Last Bond Movie You Watched

Milovy · September 2017

Strog wrote: »

Maybe the SPECTRE meeting is set too soon in SP, and the organization could use a bit more building up?

Really, the Spectre meeting should have taken place after Bond finds White. In terms of escalation, it's all backwards.

Strog wrote: »

Maybe if we had had a film focusing on SPECTRE operatives beforehand the organization would felt more threatening?

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.

DrNo · September 2017

Skyfall on Blu last week with my son.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 · September 2017

mattjoes wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »

Strog wrote: »

@ForYourEyesOnly One of my favorite bits in any Bond film, that rooftop fight. To me it represents perfectly a little of what's been lost in the Craig era — that sense of "one man against an army" that Fleming spoke of. Barry's music blaring as Connery works his way across the rooftop in some ways encapsulates the whole of the 60s. The Craigs have been fairly intimate conflicts on the whole—even SP, which you wouldn't think would be possible based on its title; this is part of what it got wrong (i.e. we really should have got to explore more of the SPECTRE organization itself, not just Blofeld).

I think it's a fair criticism of SP, actually. The whole thing was supposed to be about SPECTRE but we learned almost nothing about it.

I thought we learned a great deal. Just the Rome meeting alone underscored the worldwide impact of SPECTRE and ran us through their operations in major industries, including how they have monopolized vaccines to bleed the sick dry and how they have brought women into a massive prostitution network for profit while teasing their Nine Eyes interests. Those details immediately allow us to know exactly who we're dealing with, and colors the SPECTRE organization as one that is above the law and acts in a fashion that could easily be called inhumane and barbaric.

We get to see how the organization reaches out for jobs from its agents, how the jobs can be taken with force (as Hinx shows) and we ultimately get to experience how the members act underneath Blofeld's order, which we rarely ever do. How the room dies to a quiet when he enters, how he commands an uneasiness and sense of fear, and how his agents turn like drones to him when he spits an order. We saw the relation of a king and his subjects, and also how these men and women were not just intimidated by him, but terrified beyond belief. I think it was a beautifully crafted scene from a dramatic and visual perspective, but also from a sound design point of view for how the Rome meeting was able to establish how the organization works, operates and runs under Blofeld in the span of minutes. It was refreshing to see SPECTRE agents collectively frightened by a man they served, and later at the Morocco base, how other agents could be robotically ordered by Blofeld to do anything, as if he'd strapped them all to his torture chair and destroyed every part of their brain that can deny a man's commands. We got the full picture, and saw all the different faces that SPECTRE would reach out and enlist, from languages experts to straight up killers, even down to government puppets and influencers in the major fields and industries they want to control, from pharmaceutical to the leisure sector. It felt like a living, breathing organization that has always been out there, acting in silence, and we haven't see that level of depth and consequence before in relation to it.

I think what we learn about Blofeld also informs what SPECTRE is in the film and in this modern period of films, as he is the leader who sets the standard. He thirsts for knowledge, because knowledge is power, in the form of bribery, or counter-intelligence, or simply a piece of data or line of text that can send a nation's interests crashing down. With secrets and information you can do anything. The perfect plan for Blofeld to be involved in is a surveillance one that gets him and his associates free reign over the globe and dozens of nations' intelligence streams, giving him a full view of the world through which his operations can continue to run at maximum efficiency with little counterattack. To get the Nine Eyes plan to go through Blofeld knows he has to rain down terror, and that's exactly what he does in bankrolling Silva for his London destruction and for all the international bombing plots he orders like in Hamburg and Africa; he knows he needs the threat of terrorism to make Nine Eyes a worthy proposition for C's voters to swallow, so he creates the terror. The actions of the villain and his organization inform his motive and the ultimate plan he wants to achieve, and that tells us so much right then and there.

I don't think SP tells us anything less than what other SPECTRE featured films do, and it certainly tells us more in other ways or equal in some respects. DN only mentions the name of the organization and its main goal of being a nationless body, FRWL shows them in action from behind the scenes and TB gives us a peek at their meetings, but SP does all those things in one package already and vastly improves on the meeting of the organization from my view. In YOLT there's nothing new to learn about SPECTRE, and in OHMSS and DAF the organization isn't even broached as Blofeld becomes the main focus so there's nothing to learn there either. In the latter two films it's as if SPECTRE isn't even there because the villainy is laid at Blofeld's feet and neither Bond or the villain make mention of the shadowy group of agents under the bald one's command as a result.

