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
It was a bad idea because it's a bad idea? And a tautology is a tautology. Come on!
@Pierce2Daniel-Sorry but no. Chiwetel Ejiofor is no Blofeld and certainly not in that video. People can complain a lot about the Oberhauser connection, but at least Oberhauser came from Fleming and Blofeld did have German blood in the original novels. So they made an effort to tie him in, however loosely, to the novels' Blofeld. Who is not an African warlord, especially not a young one. Or a woman.
"So here’s the big question – what was Blofeld’s big plan? Blowing up the Nato event and causing the blackout doesn’t seem that much worse than prior villain plots. If we’re pulling all the threads together and saying this was all part of a bigger play then we need to know what that was and how all those moments led to this… and if he was the villain behind the last three movies but we never knew that then I wonder how hard we have to work to get the audience to remember/rethink the past and attribute all their (and Bond’s) animosity towards him. He has to be a serious threat in this movie – with a big enough plan for Bond to thwart – to help support his uber villain status."
Yeah, it would have been nice if they had realised that in the film.
Interesting to read about an "eyeball camera", which appeared in both of the last M:I films ;-).
At some point someone asks if maybe there´s just too much going on. Not a bad question also regarding the final product. Not the most meaningful comparison, I know, but I just re-watched M:I4, and I find it brilliant how much tension is created there using just one simple premise, which is there pretty much from the start.
Interesting that Blofeld´s motivation always seemed to be a problem. Also that Mendes mentions that they stopped halfway in the desert. I feel they never solved those problems.
And if being able to see and know everything the secret services of nine nations see and know is pretty much a grand scale scheme that has major consequences.
And it is mile better than a youthful African warlord as Blofeld, or Denbigh as Blofeld, or Ernestina Blofeld as Blofeld. AND closer to Fleming as well.
Indeed. Though they can use the African Warlord for a future Bond movie and name him Buonapart Ignace Gallia.
And thus tying it to Fleming again. But this time, not a rather nice looking Ejiofor but an older, heavier Black guy.
The old MI6 scene is the worst climatic set piece of the Craig era.
Some of you just forgive it all because SPECTRE presents the most Bondian film of this era, I liked them being teased back in but a bunch of elements is not going to make forget what they did here, it's likely to leave the Craig era with somewhat of a taint.
They need to make sure that they stay as far away from this if Craig returns to take on Blofeld again in Bond 25 but my fear is whether it be Mendes or whoever for some reason a number directors including Spielberg loved this element and I can see the next possible candidate wanting to run some more with it.
Fair enough some of you can think it made no difference but I've had to put with how terrible Skyfall was with it's plot holes and Mendes digging into Bond's past.
What is ironic though is those that seemed to have been so annoyed by that film embrace SPECTRE which to me does far more damage to the character than anything in Skyfall.
At one stage of writing of the script, Bond entered an used record shop that was in fact a MI6 contact point...
Really? I remember suggesting a similar locale for SF when people asked how they could've made better use of London. I offered up a record shop or greasy spoon in New Cross as an access point to Q branch. Would still like to see it.
The only connection Bond and Franz have is this: Bond's parents die, Bond befriends Hannes Oberhauser, Oberhauser agrees to be his guardian for just two short years, during which he teaches James many of the skills he goes on to use in his service of Britain, and that's it. End of story. Bond probably barely even knew Franz at all, and if he did it was likely a one-sided relationship as Franz resented him and likely would've ignored him at every turn.
There weren't blood brothers, they weren't best friends turned frenemies turned enemies; they interacted for two years and then never saw each other again until SP's present day. Therefore, saying they have some big "past history" in the movie and the established canon of the Craig era is beyond laughable and just doesn't hold water. But I'm sure people will continue to fuss about it day and bloody night.
@RC7, you didn't happen to write for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, did you? :-?
Well, the past relationship is the basis of Blofeld's motivation in SPECTRE. And the fact Bond knew Blofeld and thought he was dead is one of the "dead are alive" symbol of this movie. And well, probably, the intended "subtle" meaning of the title of the movie, no less (Mendes pointed out it's *not* S.P.E.C.T.R.E.).
