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
Bond comes with experience, but there's no direct lead-in to filling the shoes of a double-oh. That's what makes the CR story so compelling.
Same for the M position. Mallory enters as qualified, but not tempered or seasoned from the start for the very special role he's taken on, And to me he's shown to be a very good boss through events, adjusting to the challenges working to a successful conclusion.
With C, Bond easily reads him like a cheap dimestore novel and shakes things up as he always does. On the other hand I got the idea Bond does like and trust Mallory, but at the same time he has sound reasons not to share all he knows and compromise his boss. So I'm not seeing conflicts in any of these items.
After all Fleming's Blofeld was more of a physical match, it also would've helped to get away from those Dr Evil comparisons
But does Bautista's acting match with the experience of Waltz? They bring a different dynamic each unique on its own.
Dom Greene was probably one of the most realistic villains because be didn't have any scars, physique, and was a "philanthropist "...
"So that's why they're targeting key government officials."
I'm not sure to be honest mate, watching the press conference at the time it made me think maybe that's why they're hiding who's playing Blofeld. I was certain that if it was Waltz they'd just come out and say it, he was perfect for a modern Blofeld
I feel to have made that iteration of Blofeld work he needed to slowly become more unhinged and manic. Y'know, actually give a sense that the character is... well, crazy. Waltz could have done that well but the films didn't quite play up to that.
Well my main 'bee in my bonnet', to use a Fleming line, is the way Bond treats Mallory at the beginning of SP. It's rather unrespectful, condescending, and to be honest unfair on the man whom has come to trust him. There were far better ways to hide his secret than to scoff his boss whom rightfully scolds him for blowing up an apartment block half way across the world. It's just not the way Bond does these things to my mind.
B R I L L I A N T !!! In the books, at least, Bond does have a flat...in Chel-C
At the end of SF, it left me wondering if Bond and M would go on to have a brotherly relationship....but that didn't happen.
People keep argueing that Dominic Greene as a character and Amalric were weak and the weakest antagonist for Bond in the Craig era (and beyond). I don't think so at all. All villains in QoS were way better written and acted than Blofeld in SP and NTTD. Yes, QoS had a very "earthy" plot - but Greene was frighteningly mad (just think about the climax fight) - Waltz' Blodfeld was just cringeworthy and nothing else ... more of a joke than Blofeld in DAF and that was mainly an over-the-top 70s comedy version of the character.
QoS did many many things right ... under pressure and limited creative talent due to a strike and so on ... but the QoS in the end became a MUCH better film than SPECTRE, a film Mendes obviously didn't want to make (and only did for the money and they begged him to do it).
Now, I think they could have done better with the character in SP, and as I said making him slowly become more manic and unhinged may have been a better bet (Waltz could have done this in his performance at least), but as I said it's not an easy character to get completely right.
"I feel that there are some loose ends with my engagement. And I'm not saying that I'm going to be in the next one. I'm not going to be in the next one. But let's say, in terms of my feeling that I have sufficiently served a purpose, there are a few white blotches on that map for me, personally [...] I don't want to be critical of something that doesn't deserve to be criticised, so that's why I'm being a little cryptic. There are just certain things I am unhappy with. I wish I would have gotten the opportunity to iron those glitches out."
I don't think he'll say specifically what these problems were for some time, if at all. As I said though it's not as though he did anything different with his performance in NTTD so take from that what you will. Mendes did seem to butt heads with certain people on SP though. There's also the quote from Fiennes where he apparently confronted Mendes about an early idea to make M the villain or something? Again, weird considering what M does in NTTD...
Secondly, these folks have established names in the industry. Boom!
But the true gems from the production of Bond movies are those who are lesser known quality actors. These are the ones who make waves and have their careers go higher afterwards rather than getting into the whole Bond curse thing....
If you don't believe me, look at Olya K, Eva Green (in many ways though not like Olya's story), Daniel Craig was lesser known, GL would have had a better career and become better with his acting if only he said yes to more Bond movies...Sean Connery, need I say more? Oh, and villains from CR and QoS, including Jesper Christensen....it's cheaper for the producers to work with lesser known actors who are very good at their craft and creativity. Not just folks who provide their name and fill a role like (I hate to say, Pierce Brosnan not a personal jab at him)....folks who are genuinely interested to challenge themselves.
Walther Almeric was really aiming to demonstrate Dominic Greene as someone we see in the news often as a "good person". Marc Forster really worked against all odds to get the best of his actors even if there was only 3 other crew members present.
Yes. The series makes frequent mistakes that the villain has to look scary or be so obvious with their diabolical personalities....but if the producers want to have more fans and non-fans see and appreciate their movies both financially and critically, they need to realize that the whole cliche of scars etc. is overdone and deserves to be cancelled. It's not only offensive to real life victims, survivors, and battle heroes but it's downright offensive to the intelligence of audience members who are likely old enough to know not to take everyone at face value in life.
Dominic Greene was creepy in private when mad and his dialogue helped prove it without requiring a flamboyant monologue of any sort. He was animalistic when fighting Bond like be wanted to kill him at any cost. He insulted Bond emotionally when the gunshot was heard during the hotel fire and DC being great at facial expressions didn't have to talk to say that he didn't want to save the guy while pulling him up. And of course, Greene was a philanthropist...the best villain but least appreciated one.
Look, Le Chiffre had an eye scar, Blofeld had an eye scar, Saffin's scars spoke more volumes than any of his dialogue. It just doesn't add up. It's no wonder this series only got so far into Oscar territory but not quite. They emphasized fan service instead of quality. Realism is escapism in today's cinema because of so much superhero action movies with CGI.
