability. But Mr Madden is yet to receive damages and on Tuesday served proceedings in the High Court. He is claiming £2.5 million in damages, including future loss of earnings and medical costs.
Mr Madden, 66, had worked on scores of films including the original Star Wars, The X-Men and Jason Bourne franchises, and numerous Bond films.
He said: “I felt privileged and proud to work and be part of an active, exciting, but hard-working industry, at times sacrificing family life.
“Then to have a career - a career you worked hard over many year to build up - taken away within a few seconds in this horrendous accident has been soul-destroying.
“It has limited my mobility greatly and I am unable to do things I once took for granted.”
Mr Madden had worked as an assistant director on every Bond film since For Your Eyes Only in 1981.
The Spectre accident occurred on February 17 2015, when the second unit was filming action sequences of an aeroplane flying through a valley in the Alps. A remotely-operated camera rig was mounted on to a Range Rover which skidded out of control and hit Mr Madden.
His lawyer, Julian Chamberlayne of Stewarts, said: “Although we secured an admission of liability at an early stage, it has now become necessary to issue High Court proceedings to ensure that the insurers fully compensate Terry for his injuries, which have ultimately ended his successful and celebrated career.”
He added that Mr Madden is not critical of the film company.
Insurance has to be up there with car hire and FIFA as one of dodgiest industries in the world.
Seconded!!