Notes :
1) In one of the available scripts, SPECTRE's name is explained when Bond looks at White's archives, as coming from "Les Spectres de Pierre", the name of the French Foreign Legion group where Oberhauser and White first met. But it was deleted and they made it far more symbolic.
2) Also, in one of the scripts, the "Brother" angle is stronger than in the movie. "Brother !" is even Blofeld's last word before Bond kills him on the bridge if I remember correctly. Well, someone probably decided it was too much...
I see Blofeld's main motivations for heading SPECTRE to take control and make everyone feel his impact; if Bond wouldn't have come along that would still be a central part of his make-up. So while Bond disrupted his relationship with his father and drove him to end his life, his actions in SPECTRE and the organization's effects on Bond are for most of his life mutually exclusive; it's only until Bond is back on his radar that he even thinks on him again. One way or another, Bond or no Bond, he was likely going to chart a path that led to his attempt to hold power.
I think this is a 'realistic' approach of the character that is far from the intent of Mendes. IMO, for Mendes, Blofeld is Bond's nemesis, and not just a villain who meets Bond twice (as a kid and as head of SPECTRE) by coincidence.
They backed down from this angle a lot in the final movie, but in the last scripts, it's a bit all over the place. In theRome meeting scene, he was even supposed to speak with a kid's voice when he suddenly talks to Bond ! The "cuckoo" word is all that is left and the "speak like a kid" is only very subtle in this word, if even it's supposed to be there.
This was in the Logan script/s?
Note : even in the last script we have, a few days before the Pinewood press conference, the Rome meeting is quite different, Bond is more witty (to enter the meeting and to leave), they all wear masks, Blofeld has a far longer speech before talking to Bond (he somehow explains they are in Roma because of the Emperor etc), there are hundreds of real human eyes on the table etc...
If you think "the dead are alive" symbols are hammered in SPECTRE, well in the script, we have this and "Big brother is waching you" that is hammered too !
PS : I may be mixing the 2nd and 3rd script (I read them months ago !)
PPS: A better example of how important their common past is in the script : the torture scene from Colonel Sun doesn't exist, instead they re-create a poker game (yes again !) they used to play when they were kids. And Bond keep on saying he doesn't remember anything about it, while he actually does very well - and he finally reveals this to Blofeld near the end.
Again, HOW was what we got subpar to this?
"My father asked me to treat him as my little brother"
"You are responsible for the path I took"
"Brothers know what buttons to push"
"The author of all your pain"
The whole story about cuckoo's nest...
These are Blofeld's words, and I don't think he utters them just to tease Bond. Bond's entry in Oberhauser's life when they were children is the important part of Blofeld's character arc. It's one of the reasons why Oberhauser becomes Blofeld, and I think that cannot be ignored. Bond accidentally becomes the kick-starter of his criminal life, and that's just something that sits bad with me. I don't like to see that in a Bond film.
If their past is just something casual and irrelevant, then why is it even brought up?
Mendes "tried to quit" during the rewrite of the 3rd act. Well, that is an internal mail, people should not take that seriously. But it's true it feels like there is a lack of direction at the end between the scripts and the movie. The script was more intense (except for the torture scene in the movie) but more "in your face" too. Eh, at one moment Q kills a henchman ! Possibly just for the "trigger" line reference to SF ?
So yes, the Bond-Blofeld brothership is in the dialog but it's "downplayed (a lot) compared to the script" so that indeed some of the audience can think, well, that relationship is just a twist for the sake of it, and that it can be forgotten the second it's revealed.
IMO, I think it'll be forgotten in the next movie. It's such a dead-end, story wise. What next ? Hannes is not dead ? Hannes killed Andrew ? Hannes is Bond's real father ?
The 00 program is disbanded unnofficially, the MI6 building is destroyed, Bond drove off into the sunset.
It will be interesting to see how this is all handled in B25.
Unfortunately, I'm not the one who can just forget about it. I agree it's a dead-end, and it makes no sense to exploit it further.
That's interesting, though. I stayed away from the leaks and spoilers, so all of this is new to me. Is the screenwriting process usually such a mess?
No, yes is the answer for the 4 question ;)