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 agree about the story. It seems that they had a better idea for Blofeld (the African warlord who appalled White) that got pushed to the wayside.
They could have done so much more with Bellucci. She could have been the sacrificial lamb, the wife/girlfriend of Blofeld, or Blofeld herself.
Oh please no! People complain about "Brofeld", why make things worse by turning Blofeld into something even further away than the source material? An African warlord with a Germanic name? An Italian femme fatale? Please! Why not ditch the "brother" angle altogether and make Blofeld an evil Eastern European man?
From say, Poland, for example? 8-}
Hey why not? Heck I'd go for Austrian as the original Blofeld had Germanic blood.
As far as I can recall the original Blofeld was of Greek and Polish ancestry so I see nothing wrong with a Polish actor portraying him. That would be perfect casting, actually. Telly Savalas had the Greek ancestry at least and he remains the most faithful incarnation we've seen in the Bond films thus far. Blofeld should have an Eastern European accent in my book and be suitably "foreign other" in the classic British thriller sense.
I still believe that with a better script, Waltz could have been the ultimate Blofeld...
Don't link his childhood to Bond's (just make him target Bond because 007 had repeatedly ruined his plans), then have a better climax at the actual desert hideout after Bond has escaped from torture (basically something different from the London scenes), and I think you are correct. Waltz could have been terrific. Who knows, he still might be...
I'd rather have that, and have him of middle age, not a young un. But I'd be okay with a Germanic actor, or a Greek actor, heck I'm happy with the casting of Christoph Waltz all things considered.
Yes, you're probably right about the Germanic background of Blofeld too. I need to take Thunderball and OHMSS off the shelf to check but I think he was something of a mongrel, shall we say. Fleming also referred to "that lunatic Hitler scream" when describing Blofeld in YOLT and I recall him speaking in German with Irma Bunt in that novel.
I too am more than happy with the casting of Waltz as Blofeld. On paper, he's a great choice but they should have taken inspiration from the books (specifically TB) where his character and background are well laid down by Fleming over the course of two detailed chapters. The white Persian cat wasn't overused and was introduced rather organically in Spectre. However the origin story of the YOLT facial scar we could have done without I think. It would be rather novel for them to follow the books for once when it comes to Blofeld. We've never exactly seen the Fleming Blofeld on screen, although Telly Savalas was the closest to it.
Did you actually carefully read what I wrote above? It would appear not or that you did not understand what I was saying if you did. I think you've come to the wrong conclusion about what I meant. On the subject of the most idiotic things you've read here you could certainly make a good starting point by rereading your own post...
Well said. I was also wary when Waltz was cast due to his past villain associations and his SP performance did nothing to disprove that when I finally saw it. I may be one of the few who liked the Spectre meeting and found that vibe unsettling. I didn't get any threatening vibe from the face-to-face with Blofeld. He and Bond were almost DAF friendly and that wasn't a good thing.
I'd say we still have some of that in latter day Bond in the form of villain performances from Robert Davi, Sophie Marceau, and Mads Mikkelson.
From the moment I saw Inglourious Basterds, I thought Waltz would make an incredible Bond villain. What I hadn't counted on was that the brilliance in that performance relied heavily upon the masterful direction of Quentin Tarantino (and yes it was campy and comedic and over-the-top, but carefully crafted and fascinating to watch just the same).
When I realized Waltz was to be playing Blofeld, however, somehow I knew it was an ill fit. The clash between Mendes and Waltz over their vision for the character sealed Oberhauser's tepid fate as much as did any poorly conceived ideas that found their way into the shooting script.
It'll be curious to compare how Waltz performs with Fukanaga directing - though the performance would likely be different anyway considering the character has been caught and humbled by Bond.
I was quite excited when he was announced as I wasn't of the opinion that he was a one-trick pony. Unfortunately it didn't work out as hoped.
He helped make his lesser movie better, same with Christopher Lee.
He's great in it. He brings ridiculous amounts of energy and prevents the film from flatlining at points.