As you've described, there's plenty we get to know about Spectre in the film, but I think there's a feeling of disconnectedness in terms of how the organization is portrayed. We understand how it works and what it's got its hands into, but in terms of what we are shown, we see Blofeld mostly by himself (he barely has a conversation with another Spectre member), the other Spectre members are barely fleshed out, and the connection between C and Spectre is not felt too strongly. It doesn't feel enough like an organization integrated by criminals and headlined by Blofeld; it feels more like Spectre mostly equals Blofeld, and Blofeld just happens to have a bunch of henchmen at his service. Apart from that, for me at least, Blofeld and C's motivations are muddled. Blofeld speaks of visionaries, but he's the head of a criminal organization. What is his endgame, anyway? Is he out to make money, to become powerful, does he think he is doing the world a favor?

You're right in that the other films fall short in this area as well. Spectre is perhaps a step forward, but shortcomings remain.

I don't find the lack of talks between Blofeld and his agents strange, really. As top dog he'd have people below him to take his words to their ears, and that helps to keep him more in the shadows. He is concealed and largely silent in Rome for a reason, not giving too much of himself because that would crack the myth he has created out of fear for his many members or risk exposing him too much.

I don't find it strange either; not in the Rome meeting, at least. But I think the film would have benefitted with a couple of scenes between Blofeld and one or two underlings, in a private context (not unlike with Osato and Brandt). As it is, in terms of logic, what's presented in the film makes perfect sense, but it feels incomplete.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

ForYourEyesOnly wrote: »

Strog wrote: »

@ForYourEyesOnly One of my favorite bits in any Bond film, that rooftop fight. To me it represents perfectly a little of what's been lost in the Craig era — that sense of "one man against an army" that Fleming spoke of. Barry's music blaring as Connery works his way across the rooftop in some ways encapsulates the whole of the 60s. The Craigs have been fairly intimate conflicts on the whole—even SP, which you wouldn't think would be possible based on its title; this is part of what it got wrong (i.e. we really should have got to explore more of the SPECTRE organization itself, not just Blofeld).

I think it's a fair criticism of SP, actually. The whole thing was supposed to be about SPECTRE but we learned almost nothing about it.

I thought we learned a great deal. Just the Rome meeting alone underscored the worldwide impact of SPECTRE and ran us through their operations in major industries, including how they have monopolized vaccines to bleed the sick dry and how they have brought women into a massive prostitution network for profit while teasing their Nine Eyes interests. Those details immediately allow us to know exactly who we're dealing with, and colors the SPECTRE organization as one that is above the law and acts in a fashion that could easily be called inhumane and barbaric.

We get to see how the organization reaches out for jobs from its agents, how the jobs can be taken with force (as Hinx shows) and we ultimately get to experience how the members act underneath Blofeld's order, which we rarely ever do. How the room dies to a quiet when he enters, how he commands an uneasiness and sense of fear, and how his agents turn like drones to him when he spits an order. We saw the relation of a king and his subjects, and also how these men and women were not just intimidated by him, but terrified beyond belief. I think it was a beautifully crafted scene from a dramatic and visual perspective, but also from a sound design point of view for how the Rome meeting was able to establish how the organization works, operates and runs under Blofeld in the span of minutes. It was refreshing to see SPECTRE agents collectively frightened by a man they served, and later at the Morocco base, how other agents could be robotically ordered by Blofeld to do anything, as if he'd strapped them all to his torture chair and destroyed every part of their brain that can deny a man's commands. We got the full picture, and saw all the different faces that SPECTRE would reach out and enlist, from languages experts to straight up killers, even down to government puppets and influencers in the major fields and industries they want to control, from pharmaceutical to the leisure sector. It felt like a living, breathing organization that has always been out there, acting in silence, and we haven't see that level of depth and consequence before in relation to it.

