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
Yes, she totally rocked when push came to shove.
What I love about her is that she reveals something about Bond and about Kristatos. Bond might have a strong libido, he is not depraved, he will not spoil a virgin, to use Chandler's expression about his own hero Philip Marlowe. Kristatos, on the other hand, seems to be interested only in that, possessing her sexually when the time is right. It makes him far more sinister than say Stromberg or Drax.
Damn, you beat me to it. I like Bibi.
:-?
I thought it was kind of out of character. It came out of the blue. Maybe Stromberg was more impotent than asexual.
On a similar note, I was never convinced with Blofeld's sudden attraction towards Tracy in OHMSS.
Silva in SF sucked.
Greene in QOS sucked.
Le Chiffre in CR sucked.
Graves in DAD sucked.
on and on and on...... 8-}
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I love Silva and Le Chiffre. That said, Oberhauser, Greene, and to a lesser extent, Graves, do indeed suck.
Also, @Birdleson, I'm not sure if it's entirely Waltz's fault (the script is not kind to him at all) but he definitely shoulders some of the blame. It's like he doesn't know if he's supposed to ham it up or tone it down the performance ends up coming off as mousy. I can't find the right word but that's the one that came to mind.
They basically wanted him to play Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds but didn't have the power in the script for it to work, so Waltz's schtick (i.e. that surface softness and a smile betraying malice beneath etc etc etc) ended up coming off as ridiculous and completely lacking any intimidation factor whatsoever.
As mentioned, the script doesn't do him any favors - the film sets Blofeld up to be this person who creates the world's largest criminal organization simply because daddy liked James better.
The shots from the rear are not her (you can tell by the differing hair length) but from the front it most certainly is.
Trust me I've studied that scene in great depth since the age of 15!
No, it doesn't.
I'll need to study it myself. You know, to be sure.
I'll need to watch the movie again, but this is what made Blofeld hate James Bond, not what made him the Napoleon of crime (to borrow a description of Moriarty). In Gladiator, Commodus is evil, ambitious regardless of his rivalry with Maximus. What makes Commodus kill his father is his jealousy, but he would have become a tyrannical emperor regardless.
And I am not the biggest admirer of John Logan mind you and I see his use of Oedipal themes coming a mile away, but his villains are not the mere result of envy.
Like I said, I would need to watch the movie again. Reading the quote from IMDB Blofeld says "in a way he's responsible for the path I took." In a way is not so clear, even for the person saying it. It's kind of, sort of, more or less, possible, it is soft, it is vague and uncertain.
In a way though this is worse, because Blofeld shouldn't be a psychopath, IMO, he should be more of an intelligent mastermind.
The two are not mutually exclusive. And the original Blofeld was very much both although more of a complete psychopath later in his life.
A needless redundance as it is not novel canon.
It's hard to disagree with that - a "personal Bond" bridge too far from me. Let's just hope that they don't develop it much further in the next Bond film or films.
I don't think it was necessary either but I'm o.k. with its execution, if that makes sense. Like I was against the scar and the return of the cat but was very happily surprised on how they turned out.
Yes, it was indeed interesting to get a fresh take on these iconic things.
It is always a challenge for a Fleming villain: they have to stand out, but it's nearly impossible to go with a faithful adaptation from the book. So they use short cuts: scars, eyepatches, etc. In Sp they got the cat out of the way quickly, as a way to say: "yes, if you haven't guessed already, it's him." And then they didn't overuse the cat the way they had done in DAF and to a lesser extend YOLT. The scar I guess was considered iconic to the cinematic Blofeld, but it is a far nastier scar than Pleasence had (or Myers for that matter) and Walt truly wears it if that makes sense.
..... Maybe even just a period piece MR.... :-?
It would be nice but it's not going to happen.
Talking of MR, I was surprised to really enjoy Toby Stephens in And Then There Were None. His Gustav Graves was freely inspired by Hugo Drax (the emphasis is on freely) and it struck me that he now has the right age and about the right frame to play him. He is a few stones heavier than in DAD, he is a redhead... With the right makeup he'd be perfect for the vulgar, brutish Drax. And I cannot believe I just wrote this, because I hated him in DAD.
Bond makes Blofeld/Oberhauser realise, 'his father had to die'. He then suggests that this 'perhaps' contributed to the path he took. I think the phrase he uses is 'you could say', to me this appeared to be Blofeld being petty. In reality, Blofeld did not create the organisation, 'Spectre' simply because of Bond. He was already a psychopath. There's more nuance to it than simply saying, Blofeld created SP because of Bond. But if people want to be literal to justify their hatred, nothing I can say will change that.
Precisely.
It is there, yes. Blofeld makes this link, in a way. And that's what it is: it is a soft, vague, decaf claim by Blofeld. Not a claim actually, simply a throwaway line.
Ok, strongly worded perhaps. My opinion is that people are being unnecessarily harsh and ignoring the shades of grey to satisfy their own rhetoric. I can understand people not liking this film, but I keep reading comments that seem reactionary, rather than considered.