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
That's also a two-way street, however. Nobody has objected to your liking Spectre or the Blofeld angle in the film. What has been objected to is the fact that the opposite opinion doesn't receive the same level of respect. I, along with @TheWizardOfIce and others, are equally entitled to dislike Spectre and its characterization of Blofeld. What we've objected to is not your liking of the film and the character. I'm glad that you enjoyed it. I sincerely wish I was able to find something in the film and the character that I liked. What has been objected to, however, is the condescension towards our opposite opinion with statements about how we don't "understand" the film or we don't "get it" and similar things. Yes, we do understand the film. I, personally, don't think it's complex enough for anyone to not understand. We just happen to arrive at a different opinion about its merits, or lack thereof.
If you think I'm condescending, I'm sorry about that. I'm not trying to be. I'm just trying to ascertain where all this negativity towards SP is coming from.
From the awful script choices made by EON.
I just don't see how that 'is such a baffling concept to get behind.'
Again, having two characters know each other does not represent 'awful script choices' in my opinion. Could their relationship have been executed better? Of course, but I'm not seeing the travesty, myself.
That's it in a nutshell for me, it stinks of the cobbled together job that P&W did with Logan's efforts.
It doesn't show any thought went into the idea it was supposed to be one big revelatory twist, a depth charge as Mendes called it.
I just hope they react as they did when Quantum was derided and try to avoid the element if Craig returns.
I and others could have made this film much better, that isn't a sign of my talents as an ideas person or script writer, I have got no gifts in this area, its more a sign of how lame the script was.
I'm going to watch SP again at some point and then I'll post using the existing ideas of the Craig era how it could have been tied together, made sense and not needed the brother element at all.
Exactly. This new angle they chosen doesn't alter the character one bit. Functionally, he's exactly the same. I don't see why this was so catastrophic for the character, or why it should ruin anyone's viewing experience. All this negativity seems misplaced to me.
I'd be quite happy if they let Blofeld rest for a while and then reintroduce him a couple of films down the line, with a new actor, and with no brotherly love/hate relationship mentioned. That could work.
The whole point of Blofeld is he kills Bond's wife whereas now he's what? Dylan Klebold with more money out for revenge because no one loves him?
The whole dynamic of the Bond - Blofeld relationship is changed and not for the better. You wouldn't mind if Bond seemed to give a toss about Hannes but the poor sod is never mentioned again. Bet Major Dexter Smythe wishes Bond had been so laissez faire and let him enjoy his retirement in peace.
So yes it is catastrophic for the character.
But he doesn't kill his wife until the end of the second book/sixth film, so clearly that's irrelevant. At the very least, it doesn't define the dynamic between the characters.
I wish they'd just move on and create new villains. I preferred that approach and it worked nicely for over 44 years (since DAF) or 34 (since FYEO).
Enough with these substandard reimagined back stories. This goes for MP as well.
Of course it defines it.
Up until the death of Tracy who is Blofeld to Bond? Just another villain with a fiendish plan. Bond is even so sick of being sent after him he plans to resign. Take away the personal angle of Tracy and he's just Doctor No or Goldfinger to Bond (obviously I'm talking the books here when I'm looking for character development seeing as DAF the film dropped the ball so spectacularly). The whole of YOLT is based on this.
What are we left with now? A Bond - Blofeld relationship that is defined by what exactly?
The murder of Hannes Oberhauser? Bond reacts to that with the indifference of someone being told Adrian Chiles is going to present The One Show again.
The events that drove Vesper to commit suicide? Well Bond has been on his character arc of seeking revenge for that all the way to the realisation 'I don't think the dead care about revenge.' So do we reset that and have him go after Blofeld again? Except he had him in his sights and didn't pull the trigger so he doesn't want revenge then.
The death of M? See above.
So where the hell does the Bond - Blofeld relationship go from here then? They are supposed to be each other's nemesis but the guy is in prison and Bond seemingly has closure over Vesper and M and is happy with Madeline.
Are they really so bereft of imagination that all they can think to do in the next film is have Blofeld escape and turn Madeline into Tracy? But if they don't what makes Blofeld special in the Moriarty sense? Just have him escape and have evil scheme after evil scheme and don't kill Madeline off. Then that just makes him Donald Pleasance and Charles Gray again.
Christ what a mess. It's probably best if they have a new Bond and keep M, Q and MP (bye Tanner) and just do a couple of standalone films and then for the new actor's third film have the PTS being Blofeld escaping and build him up again to the point where in about 5 or 6 films time we have a rebooted Tracy. The cat is well out of the bag with rebooting old characters now so if we're rebooting Ernst then we might as well do Tracy too.
But if Dan stays than I fear that Blofeld returning in the next one is a cert and God alone knows what they will come up with next.
Eloquently put. I agree wholeheartedly.