I think what we learn about Blofeld also informs what SPECTRE is in the film and in this modern period of films, as he is the leader who sets the standard. He thirsts for knowledge, because knowledge is power, in the form of bribery, or counter-intelligence, or simply a piece of data or line of text that can send a nation's interests crashing down. With secrets and information you can do anything. The perfect plan for Blofeld to be involved in is a surveillance one that gets him and his associates free reign over the globe and dozens of nations' intelligence streams, giving him a full view of the world through which his operations can continue to run at maximum efficiency with little counterattack. To get the Nine Eyes plan to go through Blofeld knows he has to rain down terror, and that's exactly what he does in bankrolling Silva for his London destruction and for all the international bombing plots he orders like in Hamburg and Africa; he knows he needs the threat of terrorism to make Nine Eyes a worthy proposition for C's voters to swallow, so he creates the terror. The actions of the villain and his organization inform his motive and the ultimate plan he wants to achieve, and that tells us so much right then and there.

I don't think SP tells us anything less than what other SPECTRE featured films do, and it certainly tells us more in other ways or equal in some respects. DN only mentions the name of the organization and its main goal of being a nationless body, FRWL shows them in action from behind the scenes and TB gives us a peek at their meetings, but SP does all those things in one package already and vastly improves on the meeting of the organization from my view. In YOLT there's nothing new to learn about SPECTRE, and in OHMSS and DAF the organization isn't even broached as Blofeld becomes the main focus so there's nothing to learn there either. In the latter two films it's as if SPECTRE isn't even there because the villainy is laid at Blofeld's feet and neither Bond or the villain make mention of the shadowy group of agents under the bald one's command as a result.

As you've described, there's plenty we get to know about Spectre in the film, but I think there's a feeling of disconnectedness in terms of how the organization is portrayed. We understand how it works and what it's got its hands into, but in terms of what we are shown, we see Blofeld mostly by himself (he barely has a conversation with another Spectre member), the other Spectre members are barely fleshed out, and the connection between C and Spectre is not felt too strongly. It doesn't feel enough like an organization integrated by criminals and headlined by Blofeld; it feels more like Spectre mostly equals Blofeld, and Blofeld just happens to have a bunch of henchmen at his service. Apart from that, for me at least, Blofeld and C's motivations are muddled. Blofeld speaks of visionaries, but he's the head of a criminal organization. What is his endgame, anyway? Is he out to make money, to become powerful, does he think he is doing the world a favor?

You're right in that the other films fall short in this area as well. Spectre is perhaps a step forward, but shortcomings remain.

As for Blofeld's motivation, I think he is all about the ego. He grew up feeling the need for attention and validation, but never got it. As an adult he wants to be part of something that is truly powerful, and that shows him as the ultimate leader he sees himself as, but nobody else to that point had. He keeps the meteor from the crater that made his base for a reason; like himself, the meteor hung in the shadows, waiting to strike with all its power at the right moment. He wants to be top dog, bend the world to his whims and show what he's made of, etc. This is a common Blofeld trait, best eclipsed by the beautiful interaction Tracy and he have in OHMSS where she quotes some poetry that labels him as the "Master of the World" who owns and controls all, and who is served by all. She plays to his deluded fantasy to distract him, as Bond and Draco fly towards them, but her words do feed into how Blofeld sees himself: the chosen one, meant to rule. The Blofeld of SP is in the same fantasy, seeing himself as this great being, this chosen one destined for so much, and his acts serve as a means of attaining that power he feels he has deserved and earned through his delusion.

C's Nine Eyes would give Blofeld that power, wrapping his fingers around the globe and into the pockets of dozens of nations and their secrets through the surveillance initiative. He could use any means open to him, bribery, blackmail, counter-operations, to make anything he wanted come off. Power, in the palm of his hands. In the end I think C was truly motivated by a desire to protect the world from terrorism, and so he allowed Blofeld to either knowingly or unknowingly perpetrate enough isolated terrorist attacks to allow his plan to go through. C would get his "baby" and dream of a gigantic surveillance arm, and Blofeld would get the knowledge and, yes, power.

C is the next in line of men who SPECTRE and Blofeld have gotten their hands on and manipulated, but C is far more steadfast and ruthless than the past associates SPECTRE have had. Dr. Kutze ultimately couldn't stomach his part in the nuclear game of TB, just like Osato and Metz had second thoughts in YOLT and DAF, respectively. C however is willing to allow a little bloodshed to get what he wants, and is motivated by the failures he sees in men like Mallory to never solve the big problems the right way, showing that he is more unscrupulous than we're used to seeing in a non-SPECTRE member. Through the death and destruction Blofeld wreaks, C finds the perfect pathway for his surveillance plan to become justified, and in his mind he may see himself as impacting the world in a positive way to stop greater terror from going on in the future, if not at the time of inception. We can't say if C understood how Blofeld wanted to use Nine Eyes (for more evil), but I think by that point C was so deluded in his own race for victory and the promise of Nine Eyes that he didn't see the full picture or didn't want to. It's quite possible Blofeld lied to him and promised to get Nine Eyes passed without mentioning how he wanted to use it, lying to C to get him where he wanted him and in a position where his plan could positively impact SPECTRE's own needs.

