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
Indeed. You don't introduce Spectre and have Bond face Blofeld in that same story. Fleming didn't do it, neither did the '60s films.
@mattjoes, I can only argue for what I saw. Blofeld's boyhood anger at not being noticed goes a long way towards pointing out his psychology, and SPECTRE was his coming out party to the world that he was a powerful man who had something to show for it. In the end, he's always been trying to get attention and validation, whether that's through the eyes of his father, the world, or Bond. What makes the dynamic between he and Bond so interesting is that Bond dryly blows him off as insufficient with his every breath, the spy's way of saying, "You think you're a big deal? Please."
I felt like we learned a good deal about Blofeld's overall motivations, how he acts, runs the organization, and his philosophies on life and interests that all connect to information and power, and the Nine Eyes plot. I know some don't find those details to be strong or interesting, but I think they are there with a little observation, but that is predicated on having an interest in the film in the first place. It took beyond my first watch of the film to really reach Blofeld as a character, but over time I picked up on things the movie did to build him up that aren't in your face, but more rich and subtle elements that make you wonder about who he is and how he came to be while giving looks inside his head and heart. What we don't know in contrast to what we do doesn't feel like a narrative failure, but a stylistic choice, a way of creating a dimensional character who doesn't wear it all on his sleeve, but whose flaws are overtly apparent to the viewer despite their attempts to hide the vulnerabilities.
I hate to keep comparing the Blofelds here, but again I see SP as a real step up, or an improvement in this area. Motive for Blofeld is often not well telegraphed or supported, and we see this in every "main" Blofeld film. Why start WWIII with Russia and the United States in YOLT? If SPECTRE want to take a slice of the world for themselves, they should make sure a world is still there at the end of it. Whether it's in the achievement of more power or in service of their Chinese clientele only, I don't think the plan really tells us anything in the grand scheme about Blofeld, or give us any interesting meat that ever builds up any kind of character.
OHMSS has the character of Blofeld more present, where he's at least entertaining to watch, but again we come back to a "harm the world" scheme that really doesn't tell us much about him or make sense on the whole; again, he is endangering a world that he wants to rule, making it harder for him to rule it after he does so much damage. He still has to survive the wars and viruses he lets out if he isn't negotiated with by NATO, and the logic of his plans suffer because of it. He wants amnesty, but how does he think that's going to last with a target on his head and, in the same token, if he was refused and did let his viruses go, would he be prepared to face a world ravaged by his own actions? We don't see the importance of this scheme or his great motive take form, and only really get a sense that he's a power hungry man; how this connects to his plot would be very random and roundabout, however.
DAF is perhaps the weakest in this area, as Blofeld's plan neither tells us anything interesting about him nor does it have any real sense of motivation to it. It's largely about the money to fund some offstage plan, where the highest bidder pays up and all the others get their cache of weapons blown to bits. Fine, but really, what does that say about the man, and how does his overall character fit the motive? Blofeld taking out Whyte and running his organization from the shadows is interesting and sometimes brilliant in execution, as is how he gets agents to dismantle the diamond pipeline, but in the end there's not a feature on it that feels unique to him, or driven by who he's built up as a character. As in YOLT or OHMSS, we have a scheme but a lack of connectors that tell us what it means to Blofeld and why it's a Blofeld scheme.
I know many find flaw in SP, but in this area, of Blofeld and his plan, I feel it could be the more successful of the bunch. We not only learn about the man directly and indirectly (again, if you want to look for subtle cues) but we also get to see a plan unfold that, irrespective of whether some find it engaging or boring, fits his character and who he has been written as to a tee. He's built in many scenes as a control freak and thirsty for control, which we see in his story with his father, with how he controls people in Rome to push in his chair and speak for him, in how he orders his agents to snap to attention in Morocco, in how he tries to control and destabilize Bond's senses in the torture chair, and in the deal he makes with C that will give him the most power he's had to that point from an operational perspective. His goal of having unlimited knowledge fits his power hungry nature, and his monologue on knowledge that paints information as the vital source that can change everything in his favor.