Well because most of Waltz's screen time seems to involve recounting this connection and the impact on his and Bond's life. It results in some of the more 'dramatic' moments in the later half of the film. Examples include:
-Blofeld joyfully explaining his 'author of pain' behind the scenes impact on Bond's life,
-his need to torture Bond on account of 'cuckoo',
-the inexplicable (asinine if you ask me) desire to hang photographs (did he do this personally I wonder?) under the MI6 building
-his need to actually visit the scene to gleefully (please tell me you saw the Landa giggle here) see off 'brother'. Keep in mind this is after he already had half his face disfigured in his previous attempt to kill Bond so why he would put himself at risk again if this wasn't all important to him is beyond me.
So the 'brother' angle was overemphasized, in my view, unnecessarily. The so called main plot point of surveillance was basically relegated to a sideshow for forgettable minion 'C' & the Scooby gang to deal with.
I personally can live with the shoehorned fraternal connection no matter how nonsensical it is. My issue is with the execution of the whole film, which apart from a few notable moments here and there, was sloppy and lacking in tension.
Out of the f**king park Sir! Cracking stuff.
Star Wars has and continues to give us plenty of pop psychology. We didn't need it from Bond as well. Blofeld is far more fun when he is a mean and greedy SOB whose main reason to get rid of Bond is that he keeps screwing up his ambitions and killing his associates. I have no problem with an emotionally vulnerable Bond as a result of Vesper's betrayal. The best thing the writers could do at this point is have Blofeld die in prison and move on as if he had never existed, which shouldn't be too hard, as each time the series starts of over with another actor there is almost no continuity anyway.
One of the biggest problems with Spectre is that its main plot is largely missing from the film. The main crux of the film is to get the nine nations to vote "yes" on Nine Eyes, thus putting into operation SPECTRE's global surveillance network, which would in theory make them an unstoppable criminal organization.
The problem is, this plot is dealt with by M, Moneypenny, and Q while Bond is galavanting around the globe in search of Franz Oberhauser. To top it off, SPECTRE's most sinister plans in the film, committing terrorist attacks in the various Nine Eyes nations that have voted "no", is relegated to stock footage of terror on CNN for Bond to watch while he's basically away from the central action. Then we get a bit of dialogue or two when M is at the Nine Eyes meetings about the terror attacks, but this major events in the course of the film's story, we're never present for. Instead, Spectre is focused on the faux-sibling rivalry between a disinterested Bond and a petty, vindictive, and at times childish Blofeld.
Plot takes the backseat to story, I agree. That's par for the course with the Craig era. The plot of CR ended the moment Bond turns over his cards to reveal the straight flush, but the film carries on for another 40 minutes. No one knows why.
Yeah, all the Craig films are like that. Actually saving the day is never the objective for Craig, so it's not fair to blame just SP for that. It's more a criticism of the era as a whole than this film specifically.
This is a fair point.
The difference is CR, to a lesser extent QOS, and SF deliver an engaging and interesting personal arc for Bond.
In SP its only Blofeld who seems bothered about the whole revelation. Bond seems more concerned with Madeline not seeing her dad top himself than he is over the deaths of Vesper, M and Hannes Oberhauser.
Perhaps this is the ultimate problem that fails to sell the SP 3rd act - that Craig doesnt really seem to give that much of a f**k about any of it?
It is curious, though, why the third act even needs to happen in SP. They've already uncovered C as a traitor and destroyed Blofeld's capability to do much of anything with the surveillance. There's not much need to even stop it from going online. Just having C arrested and securing the new surveillance building in London after the fact would surely be enough. Heck, allowing it to go online and then taking control of the London site would be smarter, allowing them to figure out where the information was going and allow them to track down any other cells or operatives of the SPECTRE organization.
Come to think of it, you're right! There is NO result for Craig. I never thought about that. Again, I think this partially a problem with the era repeating itself too many times. Every film seems to end with some sort of closure for Craig, and each time its less effective. I guess by now its kind of like trying to flog old merchandise: people just aren't buying it anymore.
But I will concede, I genuinely hadn't considered that. I guess it is kind of lacking in that respect. So I can see what people are saying now. I'll have to wait till my next viewing to see how this impacts my enjoyment of the film.
The whole third act of SF is solely focused on Bond Protecting his Boss, who is weeks away from retirement. Were this anyone else, Bond would not be there, but M is a mother figure for Bond. Plus, this all takes place at Bonds childhood home. I'd say that qualifies as being character driven, not plot driven. There's no 'saving the day' going on, that's for sure.
And why does Q even need to hack it? If they ignore your sensible options of arresting him and seizing the building or tracking where it led why not just set about the bastard with a sledge hammer or some C4?
Silva has carried out an attack on a British government hearing, killed some of Bond fellow agents, and blown up his place of employment, not to mention tried to drop a subway train on his head. Bond has plenty of reason to continue to go after him.
EDIT:
@TheWizardOfIce , I think that just goes to show how bad the final bit of SP is. There are plenty much more sensible options on how to go about thwarting SPECTRE's plans, but they choose the most dangerous and unnecessarily complicated.
Had they simply kept progressing the arc for Bond through Spectre and focused on giving that film its own self-sustained arc rather than cannibalizing the previous three, and weren't so desperate for closure, then the franchise would still be on largely the right track. It was the obsession with connecting Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva to Blofeld along with some questionable storytelling decisions that sunk Spectre. The other three films are still pretty darn good Bond films.