Once again, what you say makes sense. (My take is that C deluded himself into thinking he was doing the right thing, but ultimately wanted to satisfy a thirst for power, and Blofeld kept him in the dark about his true intentions.) But once again, I feel the film doesn't really tell us this in an adequate way-- the fact it can be deduced doesn't make it good exposition, and with this being a reboot, they really should've taken the time to establish Blofeld's intentions more clearly. Basically all we get from him to help us understand his motivation (rather than his actions) is the dialogue about the meteorite. If this a way of saying he wants power, he wants everyone to bow to him, etc., it's too roundabout to be effective, both in terms of exposition and in terms of emotional investment on behalf of the viewer. I'm all for not beating the viewer over the head with exposition, but there's a difference between being subtle and being almost opaque. I really missed a line or two that alluded more explictly to the place he presumably expected to occupy in the world order, or something. In terms of motivation, they don't tell us enough, or don't show us enough. Stromberg is another villain that has this problem (even worse, in fact).

@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 wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

I thought we learned a great deal. Just the Rome meeting alone underscored the worldwide impact of SPECTRE and ran us through their operations in major industries, including how they have monopolized vaccines to bleed the sick dry and how they have brought women into a massive prostitution network for profit while teasing their Nine Eyes interests. Those details immediately allow us to know exactly who we're dealing with, and colors the SPECTRE organization as one that is above the law and acts in a fashion that could easily be called inhumane and barbaric.

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

I can definitely see that we learn about this SPECTRE in the Rome meeting. What I attempted to say initially however—re: Bond going up against an enemy with a sense of scale and where SP went wrong in this regard—would seem to lend itself less towards criticizing what we learn and more towards what we are shown.

For instance, you go on to describe...

How the room dies to a quiet when [Blofeld] enters, how he commands an uneasiness and sense of fear, and how his agents turn like drones to him when he spits an order. We saw the relation of a king and his subjects, and also how these men and women were not just intimidated by him, but terrified beyond belief.

Which is valid, and would serve to counter any point that we are only told things about SPECTRE and not shown them in action. However, each of these things above—though they reveal the extent to which the members of SPECTRE are 'terrified' of Blofeld—serve to demonstrate more about Blofeld than they do about the organization itself. This goes to @mattjoes point that —

mattjoes wrote: »

it feels more like Spectre mostly equals Blofeld, and Blofeld just happens to have a bunch of henchmen at his service.

To be fair, however, as you said—

We get to see how the organization reaches out for jobs from its agents, how the jobs can be taken with force (as Hinx shows)

Which is definitely, for me, the best part of a scene that, on the whole, I do like more than I dislike. I agree with you that it hits some good dramatic beats and the cinematography is pretty great.

Where we are fundamentally going to disagree is in the result of the end product.

It felt like a living, breathing organization that has always been out there, acting in silence, and we haven't see that level of depth and consequence before in relation to it.

That's not how it comes across to me, and I'm trying to pin down why.

Maybe it would help to compare SPECTRE with Quantum—ignoring for a moment that it is apparently a branch of SPECTRE. Quantum feels like something which "has always been out there, acting in silence." I gladly prefer the Opera meeting in QOS to the Rome one in SP. Perhaps I like the build up through CR and the early parts of QOS ('We have people everywhere.') Perhaps the menace comes from the facelessness of the organization? Maybe the SPECTRE meeting is set too soon in SP, and the organization could use a bit more building up? Maybe if we had had a film focusing on SPECTRE operatives beforehand the organization would felt more threatening? Perhaps the problem is Blofeld himself? After all...

In YOLT there's nothing new to learn about SPECTRE, and in OHMSS and DAF the organization isn't even broached as Blofeld becomes the main focus so there's nothing to learn there either.

Again, focusing away from the learning so to speak, I agree that the SPECTRE of OHMSS and DAF feels noticeably lacking in the menace I'm speaking of. Those two films are also the ones which feature the most Blofeld screen time (as you say, Blofeld becoming the main focus). Maybe doing the organization justice with him as the central villain is a tough task inherently.