He was okay, but no more than that. I don't think anyone compiling a list of Walken's best performances would pick his work in AVTAK. That's not wholly Walken's fault--he was playing a cardboard cut-out of a Bond villain and there wasn't much chemistry between him and Moore. They were practically from different planets of acting.
It is well known that Waltz wasn't happy with his final Blofeld incarnation. But I didn't read before that there was a clash between him an Mendes. Which source is telling so?
Yes, we are all James Bond fans, but am afraid you wont get too many of us defending DAD, who,for most,including myself,consider it the worst of the series!
Oh, and welcome to the forum!!
I don't think this is the first time this came up or the most in depth, but in a recent interview you find linked below Waltz himself said: "I feel more at home with Cary Fukunaga than with Sam Mendes. Fukunaga is insanely analytical and has the technical apparatus in his little finger. He can play on it like a piano and manage the shoot with a self-evident skill. Of course I'm really excited to see the result." and "You know, it's my job, and it was my job before. I see an honorable cause in the conscientious exercise of the profession. I don't always have to agree with a director to do this well. I am only a small believer in conviction."
Hardly proof of a "clash", but it's clear he isn't happy with his Blofeld.
There are two ways of looking at it:
1) I am a Bond fan, therefore I should love every Bond film and never criticise anything.
Or...
2) I am a Bond fan, therefore I react emotionally when they make Bond films that are bad, embarrassing or put the series in a bad light.
My position is mainly the second. It really upsets me when people involved with Bond films mess up whether it's due to laziness or horrible decision making.
It is also curious the double standards some fans express. Some of the same people who would claim that any criticism of the Brosnan era is "unbondian" will have no problem with lashing out against Spectre or Skyfall themselves...
I think I can side with both positions in some sense. As a happily vocal fan of Spectre, some of the hyperbole surrounding it (as well as DAD, QOS, and whatever else) can just become ridiculous.
All 24 EON-produced Bond films are entertaining, competently produced movies. Not everything is everybody's bag though, and that's fine. You don't have to like an invisible car (though I might say it's not a lot sillier than an underwater car), but it's not like the writers and producers were unaware of how ridiculous it is. You don't have to like the editing in QOS (though I think it's beautifully done and serves a thematic purpose), but it's not like the filmmakers screwed up. That's exactly what they were going for. It's just not for you.
Criticizing and picking apart Bond films is good fun, and there's plenty of material to overanalyze, but when you start hearing people talking about how this or that movie is unwatchable, emotionally abusive torture, it's really worth little more than an eyeroll.
Especially given how many hated films, or aspects of them, have very clear points of comparison in more beloved movies.
It is refreshing that Waltz has such stature and confidence that he can be so open about his feelings toward his directors. Usually everything is "spun."
Fukunaga seems like a much more controlled director than Mendes (who comes from the theater, and does many, many takes). Whether that results in a better film, nobody knows yet (well, Babs does, but she's not talking).
Not to worry. I just thought it was odd how you were reading the exact opposite into what I'd written from what I actually meant to convey. Those are the perils of language I suppose: the risk of misinterpretation. I agree that we are supposed to be liking James Bond here but sometimes criticism is a form of harsh love when it is used constructively.
Here's hoping. Octopussy is one of my favourite Bond films and I don't think many fans would call A View to A Kill overrated. It'd be more in the underrated category I would think. So I'd say those are pretty controversial views, especially valuing Die Another Day over both of them. That's the beauty of Bond, though. Every Bond fan has wildly divergent opinions. I suppose it would get boring if we all liked the same things! To each their own...
Well, we are worlds apart re Bond, as I love OP, probably Moores best, and I abhor DAD, worst Bond movie by a country mile! AVTAK has a lot of good stuff in it, and is still watchable!
FYEO and OP are consistently the two films I get the most pleassure from watching in the Moore era. Neither are perfect, but there is so much good stuff there!
Agreed AVTAK has a great villain in Zorin, but OP has lots to recommend, and I feel FYEO is due a reappraisal!