Blofeld's motive in the Nine Eyes plan also intersects with his conflict with Bond, and why do you think he doesn't like him? Quite easily, Bond is the retort to his life, the sign that maybe he isn't so great. Bond is the superior, the alpha, and the alpha must die before a new leader of the pack can reign. For showing Blofeld his weakness, and for denying his power, Bond is an enemy and, in Blofeld's mind, hasn't seen what he can do yet. And that's what makes their dynamic interesting: Blofeld is a free operative who has made his own stake in the game and seeks power on his own terms, whereas Bond, who is in many ways just as daring and individualistic, has chosen to work (as a slave in Blofeld's eyes) under a secret service of agents to protect men from getting too much power or misusing that resource to the world's ill. Like Silva, Blofeld must wonder why Bond doesn't get off his arse and get true power, instead of being a nationalistic lackey who gets no notice for his job or any great benefits from it as he takes orders instead of giving them. But again we see the line being drawn thematically between the villain and hero characters, where the power thirst of one becomes disgusted at the indifference the other has to power, and I find that fascinating. By presenting a villain in Blofeld who will do anything for power, Bond is contrast beautifully as a man who is powerful without power, and his reaction to the havoc Blofeld wreaks, whether it's the bombings, the sabotage or behind the scenes meddling, shows us clearly the man he is in opposition to that oncoming force that in the end feels very nicely drawn to me.
@Strog, we largely seem to agree, then. FRWL is probably the overall best use of SPECTRE as an idea or entity, and I like TB's use of them as well (though I find the atmosphere, style and information gleamed by the SP scene more effective as a piece of filmmaking and storytelling). I simply argue for SP as the best use of those elements in the films where Blofeld takes the main stage (YOLT, OHMSS, DAF) that I attempted to argue above this reply.
I think the film would've been different if we hadn't already had SPECTRE in the novels, then in a whole decade of films. EON felt the need to portray the organization and Blofeld differently because, if they didn't, it would be the 60s all over again. By having Bond coming upon them on his own, and not through the words of a Dr. No who bursts the bubble, we have a new aspect from which the hero finds his villain. Some will like it and some will not, but it was different because it has to be. We've seen it done in so many other ways before, so experimentation was perhaps a necessity.
The Craig era had already (technically) shown us a SPECTRE-like organization about before, and having that idea connect to SPECTRE simply supports the thoughts on Quantum many have had for so long (that if SPECTRE came back, Quantum would be a sub-sect of the greater body of criminals). Blofeld and SPECTRE were introduced in one film, sure, but we've seen an organization at work in CR and QoS that is behind the scenes doing just as SPECTRE would. In that way, once Blofeld is revealed in SP, it all feels like a continuation of what CR and QoS built, of the power in organizations that hide in the shadows to operate. In that sense SPECTRE was always there, or the idea of it was even before the ret-con, and you could see where EON was going by including Quantum at the start of the era; the hope was to build to a greater picture in SPECTRE that looped back to Quantum and White. I'm not surprised to see Blofeld and SPECTRE revealed in the same film because it feels familiar and like a natural progression of the Craig era from where it started.
Whether Blofeld and SPECTRE are introduced in the same film really has nothing to do with anything anyway. SPECTRE is mentioned at the end of Dr. No, and that's it before Blofeld is revealed in full early on in From Russia with Love, which is a very short amount of time in the grand scheme. But that really has no relevance to anything, as it's how it's done. If SP is viewed positively by someone for how it uses Blofeld and SPECTRE, then having those two aspects introduced in one film was a "risk" worth taking (I just don't see it as a risk at all). If the viewer didn't like that stuff, then in the same way the risk didn't pay off. But I wouldn't see a failure in a film using Blofeld and SPECTRE in tandem, it's of course about the execution of the idea that will ultimately matter. Following Fleming or the 60s way of showing SPECTRE doesn't make sense and perhaps shouldn't be advised anyway, as this is a new take and a new era for the organization and Blofeld that should stand out from the rest while still remaining familiar (because SPECTRE and Blofeld mean very final and ever-lasting things that shouldn't be altered at their core).
Also disappointing was I discovered this venue was showing the entire series plus CR '67 and NSNA. It is about 60 miles from where I live, so it wasn't like I could get there easily, but it would've been great to see some of the Connerys, OHMSS and the only Bond I'd never seen on a big screen - TMWTGG.
Those daltons are great
I want to clarify one specific source of confusion for me regarding Blofeld. In the climax of the film, we infer from C's words that he made a deal with Spectre to implement Nine Eyes because he believes surveillance is needed to keep the world safe. We have no reason whatsoever to doubt him or think he was lying; from the way he behaves, it's clear that, on some level, he means what he says, even if deep-down he is seeking to satisfy a subconscious thirst for power. But before that, Blofeld refers to C as a visionary, and once again, there is no reason to believe he is lying: there is not a hint of sarcasm in his voice and he has nothing to lose by telling the truth at that moment. Therefore, one is left to think he is being serious. For me at least, that's where the confusion originates, since it would seem to suggest Blofeld agrees with C in terms of employing close surveillance for security purposes, whereas Blofeld presumably wants surveillance only to ensure nobody gets in the way of Spectre. In the eyes of Blofeld, what makes C a visionary, then? Yes, they're both after power but they want it for different reasons. That's my qualm.