Comparatively, per your recap, we have DN which...

only mentions the name of the organization and its main goal of being a nationless body

A statement with which I agree. DN almost doesn't deserve its status as a 'SPECTRE' movie.

Though, crucially, what it lacks in SPECTRE it by far makes up for in No's omnipresence throughout the film (again, kind of holding back on the villain works here), which is where the real sense of scale of the enemy comes from (imagination, in large part).

FRWL shows them in action from behind the scenes

Yes, and in addition it presents us the maneuverings of Klebb, Kronsteen, and Grant -- windows into the types of individuals within the organization.

SPECTRE island also does some good world-building.

and TB gives us a peek at their meetings, but SP does all those things in one package already and vastly improves on the meeting of the organization from my view.

As I mentioned, I do like the SP meeting (up until Blofeld mentions James at any rate), but I adore the TB meeting. As with SP, we get a glimpse into SPECTRE's dealings, which is nice, but what I particularly enjoy is the operative who winds up getting electrocuted; via his demeanor he comes across (before his untimely demise) as someone who could be a Bond villain in his own right.

And rather than acting fearful, Largo is in the following minutes confident and relaxed. I much prefer it.

@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.

Milovy wrote: »

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.

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).

chrisisall · September 2017

After after a long Bond hiatus I just watched TLD and it was an amazing experience. Such a sweet swim into the pools of glorious quasi-sexism and non-PC politics. Like the books, total fantasy, romance & action fest. Dalton rocks immensely. Can't wait to do LTK tomorrow!

BT3366 · September 2017

It was last month, but I caught TLD in 4k at a cinema. The sound was some of the best I've ever heard, was blown away by it, but the picture was actually disappointing, not any better than I've seen on Blu-ray. And this was a smaller screen, not a super big one.

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.

JamesBondKenya · September 2017

chrisisall wrote: »

After after a long Bond hiatus I just watched TLD and it was an amazing experience. Such a sweet swim into the pools of glorious quasi-sexism and non-PC politics. Like the books, total fantasy, romance & action fest. Dalton rocks immensely. Can't wait to do LTK tomorrow!

Those daltons are great

mattjoes · September 2017

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 As always, it's very interesting to read your thoughts. I can't disagree with anything you've taken away from Spectre (and previous Blofeld entries).

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.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 · September 2017

mattjoes wrote: »

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 As always, it's very interesting to read your thoughts. I can't disagree with anything you've taken away from Spectre (and previous Blofeld entries).

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).

ossyjack · September 2017

I watched Skyfall last night for the first time in a few years and I have to say it gets worse every time I watch it. Unlike Casino Royale, which I enjoy more and more each time, Skyfall goes backwards.

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.

Milovy · September 2017

ossyjack wrote: »

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.

Silva's goal is to get revenge by disgracing and then killing M. If he just killed her immediately, he couldn't carry out the first part. No, it's not logical, or good strategy. Silva is a creature of emotion. He's obsessed with M, and wants both vengeance and some kind of reunion with her. The latter desire obviously conflicts with the former - he can't bring himself to kill her in the courtroom. Silva says it himself: "I needed to look in your eyes one last time." He's dreamed of this moment since his betrayal, but if he kills M, he will have no purpose left. That's why he wants M to pull the trigger and kill both of them later.

ossyjack wrote: »

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.

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.

bondjames · September 2017

Milovy wrote: »

ossyjack wrote: »

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.

Silva's goal is to get revenge by disgracing and then killing M. If he just killed her immediately, he couldn't carry out the first part. No, it's not logical, or good strategy. Silva is a creature of emotion. He's obsessed with M, and wants both vengeance and some kind of reunion with her. The latter desire obviously conflicts with the former - he can't bring himself to kill her in the courtroom. Silva says it himself: "I needed to look in your eyes one last time." He's dreamed of this moment since his betrayal, but if he kills M, he will have no purpose left. That's why he wants M to pull the trigger and kill both of them later.