Bond is a human being, not a talking raccoon or other Marvel character. He is a human being and that's what sets him apart. The producers need to stop copying others and start realizing why people accepted DC as James Bond before SF came out.
Haha, yeah. I've said a few times now but the reliance of the villains during Craig era on scars and outright deformities is a bit... well, cliched. With Blofeld it's almost as if his 'inner evil' is being brought to the surface when he gets his eye blown out or something. Much as I like Le Chiffre the way they did Mikkleson's make-up felt pretty generic with the eye scar too. Safin was just weak sauce. They did it best with Silva I think but the idea is still there.
I do hope they try and make a villain more like Green going forward - sinister, but in a way that is conveyed by the script and the actor's screen presence, not their make-up. Mathieu Amalric has this rather otherworldly look about him - he's not ugly but he has these distinctive bug eyes and sunken features - a sort of Peter Lorre vibe to him. He could really play up this sense that his character was a creep, a sinister narcissist. It's why I'd like to see an actor like Louis Garrel play a villain or henchman - he's also an actor who has that otherworldly look but has the acting chops to sell a sinister character without theatrics.
One thing CR never showed was why Vesper was screaming although this would have compromised the idea that she struck a plea deal which was later found out by Bond and audience.
A film showing things from Bond's point of view often works better however that doesn't mean it shouldn't show how sinister to villain can be.
Silva was charming but not in the sense that he was believable when trying to "comfort" someone in a way that would build trust. Social media influencers who are narcissistic can easily manipulate audiences to believing a fabricated one sided story or they can also trick people into buying things or giving then money.
But there's a reason why they rely on scars so much: in the novels the villain has an arresting appearance and often deformities of some sort. It's kind of difficult to find it in a real life actor, so they use short cuts: Largo's eyepatch, Blofeld's scar, etc. I'm okay with that, but in Amalric's case, or even Mikkelsen's, I think scars are superfluous: they both have ophidian faces, nothing ugly or deformed, but there's something off about them. It doesn't take much: a certain mannerism, a way of dressing, etc.
The novels were written in a different time period. Not all attributes could survive today. Also, removing scars etc. is a benefit to the audience because the production will have to try harder to work things out via quality of acting.
If you notice, CR and QoS were not comfortable films to make. They required all of their production teams to pay better attention to detail in most aspects. These films age better.
I remember a making-of of gone in sixty seconds. The director had asked Eccleston to stan up to look more scary (he himself was sitting behind Eccleston. To which Nicolas Cage reacted 'even more scary? F****, this guy is giving me the creeps alright!'.
All in all, some good acting makes for a far more scary villain than any scar or deformity could. Personally I hated the Silva-one. completely unneccessary.
The novels are interesting in the sense that they take place during the post WW2 era and have slightly different relationships with things like scars and deformities etc. than we do today. I mean, the villains of Fleming's novels are often odd looking, sometimes distinctively ugly or fat (and let's be honest, foreign) etc. But it's surprising how rarely they are disfigured or have scars. Hugo Drax is the obvious example, but one gets the sense reading his description that Bond finds his ogre teeth and habit of sucking his thumb more noteworthy, as well as his crude manner. His scars are there, hidden with his beard, but to me they are there more to denote that he is a man who saw battle during the War. Dr. No has his pincher hands I guess, but the likes of Goldfinger just has a moon face and disproportionate sized limbs, and Mr. Big has an odd shaped head and sticking eyes. Largo in TB is even good looking. Many have gimmicks (braces, unusual coloured hair etc.) but usually mixed with an unusual appearance. I do wish further villains would attempt to evoke this more by picking distinctive looking character actors rather than just slapping some make-up on some highly regarded actors.
If anything, it's Bond who has noticeable scars (on his face, all over his body even as described in TB), as well as his allies (Strangeways in the novels has an eyepatch, again denoting him as a man who served in the War, and of course Leiter gets his hand and leg eaten by sharks in LALD). There's also Honey Rider with her broken nose.
But even Largo,while attractive has something hard and off about him. I love to read about real crimes and this is also something frequent with real life mobsters: even if they are attractive there is something thuggish about their appearance and demeanor. I know the scar has become a cliché and is now an anachronism, but I think villains should still have am arresting appearance.
To be fair, that sense is kinda there with Bond too - beneath his handsome Hoagey Carmichael face is a distinct darkness/cruelty. I do wonder just how much those sorts of writing descriptions of gangsters are embellished for the reader in that sense, especially knowing how dangerous they were. Anyway, I agree, I think Bond villains should have something unique about their appearances, and the actor needs to give off a sense of menace in their performance. I just think the use of scars and deformities for them is a bit of a cliche, and rather a modern one compared to the Fleming novels if anything (like I said, the use of scars or outward injuries like an eyepatch was more likely to suggest War service/arguably heroism rather than someone being 'evil'). It also seems to have been done to the point of laziness during the Craig era. I mean, a character like Safin should have been much more interesting and, dare I say, gimmicky than he was - y'know this ghostly, psychologically damaged man wandering around this garden who seems to have an odd fascination with Japanese culture and a dangerous narcissism. They could have done so much with that but these ideas get so watered down that he ends up looking like a generic Bond villain with a slightly scarred face. Shame, as Rami Malek is an actor with such an unique face and plenty of menace when he wants to play it up. They didn't really need to embellish him with pointless scars like that.