@mattjoes, perhaps Blofeld is commenting on a part of C's nature that he respects and in some ways shares? C had a vision for the world and he took his pains to see it got implemented in much the same way that Blofeld had a dream to achieve for himself, and power to hold. We also shouldn't forget that the two major accomplishments C makes in the film, shutting down the 00 section and getting the Nine Eyes initiative passed, are actions that Blofeld can only find respect and appreciation in. To have the 00 section off his back, the very body that hounded his Quantum for years and nearly uncovered SPECTRE, is a great relief and all the funnier to him that Bond is the best agent in it. That isn't even to mention the bigger pie in the sky dream for him, which is having the global surveillance capabilities of Nine Eyes in the palm of his hands. It then seems inevitable that Blofeld would respect C's initiative, boldness and grand scheme, as they are cut from the same cloth, willing to go to any lengths to get what they want in a very ego driven way.
There seems to be some respect on C's side too, or so Bond thinks, as he calls the man one of Blofeld's "disciples." We never get to hear C speak of Blofeld directly, just what his actions through SPECTRE have allowed him to do with Nine Eyes, so we can't say how he feels about the leader one way or another. But I'm sure the men share a mutual relationship, where C thanks Blofeld for what he's done (giving him money/funding for his new surveillance building and creating the terror to make Nine Eyes a reality) and Blofeld thanks C for what he's done (giving him the power of Nine Eyes).
The film is just nonsensical from start to finish. Whilst visually impressive and quite well acted in parts, the plot is inconsistent and actually quite silly.
I quite like the idea of terrorists stealing the hard drive containing the identities of NATO agents around the world and threatening to reveal them, but then this 'scheme' seems to fall completely by the wayside as the film progresses and Silva appears to have no real motivation for stealing the data or threatening to release it other than to bring down M from her job. He succeeds in getting her thrown before a committee and have to explain what has gone on but he doesn't even manage to get her fired.
His elaborate scheme was completely unnecessary in achieving his revenge against M. He could have just blown her office up whilst she was sat in it, or deployed his militia to kidnap her and kill her, but instead wants to carry out some drawn-out complex scheme before simply shooting her in the Courtroom. Then, with his plan working to perfection, escaping custody and reaching the courtroom he delays and enables M to escape from under his nose.
The earlier portion of the film with Bond travelling to Shanghai, Macau and then Silva's island were all unnecessary if Silva's plan was to confront M in London from the off. Infact Bond was completely irrelevant to Silva's aim of getting revenge on M. The implausibility of Bond finding Patrice in Shanghai, killing him, finding the casino chip, heading to Macau, meeting with Severine, avoiding being killed by the casino staff, travelling to Silva's island, taking down Silva's thugs - not only all pointless to Silva's plans but also impossible to predict as a plan.
The whole idea about Bond taking M to Scotland was pointless other than to provide 'background' to Bond's previous life. That would be fair enough if we got a real insight into Bond's childhood but we don't really get anything other than Kincade chipping in with some stuff now and again. That's ignoring the utterly stupid idea to take M to the middle of nowhere with no security and tempt Silva up there with his vastly superior resources.
I remember watching it at the cinema and loving things like the return of the Aston Martin DB5 with ejector seat but on reflection it just seems to have been a precursor to the Spectre agenda of ramming past Bond glories down our throats and including familiar icons of films of the past for no real reason other than to impress people.
Going down in the estimations quickly this film. I find it quite weak and actually quite silly from start to finish.
I think the idea was simply that Silva would get the attention of MI6 by exposing agents, get himself arrested, and get an audience in front of M and a chance to kill her. The sequence of events that leads Bond to Silva isn't important. It could have been any MI6 agent who brought Silva to London to be charged for his crimes.
Surely we all know every Bond story contains numerous implausibilities... The part of Skyfall that seems to trigger all this heightened nitpicking is Q's line: "This was years in the planning. He wanted us to capture him, he wanted us to access his computer." Which suggests waaaay too much omnipotence on Silva's part. How would Silva know he'd be imprisoned in Churchill's bunker in some fancy cell with an electronically operated door, which is opened due to Q's mistake? This is where things start looking dicey, IMO. It's a bit much to accept and believe. However, as logistically implausible as Silva's actions might be, they make perfect sense for his character.