Excellent observation @Milovy. I believe this is a key reason why SF resonated with audiences. They could relate to Silva's emotion. Bardem nailed that aspect of the character, and some (like myself) loved it, and others didn't. There is an essential conflict in his feelings towards M (like an angry child hates/loves his mother when he's done wrong and she's disciplined him). He was slow to pull the trigger in the court house and had trouble doing it at the church as well. There's an inherently tragic figure in him. A man who was betrayed. A contradiction and dichotomy. Ironically, M could be seen as the villain of sorts (at least in terms of her loyalty to the job rather than to her people).

Milovy wrote: »

ossyjack wrote: »

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.

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.r 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).

mattjoes · September 2017

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 As always, it's very interesting to read your thoughts. I can't disagree with anything you've taken away from Spectre (and previous Blofeld entries).

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.

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.

mattjoes · September 2017

@Milovy is right about Skyfall. I'd just add the following:

- 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.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 · September 2017

mattjoes wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 As always, it's very interesting to read your thoughts. I can't disagree with anything you've taken away from Spectre (and previous Blofeld entries).

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.

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.

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.

Milovy · September 2017

mattjoes wrote: »

- 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.

That makes sense. Although I do wonder how Silva knew he would be imprisoned in MI6's HQ of all places, that doesn't quite seem like standard protocol. Then again, neither is a double-oh taking a hostile back to London, but the attack on MI6 and the damage done to international operations was unprecedented. I can see how they would like to charge Silva rather than just execute him.

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.

mattjoes · September 2017

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

mattjoes wrote: »

@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 As always, it's very interesting to read your thoughts. I can't disagree with anything you've taken away from Spectre (and previous Blofeld entries).

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.

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.

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.

I do get this from him. It's an angle they should definitely explore further should they decide to bring Blofeld back.

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.

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).

LeonardPine · September 2017

QoS

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.

JamesBondKenya · September 2017

LeonardPine wrote: »

QoS

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

Mathis1 · September 2017

LeonardPine wrote: »

QoS

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.

Well said! Gets better with every viewing!

BAIN123 · September 2017

I'm not the biggest QOS fan but Craig is mostly excellent in it. For me his understated performance in the cave with Camille made me realise just how great he was.

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.

LeonardPine · September 2017

BAIN123 wrote: »

I'm not the biggest QOS fan but Craig is mostly excellent in it. For me his understated performance in the cave with Camille made me realise just how great he was.

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.

BAIN123 · September 2017

LeonardPine wrote: »

BAIN123 wrote: »

I'm not the biggest QOS fan but Craig is mostly excellent in it. For me his understated performance in the cave with Camille made me realise just how great he was.

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.

bondjames · September 2017

Well to be fair Bond wasn't in the company of fellow agents and his superior when he finds Della. I'm sure such an environment caused him to temper his reactions.

At least Tim didn't go in for a smooch unlike some others.

BAIN123 · September 2017

I think my point was that Craig conveys a lot by seemingly not doing much.

bondjames · September 2017

BAIN123 wrote: »

I think my point was that Craig conveys a lot by seemingly not doing much.

Oh, I see. Well, that he certainly does, I agree. However he isn't the first to do that. Both Connery and Moore did that well for decades too, and that is always how I see Bond. It just wast lost during the late 80's into the 00's with Brozz/Dalts, who had a tendency to overplay these moments. Craig just brought it back, from my perspective.

Thunderfinger · September 2017

bondjames wrote: »

Well to be fair Bond wasn't in the company of fellow agents and his superior when he finds Della. I'm sure such an environment caused him to temper his reactions.

At least Tim didn't go in for a smooch unlike some others.

Ha ha!

peter · September 2017

Watching QOS right now-- damn!! Babs gotta go back and embrace this energy;

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

peter · September 2017

... and Mr White should have been Blofeld. Period.

Thunderpussy · September 2017

Fangs for that ;-). The drive behind QOS is amazing.

bondjames · September 2017

peter wrote: »

Watching QOS right now-- damn!! Babs gotta go back and embrace this energy;

Get DC the best trainers in the biz to up his testosterone. Make him an aging Lion King.

Ferocious.

Craig's Bond reminds me a bit of a slugger. Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Marvin Hagler, Mike Tyson type. They burn bright but short. What makes them exciting is their youthful energy and power. It's critical to their success. Without it they are less interesting.

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.

peter wrote: »

... and Mr White should have been Blofeld. Period.

I would have liked that.

Reporting For Duty

Categories

In this Discussion

Last Bond Movie You Watched

Comments

Reporting For Duty

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Last Bond Movie You Watched

Comments