Bond taking M to Scotland is also a bit odd, but again if you look at it from a character POV, it makes sense. M is willing to be bait to lure Silva away from London, where he is causing terror, because she knows she is Silva's real target. And Bond's goal is simply to get Silva isolated and kill him. You can poke some holes in this if you like, but at least they make an effort to explain (Silva won't pursue if he thinks he's being lured into a trap, so Bond's on his own). I guess it's just down to whether you believe it, or you're willing to believe it.
Personally, the implausibilities in London and Scotland don't sit quite right with me - I know Silva's prison escape derails the whole movie for some - but I am able to look past them and enjoy everything else that's going on.
Correct again. Even though this part is terribly Joker in "TDK", that was his plan.
---
SF is not about plot. If one focuses on plot then one won't enjoy the film. It's not about action either.
SF is all about themes & character interplay (motivations, regrets, mistakes, loyalty, truth, patriotism, betrayal, love, hate etc. etc.) beautifully executed and integrated into the shell of a Bond film - topped off with magnificent visuals. It's Bond by way of Mendes (essentially a theatre boy).
Well, I think that's certainly the one explanation that makes sense taking into account the rest of the information provided within the film, but assuming C thinks he is doing something good, albeit radical, it's still flat out strange for Blofeld to refer to him as a visionary, considering Blofeld's thirst for power is about satisfying his ego at the expense of the rest of the world, while C wants the power to keep it safe, even if his means are misguided, twisted and corrupted (and security has to be his goal, otherwise his explanation to M about his reasons simply makes no sense). If Blofeld wanted to speak his mind about C, would the first word to cross his mind be "visionary"? Or would it make more sense for him to say he's deluded, misguided or easily manipulated? One could say Blofeld was talking about that which he has in common with C, but I find that to be unlikely, considering he is such an egomaniac that he would probably have no interest in likening himself to a puppet such as C. That is unless both C and Blofeld feel they are trying to make the world "a better place", but I guess there's no compelling reason to entertain that possibility, since the film doesn't argue in its favor.
Still, if we disregard this point, I suppose that based on what you've already explained at length, the movie does provide a consistent, logical description of Blofeld. I just missed the punctuation, if you will; a final exchange between Bond and Blofeld to consolidate all we learn and can infer about him throughout the film. It's a matter of presentation rather than content.
- If Silva managed to blow up MI6, he probably had access to MI6's computer databases. He could've known the security protocol dictated MI6 would relocate to Churchill's bunker in the event of a major attack, and he could've had access to a layout of the bunker. The one iffy part for me is that he was counting on someone connecting his laptop directly into MI6's network.
- M wants to deal with Silva on her own, away from everyone else, because she feels responsible for all the deaths he has caused and wants them to stop.
I'll have to keep all this in mind the next time I watch SP, @mattjoes. I think a lot can be sown by one of the ideas or themes of the film, of beautiful things coming out of misery or tragedy. Blofeld smugly refers to the beauty of Bond and Madeleine's union coming out of the tragedy of her father's death, and uses that to justify the acts he has committed in the world to make Nine Eyes a reality; bringing something good out of the bad. He is so deluded and views himself so fully as a hero that he doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he's done, and how self-serving his actions are at the expense of everyone else. But that's his mad and egotistical side, and he has told himself so many things that you get the sense (or at least I do) that he's unstable when his compressed and flawed "reality" is challenged and revealed as a facade. When Bond enters to show him how inferior he is, we see Blofeld go to a dark place, brought there by the disgust he holds for the superiority Bond poses to him, whether he'll admit it or not. And this is really the story for all the Blofelds, who are strong until Bond comes around and renders them meek cowards. The only difference in SP is that Blofeld has had to deal with Bond as his superior from his boyhood on, and that feeling of disgust then mutated even more as the years went on. I think there came a time when Blofeld forgot about Bond and focused on getting his own power, then only remembered him when Quantum kept getting dismantled or upstaged by the agent's actions as a 00; for all those years, Bond was back and showing Blofeld that he was still inferior.
As for Blofeld's views on C, it's another thing I'll keep in mind. I don't think it's too big a leap that Blofeld would at least share a positive thought about the man and his actions, as they are in service of Blofeld whether C knows it or not. C's "vision" as a visionary is the one thing that is giving Blofeld more power than he could ever have had before Nine Eyes, so in his mind that truly is a visionary plan, no matter if C started it to stop terrorism or aid SPECTRE (I agree that, from his words, it's the former). We only have to look at the plaudits Blofeld will give Bond, pointing out his capabilities, his intelligence and beautiful strategic mind, to see that Blofeld is fully capable of giving his respects and credit where it's due when he is faced with a man who can do great things. Bond is his greatest enemy and threat, but he is honest and will always point out that Bond is a very strong and worthy enemy to him. With this in mind, I don't find it too hard to believe that Blofeld would speak positively about C as well, a man who is actually on his side in one way (again, whether C intends it or not) and has enabled his power in the world to advance even more. It's Blofeld's nature to do those things, and his delusions perhaps makes his view of C's partnership seem mightier than it is, as he sees C as more of an ally than enemy because of how he has given him power via Nine Eyes. He has no reason not to view C as a great man and visionary mind, because to him he is one.
But these discussions ultimately point out an angle I've tried to argue a lot when it comes to SP, and that is that the film crafts interesting and complex characters. Blofeld has a lot of motivations and colors to his personality that gives him depth and substance (look at how much just the two of us have discussed him), and that same layered writing extends to Madeleine and White's dynamic too, where two characters who never meet on the screen carry such weight as a father and daughter doomed to never reunite; we learn and feel so much without either character sharing a scene, and Bond is left as the connector between them in a fascinating way. There's a lot of beautifully crafted elements and, for me, emotionally or intellectually satisfying content in this film that makes it far from average in my mind, because its ambitions and content really go where only a few Bond films have before; to be a film on top of a blockbuster with meaning, character depth and more. It's not a film without flaw (as no film can manage), but those flaws are offset by a lot of masterfully realized ideas, characters, themes and motifs.
It is ironic that Silva escapes by exploiting the computer network in Churchill's bunker, considering the place is supposed to represent MI6 retreating into old-fashioned spy craft, where they can't be reached by hacking. I'm not sure if the irony is intended, or if it's just confused writing (as, again, it contradicts the whole purpose of MI6 leaving the "strategically vulnerable" Vauxhall Cross). Either way, Silva's escape is definitely the movie's weak spot in terms of plotting.
I do get this from him. It's an angle they should definitely explore further should they decide to bring Blofeld back.
I do like how the movie makes an effort to flesh out Blofeld more than before, even though the plot point on which that aspect is built (foster brother of Bond) is a bad one. Blofeld's past and his motivations could've been explored without the need for Bond to have been a part of his previous life. Still, at least that history hints at his arrogance, jealousy, egomania and psychosis. Regarding Bond-White-Madeleine, I find their relationship to be probably the best aspect of Spectre. Such a twist of fate for Bond to wind up with the daughter of his enemy. I also like how that situation brings out the best of him ("I made a promise", he says, regarding his need to protect Madeleine).
My most watched of all the Craig Bonds. Just love every minute of it.
Best thing is Craig's searing performance. He's a force to be reckoned with in this and he plays everything to perfection. The sardonic humour in this really suits Craig's Bond and it's surprising just how witty this film is.
You wouldn't have thought this film had been affected by the writers strike because the writing is far superior to SF or SP. Some great scenes with Mathis culminating in the stand off with the cops. Just love the way Bond empties their gun before tossing it aside!
Nice scene with Lieter as well just before the brutal climax. "Coming from a Brit i'll take that as a compliment!"
Also has one of the best epilogues of the series. Confronting Vespers ex "SIT DOWN!" and that final dialogue with M as Arnold's superb score plays us out.
This is Bond as the brutal blunt instrument he should be.
The most underrated Bond film of the lot.
Spot on
Well said! Gets better with every viewing!
Also, forgive me for bringing up Dalton again but Craig's reaction when he sees Fields dead is far better than Tims mannered reaction when he finds Della.
Dalton's worst moment as Bond. Horribly overacted.
It's certainly a moment where you can sense him trying and it always brings me out of the scene.
At least Tim didn't go in for a smooch unlike some others.
Ha ha!
Get DC the best trainers in the biz to up his testosterone. Make him an aging Lion King.
Ferocious.
I blame Mendes' vision for taking the teeth out of DC Bond. Time to return them to DC
Most of the others (including Dalton) are more Ali or Ray Leonard types. It's not so much the raw power or energy which appeals in their portrayals, but rather the grace and elegance. They are distance players to me.
I would have liked that.